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.

I have no idea why people are discussing stock prices in a thread about the Spirit of the Game. But anyhow.

Just because a company is making money hand over fist and recording record profits doesn't mean its stock price will go up, or won't go down.

Just because a company has poor sales or is losing money, doesn't mean that it's stock price will go down, or will go up.

Stock prices are influenced by four things:

1. What the market thinks will happen to the stock price in the future (which doesn't have to have ANYTHING to do with profitability).

2. What the market thinks dividends will be.

3. Non-sophisticated investors making emotional decisions.

4. How the market as a whole is doing

Example #1, for a good many years, Microsoft stock prices declined, even though they posted more billions of dollars of revenue every quarter.

Example #2, GE (General Electric) pays nearly 7% dividends. People will invest in GE because they figure it's a very stable place to give their money a home in, and the dividends are very high.

Example #3, Average folks bought Facebook and Tim Hortons stock out of the gate and raised the prices to ridiculous heights that had no basis in analysis or science. Why? Because they liked the companies and wanted to own a piece of it.

The fourth is pretty obvious. In times of recession, or when people generally become risk adverse (such as the last financial crisis in the USA), generally, all stock prices suffer, even though none of the fundamentals have changed. That's mostly people deciding they'd like less risk, and would prefer reasonably risk-free vehicles to ride out the storm. In contrast, in a very bullish market, all of the stock prices go crazy because investors get much more speculative. Plus, in a diversified portfolio, even if one of your shareholdings tanks, others may overperform.

In the real world, stock prices are highly influenced by the actions of fund managers, and large, institutional investors, average folks tend to watch what they do and follow -- which is a terrible idea, if you want to actually make money in the stock market, but that's another subject. To make money, you not only have to be right, but be right *and different from what everyone else thinks*.

Beat ya to it Talys

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Beat ya to it Talys

LOL yes you did

I should also add the caveat that, if everyone hates a company and doesn't buy its products, well DUH... of course, it's share price will tank. Or, if it causes an environmental disaster. Or supports a terrorist organization. That kinda thing

@Blacksails

Coming from M:tG it really is a bizarro world to me. In M:tG there are fluff-bunnies, sure. But they won't tell you'youre WAAC because your deck is made with tournament play in mind. In fact, I don't think the term WAAC is even used. They might accuse you of being uncreative (especially if you copied your decklist from the internet) but they won't fault you if you really want to win.

That mentality would be fine if it's a game where there are no winners or losers (a.k.a. a tabletop RPG). Even loose rules could be excused if 40k/WHFB ARE roleplaying games with DMs (since the DMs can make up and/or change the rules for the enjoyment of the players). But majortiy of GW games are played by two players with no DM/GMs.

 heartserenade wrote:
@Blacksails

Coming from M:tG it really is a bizarro world to me. In M:tG there are fluff-bunnies, sure. But they won't tell you'youre WAAC because your deck is made with tournament play in mind. In fact, I don't think the term WAAC is even used. They might accuse you of being uncreative (especially if you copied your decklist from the internet) but they won't fault you if you really want to win.

That mentality would be fine if it's a game where there are no winners or losers (a.k.a. a tabletop RPG). Even loose rules could be excused if 40k/WHFB ARE roleplaying games with DMs (since the DMs can make up and/or change the rules for the enjoyment of the players). But majortiy of GW games are played by two players with no DM/GMs.

I used to be a crazy MtG player (from about 1993-2000). I played a *lot* both with very competitive types, and then also with guys with their girlfriends and mothers. The latter group, you'd have some people with 500 card decks who could go 50 turns without drawing a land card because they wanted to put every pretty card they owned in a deck to play. But, we'd still accommodate them, and nobody would beat up on them because, well, they're still fun people to play with.

In MtG, the games are much, much shorter, though, so when you lose, it's not really a big deal. Just play another game, or play with someone else. Plus, assuming your deck isn't TOTALLY garbage, luck is a much bigger factor, so even a very skilled player with a good deck can occasionally lose to a poor player, just because of the world's crappiest hand (I mean, who hasn't had that happen).

In 40k, if you blow a game, that might be your only game for the night, and that can be very disappointing. I mean, I guess, I'm just saying I understand why people who start 40k, invest a whole bunch of money and time, just to find out that what they thought would be a pretty cool idea is not really so much -- they find someone to vilify, whether's GW or their opponent, or both. Plus, in 40k, if you have a weak army, the only thing you can really do is swap in other stuff.

