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.

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.

If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).

Or, in a better world, anyone could turn up with anything at least tipping a nod to a balanced list, and would win or lose based not in the models they'd chosen, but on the decisions they made during the game, modified slightly by dice results.

Yeah, but for now we can't do that unless everyone plays the same exact army.

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:


Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business

How I wish this was true for both GW and other companies.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.

If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).

A well built game would let you take the army you like and still have only about an even chance of winning against someone else of equal skill

You should not have to haggle over what units are going to be allowed and how the rules will be interpreted, etc.

You should only have to agree on the points involved and the scenario you'll play (should take maybe 5 minutes)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.

If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).

Or, in a better world, anyone could turn up with anything at least tipping a nod to a balanced list, and would win or lose based not in the models they'd chosen, but on the decisions they made during the game, modified slightly by dice results.

Yeah, but for now we can't do that unless everyone plays the same exact army.

For feths sake how many more times?

Balance doesn't equal everything the same!!!

Perfect balance isn't possible, not even chess has that if you take a big enough sample size, but something where player skill is a larger factor than rule inequality is eminently achievable, certainly if you're the largest wargaming company on the planet by a significant margin.

EDIT

Might have slightly misinterpreted that posts intent, but will leave comment unchanged as it bears repeating, even if not now necessarily!

 Sparkadia wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:


Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business

How I wish this was true for both GW and other companies.

As we're seeing with GW's recent financial issues, its very much true, just most companies aren't as anti-consumer as GW

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.

You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40K specifically.

I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.

Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.

No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.

But then, I knew that already.

? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.

So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?

Yeesh.

Are you suffering a concussion?

How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.

Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.

Ill make it simple again.

Talk = Good.

I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.

 Ailaros wrote:
There's something else I've noticed as well, from a personal note. It could be nothing but a change in myself, but I have a hunch that my behavior is reactive to my environment.

And that change is Dakka's "ignore" feature. For all the time I'd been on dakka, I'd never used the ignore feature until a year and a half ago when I added one person. I didn't add my second until about 6 months ago. The reason was simple - most people who were on dakka would write good posts and bad posts, but either seemed to be having conversation in good faith, or they would show up and then quickly disappear.

Now, though, every other week I feel like I'm adding someone to the list. Someone who writes dozens and dozens of posts in a row with nothing but useless, angry drivel that seems to have nothing but degrading other people's experience of the game. Nothing but complaining, or vigorously refuting anyone who has the impudence of enjoying themselves.

The mud isn't getting thrown and then sliding off, it's people who are coming on and with an almost professional zeal dedicating themselves towards bad faith posting. The worst, and most curious, are people who complain about 40k or GW who don't even play 40k, or buy GW products anymore. They appear to want nothing more than to be bitter and angry and to make everyone else around them bitter and angry.

And so, at an accelerating pace, I'm finding I'm adding more people who can't ever seem to rise to the level of nice, pleasant, or useful to my ignore list. Which feels sad to me.

Do you think it's you or possibly a higher amount of vitriol from the community as a result of the recent issues with 6E as it has progressed? I'm honestly curious, not trying to "lead the witness" or troll.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.

If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).

Does playing with SoB still count? Granted I'm probably not helping by taking IG allies with an Inquisitorial detachment. However, that was also a codex some years ago, too.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Are you suffering a concussion?

How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.

Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.

Ill make it simple again.

Talk = Good.

I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.

If the game is balanced, that discussion wouldn't need to be held. I have seen it in Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, and Malifaux. "Game Breaking" is just some degree of difficulty in those settings, not "compare two lists... well it's pretty obvious who'd win, if both players are equal".

FoW is a well balanced game, as I am told by many players both in person and on the net. It will never cater to me because I don't like historicals. However, if I chose to play, I could find some fun as I know it's not a matter of a complete off balance system like Games Workshop.

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, the solution is to deliberately cripple your own list so that nobody complains that you're "trying too hard to win". Who cares if you enjoy coming up with new strategies to win, and don't enjoy making deliberate mistakes so your opponent will stop whining. CASUAL AT ALL COSTS.

If someone really wants the challenge of coming up with new strategies to win I say play armies that are considered "not good" like Blood Angels. Take it from experience, there is nothing like winning with a sub-par codex against a codex that is not only considered better than yours but is considered one of the best (beating both Blood Angels AND Space Wolves during 5th with Sisters was always fun).

A well built game would let you take the army you like and still have only about an even chance of winning against someone else of equal skill

You should not have to haggle over what units are going to be allowed and how the rules will be interpreted, etc.

