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.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or, indeed, life.

That is the point - if you think everyone is on the same level as you in "life" (which they are NOT by an enormous majority), then you are unaware of your privilege/entitlement.

Most kids cannot afford 40K and it has literally always been that way, at least here in the US. I started with Rogue Trader, and while it is ridiculously expensive now, it was always priced very high.

What a load of old tosh.

You be trollin bro?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or, indeed, life.

That is the point - if you think everyone is on the same level as you in "life" (which they are NOT by an enormous majority), then you are unaware of your privilege/entitlement.

Most kids cannot afford 40K and it has literally always been that way, at least here in the US. I started with Rogue Trader, and while it is ridiculously expensive now, it was always priced very high.

What a load of old tosh.

You be trollin bro?

It's a luxury hobby; poor kids don't 40K. You don't have to be a doctor, historian, or 'troll', to know that MOST kids in the world can't afford to get into 40K, and that's always been the case. We might be getting off topic and some entitled folks are clearly offended heh, but it is the truth, like it or not.

I really don't think entitled means what you think it means.

Unless you think it means "middle class with reasonable income."

 Gunzhard wrote:


It's a luxury hobby; poor kids don't 40K. You don't have to be a doctor, historian, or 'troll', to know that MOST kids in the world can't afford to get into 40K, and that's always been the case. We might be getting off topic and some entitled folks are clearly offended heh, but it is the truth, like it or not.

Most kids in the world live in China, so actually yeah, if they wanted to, they probably could afford to play 40k, if they play with Chinese miniatures.

You accused anyone able to play 40K as entitled and spoiled. It was offensive and you do not have a sane argument to back it up.

To bring it back on topic ..

Which rule set a person prefers is indeed subjective. They can be compared objectively simply for establishing that there are differences but the actual decision as to which is better or worse is indeed purely subjective.

I thought the topic was naming the pros of 40k?

I know one thing I used to love, and am glad to see it's being brought back with the most recent Tyranid release, is the PSAs, Imperial directives, etc. that publish how the Imperium deals with its many threats.





The absurdity of things like executing all witnesses, and the overall madness that is the Imperium is something I really enjoy about the game (aka its background).

 EVIL INC wrote:
To bring it back on topic ..

Which rule set a person prefers is indeed subjective. They can be compared objectively simply for establishing that there are differences but the actual decision as to which is better or worse is indeed purely subjective.

Not really, objectively you can establishing what rule set is better, but subjectively you can decide what one you like better.

 Accolade wrote:
I thought the topic was naming the pros of 40k?

I know one thing I used to love, and am glad to see it's being brought back with the most recent Tyranid release, is the PSAs, Imperial directives, etc. that publish how the Imperium deals with its many threats.

Wait, holy crap, Vitria?! As in, home world of the Vitrian Dragoons that nobody's heard about since the very first Gaunt's Ghosts book?

Awesome!

Noir wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To bring it back on topic ..

Which rule set a person prefers is indeed subjective. They can be compared objectively simply for establishing that there are differences but the actual decision as to which is better or worse is indeed purely subjective.

Not really, objectively you can establishing what rule set is better, but subjectively you can decide what one you like better.

Ehm... how?

How do you determine which ruleset is "better"? Objectively speaking, that is.

Noir wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To bring it back on topic ..

Which rule set a person prefers is indeed subjective. They can be compared objectively simply for establishing that there are differences but the actual decision as to which is better or worse is indeed purely subjective.

Not really, objectively you can establishing what rule set is better, but subjectively you can decide what one you like better.

Actually it IS all subjectively. This because it is impossible to objectively discuss which rule set is better in this case because "better" is a subjective issue. Thats the problem we have here. People think that their"better"HAS to be the one true better and all others are wrong. This is simply not the case because Better in this subjective matter is determined by personal "taste" and preference.

I like the backgrounds and specialist games quite a bit. It's something no one else really does as well.

I haven't played 40k in a while though, despite owning a bunch of armies.

Side note, no one commented on evil Inc's school post?
Slackers

 EVIL INC wrote:

Noir wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To bring it back on topic ..

Which rule set a person prefers is indeed subjective. They can be compared objectively simply for establishing that there are differences but the actual decision as to which is better or worse is indeed purely subjective.

Not really, objectively you can establishing what rule set is better, but subjectively you can decide what one you like better.