When I was a kid, I actually played a lot with counters instead of models, because I couldn't afford 'em -- just to see what worked, and what didn't, if nothing else. Remember in the back of Rogue Trader, there were actual square, cut-out counters for space marines and orks? Don't see GW doing THAT these days, LOL. I wonder what someone would say if you tried to play one and said, "hey, this is an authentic GW game piece!!"

The reason you see such a divide between "competitive" and "fluffy/fun" players in 40k is because it's the most unbalanced game out there. Also, a lot of the ire comes from the time, money and effort required to build an army you like only to find out it sucks on the table. This causes you to look for someone to blame, and the guy across from you is a much easier target than the company you just paid $1,000 to for the privilege of getting roflstomped with their jewel like objects of magic and wonder because said company is completely incompetent at writing rules. You won't find this divide in Magic because it doesn't take effort to put a deck together and it doesn't cost that much. If your deck is awful, you're out the $30 it cost, 10 minutes to throw the cards in sleeves and 45 minutes for the games. If your 40k army is awful, you're often out $500-1,000, 6 months to build and paint it and 3 hours for a game plus the hassle of dragging all that stuff back and forth. If the game was balanced you wouldn't see such a divide because a fluffy army someone made because they like the models would still have half a chance against a GT winning netlist.

There can't actually be a "spirit of the game" because it's no longer a game, it's a shared experience.

Shared experience...it sounds like something you'd describe to a therapist while holding back tears.

I thought the spirit of the game was buying GW products. I mean, they so as much in court.

 insaniak wrote:
And even then, having to include a unit in your army specifically as a counter to a single unit in your opponent's list is more than a little ridiculous.

I find it quite logical and have no gripes with it whatsoever really.

 Blacksails wrote:
Internet tough guy syndrome?

Why should we believe you're any more qualified than Azrael?

In Jancorans defense, Azreal comes off as supposedly being expert on any subject imaginable.

 vipoid wrote:

Because I don't like being forced to use a specific unit to counter a type of unit.

I´m starting to have an impression that the majority of people who have "I quit" -level gripes with 40K are the casual gamers who play the odd 10 games a year if even that. It seems their main issues are:

-Not being able to field whatever they want, basically wishing they can put the models in a bucket, shake it up, blindly pick them out of there to make an armylist and expect it to fare against everything an opponent brings to the table. I´d find that the most pointless, useless game ever. You can´t pick whatever in WM/H either and expect to do well, not anymore. Not in years. Admittedly the effect of getting stomped because of poor choices is less harsh in said game.

-Not being really good in the game due to lack of skill or experience, losing a lot, getting mad and blaming the game ( which has rules that are the same for everyone... )

-Basically speculating what is breaking the game ( saying fliers break the game currently is a dead giveaway of not really having played much of 7th ed, everyone who has any idea knows this isn´t the case and hasn´t been for over a year now ) without much actual play experience.

This is so prevalent outside the internet too. I play in 3 different groups in 3 different cities. The people who are always complaining about this and that are the ones that play once in two months if even that, rest of their time is spent making these "statements" based on their massively lacking play experience. One player in my hometowns group is a prime example, playing the top tier codices of Eldar and Tau, and continously complaining about the game and how some units "just can´t be dealth with" while simultaneously players with much crappier codices ( CSM, Tyranids ( before the drop pod ), IG and such are doing just fine and not complaining. ) The only possible cause left is the players lack of skill and experience, as he now has under 10 games under his belt this year, and can´t make do with the best toys the game has to offer while the rest do better with their inferior ones.

The most active players don´t complain at all and have fun, as they have learned to play and how to easily deal with things such as fliers ( bring AA, avoid their arc of fire, table the opponents ground forces, ignore air completely among others. ) As a sidenote, I find wargamers who spend 20 hours a year playing and 200 hours talking about playing ( albeit acting like they´ve played 200 hours ) a bit odd and/or funny, if they talk like the hours were the other way around. This guy I mentioned is one of them, and it shows.

The most paradoxical part is that most of these "haters" are labeling Warhammer 40K as a casual game that can´t be played competitively and doesn´t require skill ( it can, and it does ) when they themselves are the epitome of casual.

 RunicFIN wrote:
The most paradoxical part is that most of these "haters" are labeling Warhammer 40K as a casual game that can´t be played competitively ...