You should only have to agree on the points involved and the scenario you'll play (should take maybe 5 minutes)

And if we were playing that well built game there would be a lot less complaints and issues, wouldn't there be? I'm talking about the current game as it is now, not the game we wish we had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
For feths sake how many more times?

Balance doesn't equal everything the same!!!

Perfect balance isn't possible, not even chess has that if you take a big enough sample size, but something where player skill is a larger factor than rule inequality is eminently achievable, certainly if you're the largest wargaming company on the planet by a significant margin.

EDIT

Might have slightly misinterpreted that posts intent, but will leave comment unchanged as it bears repeating, even if not now necessarily!

Normally, I'd agree balance =/= mirror matching. In current 40k as it is now though? Yeah, that's pretty much what is is in the current game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
Does playing with SoB still count? Granted I'm probably not helping by taking IG allies with an Inquisitorial detachment. However, that was also a codex some years ago, too.

I'd say Pure Sisters more than with allies. And now it looks like Stormtroopers getting their own codex will let Sisters armies ally them back in (without all the extra Guard stuff) and play the old Witch Hunters army by slapping an Inquisitor into the list too.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

No not at all. Since you dont play 40k you probably dont understand.

You know what I don't understand? Why building an optimised list and playing to the best of your ability is a problem in 40K specifically.

I have to tone down my Flames of War japs so my friends have a chance of winning. That game is regarded as well balanced. It is, but it still depends on factors like models or terrain etc as well.

Also its a problem in 40k because the game is not made to cater for people like that no matter how bad you want it to. Its made for people to discus and quickly plan the kind of game they want and work together to create a fun game. Which goes completely against what most people with optimized lists want.

No, this is a consequence of the flaws in 40K, that you take it as the intent suggests you have sipped a little too much of what GW is offering.

But then, I knew that already.

? I f I dont feel like one of GW games ill simply play one of the other many games I play. Simple. I dont expect a mega game that caters to my every whim and need.

So now a game where both players can turn up with whatever they feel like, go at it and have a fair chance of winning without copious amounts of pre-game negotiation is a mega game?

Yeesh.

Are you suffering a concussion?

Careful, this sort of apparently harmless comment is the sort of thing that ends up with something ban worthy.

How are 2 people who have different interests gonna get a game they enjoy in a game designed to cater to many different people? A short simple discussion. If you are so socially inept that a simple few questions while setting up a board takes 3 hours, then that is not the fault of GW. That is your own fault.

How different are two people's interests going to be if they are both looking for a game of 40K? Contrary to your internet social ineptness. Kid. I am an experienced, management level professional in retail sales, with a background in hospitality, my entire fething career is based on being able to generate positive social interactions with total strangers, at a moments notice. My point which you have spectacularly failed to grasp, perhaps down to you own limited experience in 40K, is that regardless of my, or anyone else's ability to negotiate is irrelevant to the fact that if the ruleset were better constructed then it would be, and should be, irrelevant.

Its easy to talk to your opponent to get what you want out of the game, whatever it may be.

Ill make it simple again.

Good idea, stay in your comfort zone.

Talk = Good.

I just dont expect 40k to cater to every single persons want and whim. Like you seem to.

Poor game design = Bad

I don't expect 40K to cater to everyone either. Just the people who want to play 40K

Whats wrong with a game that involves talking about your opponent before the match in regards to goals and lists?

I do that with all games. Weither it be 15mm historics, mordheim and the list goes on.

Each game caters to different audiences. Jusging by the comments by people like you throughout GW short history (you would know old man) id say the game has never been what you wanted and people like you would complain regardless.

Im very interested in the modeling, the social interaction and setting up interesting face offs etc. But someone new at the club has these crazy lists. A simple talk and we both had a lot of fun. A simple talk is all you need.

Unless the person across the table is stubborn and wont compromise if you happen to be drastically different in tastes then just move on.

Wargames require effort. At every turn. 40K is not an exception. Its not perfect. But no wargame is.

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business

Or...

Henry Ford wrote:If I had given people what they asked for, I would have build them a faster horse

Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.

It turns out, though, that customers are often idiots and don't really know what they want, as evidenced by how many of them complain when they get what they want.

Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.

All of those are good ideas, Ailaros. Its just that Games Workshop executed them horribly.

 Harriticus wrote:
It's GW's fault they've alienated their fanbase so badly and have rendered a game to be essentially unplayable in its current form.

Also go to the tactics and fluff sections if you want that.