Actually it IS all subjectively. This because it is impossible to objectively discuss which rule set is better in this case because "better" is a subjective issue. Thats the problem we have here. People think that their"better"HAS to be the one true better and all others are wrong. This is simply not the case because Better in this subjective matter is determined by personal "taste" and preference.

No, it is possible to agree on a set of criteria, compare various rules systems to those criteria and determine which is superior.

It isn't possible to judge which an individual enjoys more objectively, and an objectively superior product is not necessarily everyone's personal preference.

So along the same lines, which flavor jello is better is an objective question? or what color looks better on a tshirt is an objective question? It is along the same lines as what is "better" for one person may not be better for another.
In the matter of which rule set is "better", "better" is defined by which a person likes best or derives the most enjoyment from. By definition, that makes it subjective.
School post? I dont recal educational facilities being a part of the conversation at all. Could you cite which post in this thread brings that into question?

 EVIL INC wrote:
So along the same lines, which flavor jello is better is an objective question? or what color looks better on a tshirt is an objective question? It is along the same lines as what is "better" for one person may not be better for another.
In the matter of which rule set is "better", "better" is defined by which a person likes best or derives the most enjoyment from. By definition, that makes it subjective.

Yeah, because a game is totally like food or colours.

Things like balance, ease of learning, depth of play, and customization/options are all metrics that can be measured against to come to a mostly objective agreement on the quality of games.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So along the same lines, which flavor jello is better is an objective question? or what color looks better on a tshirt is an objective question? It is along the same lines as what is "better" for one person may not be better for another.
In the matter of which rule set is "better", "better" is defined by which a person likes best or derives the most enjoyment from. By definition, that makes it subjective.
School post? I dont recal educational facilities being a part of the conversation at all. Could you cite which post in this thread brings that into question?

You clearly don't understand the whole concept of subjective vs objective.

Do you prefer red or green? = subjective question, because it is solely down to preference.

Is red or green a better choice when attempting to conceal something in a woodland environment? = An objective question it is possible to answer with empirical evidence by conducting various tests, and a person's preferences are utterly irrelevant to the result.

Equally "which flavour of jello is your favorite?" is subjective, because the answer is wholly based on your preference, "which flavour of jello is most popular?" can be answered objectively by sales data, consumer surveys etc.

We are not discussing which is most popular or even such things as balance, ease of learning, depth of play, and customization/options, we are discussing it on an individual level. On a personal basis. We arent talking sales of profits or anything like that. We are purely discussing it on which is"better" based on which an individual prefers or gets the most enjoyment from based on personal preferences and playstyle.

YOU might be, but the point other people are making is that its possible to measure the quality of the game in broadly speaking, objective terms.

But as was already mentioned, the quality of the game doesn't have a bearing on if you enjoy the game. Feel free to enjoy a lower quality game, or hate a higher quality one. Same goes with movies, or video games. The point is that games can be measured and determine how good or bad they are.

Your subjective opinion is irrelevant in such a discussion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
We are not discussing which is most popular or even such things as balance, ease of learning, depth of play, and customization/options, we are discussing it on an individual level. On a personal basis. We arent talking sales of profits or anything like that. We are purely discussing it on which is"better" based on which an individual prefers or gets the most enjoyment from based on personal preferences and playstyle.

No, we are supposed to be discussing the advantages of 40K, but it is difficult to list too many that are specific to 40K outside of models and background which aren't just "things I like about tabletop gaming that I'm applying to 40K"

The thread is about pros. Not cons.
Therefore, I am staying on topic and discussing the pros of how many players like the game on a personal level.
there are threads where the cons of those other topics are relevent.It may be you have not read the entire thread so thats fine.
if you want to have a seperate conversation about the objective issues go right ahead but shoehorning them into the subjective discussion of people liking 40k on a personal basis.
I understand that you guys want to start a different conversation from what the thread is about but I will stay on topic Just try not to confuse your conversation with ours.

What con have I stated?

None.

I have stated that many pros of 40K are not specific to 40K.

You making stuff up again Evi?

This thread has way too much "what is on/off topic" discussion rather than actual discussion of 40k / etc.

In the future, please do not argue what is on/off-topic repeatedly in a thread, as it will only serve to make the thread about that very discussion, rather than whatever was originally intended.

Locking as this thread in its current state does not add anything not covered elsewhere.