I would say the exact opposite, personally. 40K right now sucks as a casual game, unless you're playing with the same core group all of the time. Too many holes in the rules to make pick up games an attractive option. At least in a tournament you can get a ruling on specific issues that will cover every game in that event, and potentially any other event run by the same TO.

Having said that, the lack of casual gaming has killed my enthusiasm for tournament play as well.

Indeed. I find calling a game casual, inwhich:

- You can be absolutely decimated if you lack the means/skill/experience to build a list that can take on most things out there.
- Requires the most ( or among most ) effort to get into and learn for someone who is just starting ( due to the rules alone, I certainly learned WM/H thrice as fast as WH40K. )
- Is among the most time and money consuming games out there.

... quite unlogical.

In a way WH40K is one of the most hardcore games out there. It doesn´t fit people who have the "I want to play whatever I want and deal comfortably with everything!" -complex. It doesn´t fit people who can´t handle the fact ridicilously powerful armies can be built. It doesn´t fit people who don´t have the time the game requires ( all aspects ) to do well in it.

These are actually also attributes of videogames that are labeled "hardcore" -aswell, games that are rarely well balanced.

If one wants a game with more balanced units ( in the end requiring less skill/means/experience to make a competitive list, this doesn´t affect actual gameplay skill requirements ), easier to learn, less time and money consuming, then isn´t one wishing for a more casual game from any angle perceivable in essence?

Certainly some if not most of these things are caused by the rules and unbalance, but it doesn´t make it any less true in the end. Personally I find list building, the complex rules and their occasionally massive quirks, the amount of effort required to do well in WH40K an absolute blast.

And again, I play both WH40K and WM/H, and I enjoy both for different things.

I used to play every week for years. Took a break and came back to see the situation had gotten even worse. They need to fix the rules or the prices for me to consider returning. The spirit of the game these days is: buy from us and be grateful. How about no bear says how about no.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Indeed. I find calling a game casual, inwhich:

- You can be absolutely decimated if you lack the means/skill/experience to build a list that can take on most things out there.
- Requires the most ( or among most ) effort to get into and learn for someone who is just starting ( due to the rules alone, I certainly learned WM/H thrice as fast as WH40K. )
- Is among the most time and money consuming games out there.

... quite unlogical.

In a way WH40K is one of the most hardcore games out there. It doesn´t fit people who have the "I want to play whatever I want and deal comfortably with everything!" -complex. It doesn´t fit people who can´t handle the fact ridicilously powerful armies can be built. It doesn´t fit people who don´t have the time the game requires ( all aspects ) to do well in it.

These are actually also attributes of videogames that are labeled "hardcore" -aswell, games that are rarely well balanced.

If one wants a game with more balanced units ( in the end requiring less skill/means/experience to make a competitive list, this doesn´t affect actual gameplay skill requirements ), easier to learn, less time and money consuming, then isn´t one wishing for a more casual game from any angle perceivable in essence?

Certainly some if not most of these things are caused by the rules and unbalance, but it doesn´t make it any less true in the end. Personally I find list building, the complex rules and their occasionally massive quirks, the amount of effort required to do well in WH40K an absolute blast.

And again, I play both WH40K and WM/H, and I enjoy both for different things.

Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?

Thats the tragic irony of the rules. People blame the tournament and waac players for the 'problems' with the game, yet its ultimately the casuals who get affected the worse. To the point they have to shut themselves off from other players and say "if you want to be in my group, you have to play by my rules".

That is so true. A tournament player will have a tournament list from the start. Worse thing that can happen to him is that after 2 or 4 years he will have to buy a new one. What does a casual player suppose to do? One of our friends plays GK, he started before the new codex. He liked them to be old school so only used terminators, terminator HQs, no inquisition and NDKs. We didn't know what to do, because he couldn't play against us and playing against other people at the stores was even worse. Then new codex came and suddenly I am the one with 3 opponents that don't have to tailor to counter my army without me being able to do anything about it. If the game was 200-300$, it maybe wouldn't sting as much as it does now. Worse while am having 0 fun player , our friend doesn't have it either as everyone sees him as on OP army using schmuck.