How often do you actually play? I get close to three semi-competitive games in a week, followed up with three to five competitive games a week and the game is actually very playable. All these forums are vocal minorities of people who follow each other around and circle jerk and read their battle porn. Go into a GW and play some games and stop QQing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All people used to do was complain that there was not enough new minis, not enough codices, not enough releases, no fliers, no fortifications, no buildings and they get it and they cry over it. You have the nicest minis of any game, a game line that has very easy to paint paint line and a very easy to follow rule set. But don't bother mentioning this or you'll most likely get a PM or ban. :S

Lol.

Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.

Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.

Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.

EDIT

Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.

 Ailaros wrote:

Avinash_Tyagi wrote:Companies that forget that consumers are their bosses often go out of business

Or...

Henry Ford wrote:If I had given people what they asked for, I would have build them a faster horse

Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.

It turns out, though, that customers are often idiots and don't really know what they want, as evidenced by how many of them complain when they get what they want.

Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.

Rather, is this a case of cut off the nose to spite the face?

We all wanted faster releases. I know I did. But we also wanted the continued support of the game we enjoyed. We are fast approaching or past the point of being a year without a real FAQ update (are we counting Techmarine servo-arms as an update?). Instead, we are getting a rapid fire of poor quality releases that need FAQs day one. And it's FAQs for books that have one or two actual playable units, not actual codecis.

We all wanted faster releases, but we wanted at least the same quality we got before. And the flat out removal of customer support in the form of community involvement only frustrates a player base. You may be ignoring more individuals not because whining is louder, but because there is no appropriate forum to express these concerns. If there was a medium in which GW could say "We hear you on this, we have plans to correct that at this time in the future, please stay tuned," there wouldn't be lengthy forum wars posts, just a simple "you see it this way, I see it another, let's both wait until X date."

But we are getting none of that. We are getting faster releases, with lower value, more errors, and higher costs on top of that. Being around so long, we all know what just a price increase does to the player base, let alone a perceived (and actual) cost increase to enter and play this game on top of all the current things happening. Before, during the slower release, each "pot" of problems would proceed to roil up. But because we all had time to relax, adapt, and GW would course correct, we'd simmer down and move on. Now, with no support medium fanning the flames on top of price increases, massive game changes, and loss of value within the products, what before just roiled is now boiling over.

This isn't a case of the motor car and the faster horse. This GW giving us a faster horse when we all already have motor cars and saying it's a better product and deserving of a higher price tag. We pulled into the lot in a car and see the neighboring dealers all offering better business, but we're stuck with horse salesmen. That never actually answer a question, just dangle another shiny add-on.

The state of the forums and the internet community is very much a state of the times of Warhammer 40k.

Edits because I'm tired and I can't type and what's proofreading?

 azreal13 wrote:
Lol.

Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.

Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.

Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.

EDIT

Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.

Love that you are so upset that you go and read my profile. I played 2nd and 3rd Ed. and stopped playing after taking third at GW's Oakville Battle Bunker Eye of Terror tournament. Warmachine has terrible minis on a detail level and Kingdom Death has what for gameplay? Heck Warmachine changes their rules all the time because they're not set. Go read the PDF for their quick rules and you'll give up on trying to learn right there. Same thing with Infinity. Games Workshop is P4P the king of nicest miniatures and if you cannot see that then you are simply blinded by your hate for some company and are just a sheep.

 Markerlight Junkie wrote:
Heck Warmachine changes their rules all the time because they're not set.

Can you perhaps provide an example of the last few times the rules changed? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know the difference between changing the rules and issuing errata.

 Markerlight Junkie wrote:

Go read the PDF for their quick rules and you'll give up on trying to learn right there. Same thing with Infinity.

The irony here is hilarious. As if the 40k rules were so easy to even get your hands on let alone unravel.

Indeed, you should concentrate on the Tactics forum and to a certain extent the Army List section.
They will be your friend.

 Markerlight Junkie wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Lol.

Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.

Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.

Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.

EDIT

Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.

Love that you are so upset that you go and read my profile. I played 2nd and 3rd Ed. and stopped playing after taking third at GW's Oakville Battle Bunker Eye of Terror tournament. Warmachine has terrible minis on a detail level and Kingdom Death has what for gameplay? Heck Warmachine changes their rules all the time because they're not set. Go read the PDF for their quick rules and you'll give up on trying to learn right there. Same thing with Infinity. Games Workshop is P4P the king of nicest miniatures and if you cannot see that then you are simply blinded by your hate for some company and are just a sheep.

Of course they have the nicest miniatures pound for pound - it's all plastic ! However, miniature aesthetics are very subjective when speaking in terms of bests and worsts. Personally, I look at a Guardsman and think it could have been done a lot better - something along the lines of this. You may not like the look of Infinity models, that's cool - doesn't mean either of us are wrong - much less blind.