Toofast wrote:
The reason you see such a divide between "competitive" and "fluffy/fun" players in 40k is because it's the most unbalanced game out there. Also, a lot of the ire comes from the time, money and effort required to build an army you like only to find out it sucks on the table. This causes you to look for someone to blame, and the guy across from you is a much easier target than the company you just paid $1,000 to for the privilege of getting roflstomped with their jewel like objects of magic and wonder because said company is completely incompetent at writing rules. You won't find this divide in Magic because it doesn't take effort to put a deck together and it doesn't cost that much. If your deck is awful, you're out the $30 it cost, 10 minutes to throw the cards in sleeves and 45 minutes for the games. If your 40k army is awful, you're often out $500-1,000, 6 months to build and paint it and 3 hours for a game plus the hassle of dragging all that stuff back and forth. If the game was balanced you wouldn't see such a divide because a fluffy army someone made because they like the models would still have half a chance against a GT winning netlist.

From my experience is not neccsarily about the time and effort involved but rather about the degree of attachment people have to their lists. Many 'fluff bunnies' don't want a list that doesn't suck. They want THEIR list not to suck.

An example I'm very familiar with is Dungeons&Dragons 3.5. As a RPG it has no hard win/lose conditions, but most people seem to view contributing meaningfully as a 'soft' win condition. Once you have all you need to play, building a character that doesn't suck requires in the worst case a moderate investment (50-100$ if you need stuff ftom additional books and feel bad about just googling it) and little effort (few days tops).

And yet people would still rather rage at their fellow gamers than rebuild their character.

LordBlades wrote:
Many 'fluff bunnies' don't want a list that doesn't suck. They want THEIR list not to suck.

A thousand times this. It´s an outrageously self-agonizing way of thinking asfar as I´m concerned. "I want X, the game shall adjust to my needs or else." I wonder if they play videogames and want their warrior -archetype to be the greatest mage in existence at the same time, and get mad if they can´t beat a ranger -archetype in ranged combat for example. It´s just so unlogical it´s unfathomable to me.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?

Hmm no, was just talking about labeling the game as casual when a person himself is the epitome of casual, and the paradox of that.

Someone who plays the game once in two months, talks as if he plays three times a day while actually lacking even decent experience, basing his views on an amount of games you can count with one hand, gets thrashed by the more experienced players, refuses to accept his fluffy list is never going to dominate a tournament, gets frustrated, goes all "this game is too casual, I´m gonna go for a more competitive game like WM/H" -and then proceeds to play said game in a non-competitive enviroment once in two months while hating on the previous one over the internet and saying it´s casual when infact he was too casual for the game, and too casual to do well in it due to lack of gameplay experience. A walking joke, asfar as I´m concerned.

Someone who is "casual" and admits it, and talks in a way that reflects his gaming experience of 8 matches total of 7th edition instead of the talk you could expect from someone dominating the last ETC and knowing everything about the current meta, that´s fine.

I welcome all kinds of players and I play all kinds of players, with some we use "gentleman" builds if said player doesn´t wish to go all-out and I find those games fun aswell. At the same time I see some of these players banging their head against the wall, as if on some eternal hopeless quest to "wield pretty much anything and deal with pretty much anything" -and in a way I feel sorry for them, as they don´t realize it´s futile, for now. They have 4 options:

-Start accepting the fact you can´t do that, and the fact you must gear against certain unit types to be competitive and end your suffering, adjust your "No one will opress me, I want what I want or else!" -attitude, enjoy the game like the rest of us.
-Come to terms with not having competitive performance if you want to play your Berzerker infantry only list / similiar.
-Quit the game if you cannot come to terms with these things, pick up another game and be happy about it and let others enjoy this game.
-Continue banging your head against the wall, get frustrated, write about it on the forums continously with a consious/subconsious belief you are achieving god knows what agenda ( which does nothing really btw ) and make yourself even more miserable for not being able to enjoy the game.

 Paradigm wrote:
Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.

Yeah except GW published something like this a while ago, it was Jervis article where he wrote that building both themed and super efficient army lists are equaly valid ways to play the game, that there are problems when the playstyles clash but no more beardy cheese bs mentioned. The old article from op is irrelevant, gw itself created a competitive player base since then with tourneys and tourney oriented rulesets (yes they were tourney oriented as confirmed later by Rick Priestley himself and the game is not still going in the same direction, they just try 180 turn now seeing how they fail writing proper wargaming rules) and while I like mr Priestley, 40k is thankfuly established as a wargame now not quasi rpg with gm and noone paints space marines looking like sex pistols anymore. Also super efficient cheese op tfg lists are automaticaly themed and fluffy in the world of only war. The whole social aspect, laid back casual bro gaming excuses are unique to 40k and create absurd situations like people asking on forum if it's ok to take unit from their codex because they don't want to be ostracised by some special snowflake haac players. Thats all thanks to '40k is casual therefore you should be nice and not win too much' bs, table footbal is played super casualy in pubs around the world but that doesnt change the fact that anyone better than you will crush you mercilessly to 0 in such match and noone cries , whines, writes articles and rants on forums. It's just natural state of things, just like optimising your list in a wargame. That it creates borked matchups is rules fault and no amount of excuses and blaming players can change that. Unbalanced casual beer and pretzels game is just as crap as unbalanced serious game.

Btw I field crap units all the time. Carnifexes in 5th, genestealers in 6th, I like challenge and trying to male underdogs work you would never call me 'power gamer' looking at my lists. But I find the idea of gaming vs power gaming, casual vs competitive completly ridiculous. Its a wargame ffs you play to destroy opponent's army, you can be friendly kiss and cuddle while doing it but please.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Because I don't like being forced to use a specific unit to counter a type of unit.

I´m starting to have an impression that the majority of people who have "I quit" -level gripes with 40K are the casual gamers who play the odd 10 games a year if even that. It seems their main issues are:

-Not being able to field whatever they want, basically wishing they can put the models in a bucket, shake it up, blindly pick them out of there to make an armylist and expect it to fare against everything an opponent brings to the table. I´d find that the most pointless, useless game ever. You can´t pick whatever in WM/H either and expect to do well, not anymore. Not in years. Admittedly the effect of getting stomped because of poor choices is less harsh in said game.

Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.

Or, are you saying that any list not including fliers might as well have been randomly picked out of a bag? If so, that should tell you that there is something seriously wrong with fliers.

-Not being really good in the game due to lack of skill or experience, losing a lot, getting mad and blaming the game ( which has rules that are the same for everyone... )

Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.

Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).

So, would including 3 Vendettas in every list make me a better player?

-Basically speculating what is breaking the game ( saying fliers break the game currently is a dead giveaway of not really having played much of 7th ed, everyone who has any idea knows this isn´t the case and hasn´t been for over a year now ) without much actual play experience.

You seem to have intimate knowledge of every single person who is speculating about the current problems with the game. So, come on then, how long have I been playing? How many games do I play a week (on average)? Obviously you must know the answer to these, because I'm sure you wouldn't be writing uninformed drivel now, would you?

The most active players don´t complain at all and have fun,

I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.

Spirit of the game used to be something along the lines of "play for fun and don't be a donkey cave." Now it's "Buy our models, peon."

Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion.

Oh, and it is completely possible to powergame in an RPG. You'd think not, but it really is. Whole other can of worms there.

The article quoted in the first post is meaningless. if GW truly felt that armies should be made based off of the fluff then that armies force chart, unit capabilities and unit points would be inline with that. However, on the whole, they aren't.

The reality is that there are competing interests within GW itself. You have a game design group that apparently works towards creating a fun game then you have "marketing" which says "everyone bought wyches and no one bought scourges after the last codex. Make the wyches suck and scourges be incredible this time, we need to sell more of that stock."

Every single codex release has been like this. My point is: sure the game designers may have wanted us to build fluffy armies but management looks at the situation very differently and that hurts every one.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion..

And what operation are you a part of, then?

 vipoid wrote:

Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.

If something is a strawman, it´s what you´re saying. Obviously I was referring to what you said earlier about not wanting to be forced to make unit choices ( in general. ) Wasn´t talking about fliers only. If someone dislikes being forced to choose anything, then in essence what they want is to play pretty much anything and do well. And if anything would go, you could basically do just that, just pick things out at random without a worry in the world.

 vipoid wrote:

Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.

You find something unlogical in the fact that people who are not necessarily skilled in a game, and lose often, are the ones more likely not to find it fun? I like how you try to sweep valid points under a carpet without even having any logical backup. I guess I can do that too;

Oh, you´re saying how good you are in something has nothing to do with said activitys enjoyability. That´s just delightful.

 vipoid wrote:
Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).

I was talking about a certain type of player/person in general. Next to that L2P is in some cases a completely valid argument whether you like or not.