As for rules changes, I can't speak for Kingdom Death or Infinity, but Warmachine has not had a core rule change since 2010, when their second edition was released. There have been erratas to clarify language - much like GW's FAQs/erratas had done before. One model received actual rules changes during the summer of 2013, but that particular model didn't win anyone any major con titles. The last errata was updated in December 2013. If you meant to say there's constant ADDITIONS being made, you'd almost be right. There's generally one major release per year, alternating between Hordes and Warmachine in which every full faction receives new things. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong though? Regarding the quick start PDF, I read it when it was released in 2010 and have been playing since - it was a lot easier to understand than other rule sets I've tried to pick up (including Infinity, 40K, Fantasy, Flames, Battlegroup, Mordheim, Blood Bowl, Necromunda). To each their own though!

The frustration of many players seems to be the result of GW's business practices. GW does not communicate with its customers and does not do anything to address the problems. When a unit comes along that is obviously over powered or utterly useless, something is wrong. It shows a lack of attention to detail. And when something is broken like that, players will (justifiably) complain....but there's no where to really voice their opinion. That turns into frustration.

There are many people that don't understand that game balance doesn't mean game sameness. With a better designed game, two completely different styled armies should be roughly equal. For example, a light fast army versus a slow tough one, both should have a near equal chance of winning.

Please, for the love of all that's good and bright in the world, please, please stop saying that game balance equal sameness. That's not at all what it is at all. It should be that if someone shows up with a Blood Angles army, they should have a good chance of winning against Tau/Dar. As it is, the Blood Angles have an undeniable disadvantage. That's not good game design nor is it fun for most players.

However, the levels of negativity do become comic sometimes. We have people who say that the new Imperial Guard codex is so awful that they're going to sell their army. The codex hasn't even come out yet. That's absurd. When the negativity becomes toxic, that helps no one. Perhaps that toxicity is GW's fault, I don't know, but they aren't helping.

We need to keep the criticism constructive and realistic.

But the idea that criticism is "whining," then that's not very helpful either. There are so many people complaining because perhaps there are some things to complain about. The people that think the critics are crazy, generally don't understand the nature of their complaints. (aka: balance = sameness argument.)

 azreal13 wrote:
Lol.

Says the user "markerlight junkie" whose profile lists last year as the time he started playing.

Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.

Oh, and I'd rather dip my freshly sandpapered scrotum into a jar of lemon juice coated scorpions than play in a GW. YMMV.

Ooooh mate, you just lost...so big way Yeah, you won the argument but visiting his profile and destroying his arguments because he diesnt play long enough as you, grizzled veteran, which makes your arguments better (surprise - it does not). And he is playing wrong army, yeah, his arguments are clearly weaker! (another - it doesnt)

Yeah, you lost it...nicely...but enjoy your scrotum lemon juice bath, you've earned it

My daughter started 40K yesterday.

Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?

 Ailaros wrote:
Really, most of what's going on right now, from supplements, to faster codex cycle, to more new plastics, to integration of forgeworld into 40k, to more comprehensive kits, etc. etc. is all coming about because they listened to customers.

Only if you assume that when we said we wanted a faster release cycle we wanted GW to rush out garbage releases because they don't have time to do a good job, and then split the same amount of content into multiple $50 books and day-1 DLC. The simple truth is nobody was asking for the things they're currently criticizing GW for.

Really, GW should ignore its customers MORE instead of less, and focus on being good at what it wants to be good at and produce what it thinks is good, rather than pandering to people and getting twisted into doing things that they are bad at in the name of consumer demand or creating the image of being thoughtful and compassionate.

That's a nice theory, but what GW wants is better profit margins on selling space marines to kids. The thing you (and other people here who shall remain nameless) don't understand is that the things "competitive" players criticize GW for don't make 40k a better "casual" or "fluff" game, they just make it a bad game. This isn't a case of GW making a conscious choice to provide the best possible game for a player group that we don't happen to belong to, it's GW abandoning any pretense of publishing quality rules so that they can save a bit of money on design and playtesting.

Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daughter started 40K yesterday.

Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?

Yes. Being involved in something for a very long time doesn't give you a free licence to whinge incessantly.

I wonder which will come first, GW turning 40k unplayable or whining turning Dakka unreadable.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daughter started 40K yesterday.

Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?

Yes. Being involved in something for a very long time doesn't give you a free licence to whinge incessantly.