In any case, I wasn´t talking about you. What I said had mostly to do with people that label 40K as a casual game while being casual incarnate themselves. Should someone not after this 3rd clarification still understand it, then tough gak I guess.

 vipoid wrote:

I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.

Not sure if I should make an equally childish comeback to that. But you can find my match count for this year few posts earlier. I guess active is a subjective term in the end though, so if you´re nearing 100 played matches of 40K in the 1750-2000 points range this year then I probably am not active compared to you.

There's a whole lot of assuming why players quit 40k out there. And for the most part it's pretty uneducated.
As I said earlier, flier rules are unfun. They don't fit the game and are just annoying instead of cool. (I had two stormtalons back in the day and I felt dirty playing them.)
I didn't quit because I didn't know how to play. I've been playing since RT days.
I don't need to pick random units, but every unit should have a purpose in the right list.
"I really like unit A."
"But unit A is only good in this kind of army."
"Ah, I see. Well, I'll create that kind of army then, cause I gotta have that model!"
or something like that.

So what I'm getting is that 40k is neither a casual game, nor a tournament/competitive game?

Great, that's settled. We agree 40k isn't particularly good in any situation and only workable with a group of like-minded individuals.

Awesome.

 RunicFIN wrote:
-snip-

Told ya.

To indulge you, FIN, I'll recount my wargaming history. While it's certainly not as long or well rounded as, say, MWHistorian's, it is sufficient enough to give me an informed opinion.
I've been playing for about six years now, started with 5th played through to 7th. In those years, I was always part of a club where I had a game at least once a week. That's about 312 games total over three editions.

Truth be told, I liked 5th. 6th was ok. 7th wa half the problem. I didn't like the direction 7th took the game. Now, I have enough units, bits and so on to make good armies for 7th; I'm sure my FSE suits list or my Armoured battlegroup would fare just fine in 7th. Unbound would make things difficult, but that's not something I can't overcome. Suffice to say, I know enough about the game and have been playing long enough to know my skill isn't a deciding factor - otherwise, I wouldn't be playing wargames at all.

I no longer play 40k because of several reasons:
- There are other games out there that do what 40K tries to do but better.
- GW is a horrible company and I refuse to support their business practices.
- I can't afford to "keep with the meta" by buying the latest power unit.

Those three are the big ones, and where most other people draw the line.

Edit: Really, the change in the spirit of the game should highlight just how and why the second reason is so relevant for so many people.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
To indulge you, FIN, I'll recount my wargaming history. While it's certainly not as long or well rounded as, say, MWHistorian's, it is sufficient enough to give me an informed opinion.
I've been playing for about six years now, started with 5th played through to 7th. In those years, I was always part of a club where I had a game at least once a week. That's about 312 games total over three editions.

And I have played Warhammer 40,000 for 12 years, and WM/H for 6-7 years ( can´t give the exact time as I have been on a break from it, but I have factually followed the competitive scene from 2007. ) I have quite the informed opinion aswell. In any case, just because I don´t share someones view or even have a polar opposite one doesn´t make it any less of a discussion.

 Blacksails wrote:
So what I'm getting is that 40k is neither a casual game, nor a tournament/competitive game?

For me it is a fun game as either, and for some as neither. I just see quite a lot of recurring traits among the players who fall into the "neither" category, and I listed some of those earlier. It´s subjective - so in the end no can state it being X or Y as an universal truth as it´s simply not possible.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion..

And what operation are you a part of, then?

 vipoid wrote:

Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.

If something is a strawman, it´s what you´re saying. Obviously I was referring to what you said earlier about not wanting to be forced to make unit choices ( in general. ) Wasn´t talking about fliers only. If someone dislikes being forced to choose anything, then in essence what they want is to play pretty much anything and do well. And if anything would go, you could basically do just that, just pick things out at random without a worry in the world.

Can you really not see the difference between someone not wanting to take some very specific units, which don't mesh with the rest of his army, and someone just picking units randomly from a bag?

 vipoid wrote:

Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.

You find something unlogical in the fact that people who are not necessarily skilled in a game, and lose often, are the ones more likely not to find it fun? I like how you try to sweep valid points under a carpet without even having any logical backup. I guess I can do that too;

Oh, you´re saying how good you are in something has nothing to do with said activitys enjoyability. That´s just delightful.

Firstly, the word is "illogical". "Unlogical" is not a word. Second, you are making assumptions about my gaming experiences with no basis in fact. I have not complained about losing to fliers, yet you automatically assume that this must be the case.