Wrong being a vet who's seen previous editions gives you perspective that allows you to see pros and cons with the latest edition, the new player does not know the game used to be better they just take it at face value.

Having started in 96 I can say 6th ed is a hot mess that's fast getting worse as they pile on new rules with no testing, a new player would have no idea.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Honestly I'd try out Warseer. It's a lot more measured in its opinions, which is to say that there are people who have an irrational and vitriolic hatred of GW, *but* they don't spam threads with it. Dakka seems to tolerate this spamming of negativity, especially in News & Rumours, which is why I don't go on here much (though it is better for hobby stuff imo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daughter started 40K yesterday.

Is her view on the state of the game equally valid as mine, who has been playing nearly 10 years?

Yes. Being involved in something for a very long time doesn't give you a free licence to whinge incessantly.

No-one needs a licence to whinge incessantly. You do however need knowledge and expereince to have an informed opinion things.

 azreal13 wrote:
Tau were the beginning of the tailspin 40K has gotten itself into. Glad you're having fun, but you have no frame of reference for the state of the game. You're entitled to think whatever you like, but don't expect it to carry a huge weight with those who have been around for decades and multiple,e editions.

Ummm... I've never been a competitive 40k player, but I take issue with this statement. I'm certainly willing to get corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe the progression of "tailspin-nes" goes a little something like this:

(the giant mud pit of broken that was 2nd edition) -> blood angel rhino rush/eldar ridiculousness all around -> ultra amazing broken CSM codex -> (my knowledge breaks down going into the end of 3rd/ most of 4th) -> IG leafblower -> land raiders as far as the eye can see -> Grey Knight absurdity -> Necron flying bakery/IG Air Cavalry ->our hellldrakes will blot out the sun -> tau bullet hell -> serpent spam -> Tau+Eldar = two great tastes that are better together -> Revenant Titan/ Transcendent C`tan stomping grounds (with demon hound rush or screamer star jammed in there somewhere near the end)

Sorry. Just rather sick of people constantly blaming Tau for breaking the game when the cheese wheel has been merrily rolling along for about 3 editions without us thank you very much.

Oh, and nicest minis? Darklands and Infinity would like a word. Oh, and Kingdom Death. Hell, I don't even like the Warmachine minis as a rule, but they've probably released more models I'd spend money on this year than GW. Oh, and the paint is fair quality, but massively overpriced, Vallejo, Reaper and possibly P3 are all of at least equal quality, offer a similar or larger range and are much cheaper.

Infinity - incredibly anime style that doesn't appeal to everyone (the annoying models are the reason I can't make myself get into that game sadly)
Kingdom Death - apparently not released yet, and apparently a board game not a wargame (the models do look pretty cool from what I can see though)
Warmachine - have you ever assembled any PP models? Their plastic quality is kinda horrible and the assembly in general is a lot harder than most GW models I have attempted.

A lot of people (including myself for sure) might be spoiled by GW models. I still remember being shocked and appalled when I opened my Warmachine starter set and found out they didn't come with instructions or sprues. all the pieces were just thrown together in a plastic bag and you had to sort them out.

For what it's worth, I am firmly convinced that Warmachine is a much better designed game than 40k, but I don't think 40k deserves as much hate as a lot of people give it and it's not really meant to be played the same way as a lot of other wargames on the market.

People don't give it hate though. That's a lazy shorthand that is getting increasingly over used for anyone who doesn't think all in the 40K garden is rosy.

Note I've never made any argument that 40K was once perfect, but I do consider the Tau, or, more specifically, the Riptide, the genesis of the current crop of problems. The 6th edition books prior to that had people cautiously optimistic for a new, more toned down edition. The Riptide trampled all over it them took a steaming dump in the remains.

With regard to models, there will never be an objective consensus for something that is so inherently personal, but you have applied a bunch of criteria that I simply wasn't including in my comparison. It goes without saying that a range with such a strong aesthetic as Infinity will have people not so keen, I'm aware of some of the issues with PP models and materials, but that has no bearing in how they look, and the fact that Kingdom Death are working on a board game doesn't either.

You'll get no argument from me that some of the GW plastics (specifically the troop boxes by and large) are both technically very good, and sometimes not bad value either (although the Perrys and Dreamforge are making that less obvious these days) but to try and argue that they're anything more than average in terms of the visual quality of their output recently, for me (which is ultimately the only person I can speak for) just isn't true.

IDK, I think the Imperial Knight Titan looks awesome, though apparently it isn't a very well thought out, flexible kit.

(You can get three better Gundam kits for the same price. But let's not moan and whinge™ about prices.)