I do agree with you that constantly losing can make the game less fun (or not fun at all). However, that wasn't what you said. What you actually said was that people suck at the game and blame the rules as a result. That is not even close to being the same thing. In fact, it's just argumentum ad hominem.

 vipoid wrote:
Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).

I was talking about a certain type of player/person in general. Next to that L2P is in some cases a completely valid argument whether you like or not.

And in the contex you used it, it was entirely inappropriate.

In any case, I wasn´t talking about you. What I said had mostly to do with people that label 40K as a casual game while being casual incarnate themselves. Should someone not after this 3rd clarification still understand it, then tough gak I guess.

If you weren't talking about me, why did you quote me above?

 vipoid wrote:

I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.

Not sure if I should make an equally childish comeback to that. But you can find my match count for this year few posts earlier. I guess active is a subjective term in the end though, so if you´re nearing 100 played matches of 40K in the 1750-2000 points range this year then I probably am not active compared to you.

Wait... do games of 40k below 1750pts not count as games?

Never said it couldn't be fun. As I mentioned, with a group of people you enjoy playing with, its fine.

Then again, doing anything with a group of people I like is fun.

Really, I think you're looking too hard for things to label people who leave the game. People don't dislike 40k because they're not skilled enough, or expect the game to pander to them, or any other slightly insulting reason you care to dream of.

People are growing tired of 40k because the company making it is charging a fortune for a game that is filled with issues, both in basic writing and gameplay including balance issues. Factor in other games that are cheaper, have cool models, and debatable better gameplay, and its easy to see why someone wouldn't stick with 40k as their primary wargame.

That's not to say people aren't holding on to an army or two to play with friends when other games aren't available.

I just think you're trying way to hard to label people who point out the flaws of 40k. No one wants the game to pander to them, or make it so that choices don't have consequences. Quite the opposite really. On the flip side, no one wants to be punished for fielding rough riders, despite being a favourite unit among many Guard players.

 MWHistorian wrote:
There's a whole lot of assuming why players quit 40k out there. And for the most part it's pretty uneducated.
As I said earlier, flier rules are unfun. They don't fit the game and are just annoying instead of cool. (I had two stormtalons back in the day and I felt dirty playing them.)
I didn't quit because I didn't know how to play. I've been playing since RT days.
I don't need to pick random units, but every unit should have a purpose in the right list.
"I really like unit A."
"But unit A is only good in this kind of army."
"Ah, I see. Well, I'll create that kind of army then, cause I gotta have that model!"
or something like that.

I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.

You mentioned you are new to WM/H, 6 months. I have a feeling you are still having the "epiphany" kind of process going on, where you find awesome things about the game and it´s new and exciting ( in another thread you gave an example of a battle you were about to lose turning into your favour, saying you love this game, for example. ) I´d say in a few years this will have faded and the bad sides of WM/H will have become clear to you, as will the annoying things PP also does to make money. They aren´t as outrageous as the stunts pulled off by GW, but they´re still there.

Maybe in 2018 we´ll have Epic Epic Epic Epic Ultra Kommander Sorscha, who comes on dual colossal bases as she rides on double Gun Carriages like this. You can then purchase the 16th expansion book in the game, in order to find out about her new incarnations lore which has continued through the previous 15 books. Nuff said.

Don't feed the troll guys.

Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".

Looking at their actions. The rules are mess and work best in groups where one or more people can act as a ref, or the group can decide on how they want to play the game. The move to smaller one man stores is not a decision by the development team but is still something that effects the people who play the game.

My guess would be GW is aiming at people who play in self-sufficient clubs. Though honestly I've always found the game to be best for that type of group. So as things go further south you'll see this group grow and the "middle" group of pug players slow disappear (and no I'm not saying they'd all go to clubs).

The game is also good for those who play in a Tournament. Yes that's right, Tournaments. Sure the poor unit balance creates a crap meta, but the mess and poor structure of the rules makes tournaments attractive to some of the more "middle of the road" pug players into seeking some form of structure. Thus you'll also see local tournament rules become used for pugs because they give a focus to list building and improve the structure of the game.

Of course this is all just an observation based off my own experiences, and listening to others/reading posts on various forums.

tl:dr, GW says it's for narrative players. Their actions seem to indicate it's for club and tournament players.