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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me. It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.

You got me, I do this only to people with disabilities because I'm a terrible person. In related news, I kick puppies constantly.

First of all, I had no clue you had a disability.

Secondly, I don't know the relevance of that piece of information.

Third, I'm not the only one having this issue. If you read back through it, several other posters confirmed they were confused too.

I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.

No, no you don't. A brief scroll through your history shows how blatantly untrue that is. You have a history and reputation on these boards, and I can assure you, its not positive.

I have made an effort. In fact, I made a very hard effort and gave you multiple opportunities to clarify your position.

Keep playing the victim card though.

I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.

I have no idea about anything Magic related, so I can't really comment on this.

 Blacksails wrote:

I disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most wargamers do not self identify as some sort of absolute between casual and tournament, nor does that correlate with desire to create fluffy games.

Purely anecdotal, but it illustrates how your point is flawed. I enjoy competitive games. Wether its 40k, or World of Tanks, I enjoy playing things to the best of my ability. I also enjoy playing purely fluffy, campaign oriented, scenario based matches using a themed list. I will happily throw down against an array of players, and regardless of my list or result in the game, I can be a pleasant opponent.

A well written ruleset would allow people like myself, and any others, to more readily game against a wider array of players without having to re-tool lists to ensure everything is within the same bracket. Further, a better set of rules would also allow for the creation of fluffier lists and have games feel more in line with stated fluff and lore.

Just because someone is a top tournament winner does not mean they can't (or won't) gladly play the most ridiculous themed scenario. A better ruleset benefits people palying themed/scenario games, while it benefits tournaments by being better balanced and having less rules disputes/abuse/gimmicks, thus promoting skill more.

Of course, there are many shades in between, "I must always win" and "I just want to play fluff". I'm just saying that people at opposite ends of the spectrum don't mesh well in the same game. Someone whose only army is DV and DV expansion and plays once a month can't compete with someone who owns $50,000 in models that they've collected over the last 20 years, and who has read every rulebook and plays ten games a week.

If the person with more experience and unlimited resources just wants to destroy the other player, that's exactly what will happen, and, in my opinion, to nobody's benefit. This was my point -- that the ultracompetitive types that are willing to expend time and money and really, really want to win, are not good play partners for much more casual players. But, this is not unique to 40k; it's something you pretty much see in every game, even where units and starting positions are predefined.

Now, when you look at all the players in between (which I hope comprises most of the playerbase!), and the original topic, which was unbound lists, winners of large tournaments don't play large, broken, unbound lists. Unless the tournament is devoid of skilled players with sufficient resources, it's pretty much safe to say, serpents and riptides might do alright, but they aren't tournament winners (well, aside from that house rules often prohibit such lists). Quite often, you see good old Ultramarines with a strong list, but not particularly gimicky, doing very well.

Just to clarify, I don't think there's any problem at all with a tournament aficionados playing against a casual player. I think it's only a problem when the tournament winner wants to maximize his chance of winning against said casual player. I like winning as much as the next person, but I'm sure not going to break out an imperial knight and a couple of DK against someone who only owns infantry and small flyers. I'd rather tone down my list.

Suuuurrreee...

On topic. Unbound can be a great asset to fluff gamers in the correct setting when used as it was intended. However, as it is too easily abused (or used as it was not intended), it can be bad.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?

How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.

Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]

That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?

40K can really only stand as a casual game, because its rules and mechanics are broken for actual competitive games.

However, these conditions exist (here) in a vacuum, 40k is better than itself as a casual game than a competitive game... but when you bring other games into it, on purely objective standards (rules clarity, pricing, balance, etc)... then you see that 40K also fails as a casual game, because many other games beat it in objectively-measured means of judging a game's quality.

Sure, some people will say that they prefer 40K because they think the fluff is cooler,the models are cooler, they have X amount of money invested in it, all their friends play it, ect. That's all fine, well, and good... but none of these subjective criteria make 40K a better game than another, they just indicate why someone would play 40K over a different game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Suuuurrreee...

I'm glad you agree with me, seeing as you can't post a coherent reply and have resorted to this sort of trash response.

 EVIL INC wrote:
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.

You're misunderstanding how formats work in MTG. It isn't about casual vs. competitive, it's just about how many years worth of cards to include. MTG was designed from the beginning to be a game where new stuff would be published, you'd play with it for a while, and then it would rotate out in favor of the next new stuff. The tournament formats set the point where that rotation happens. Some use only the newest cards, some go all the way back to 1993 and allow everything. And all of these formats are played at every level of competitiveness, from kitchen table games to pro tour tournaments with $50k cash prizes.

Something like this wouldn't work at all in 40k because there's no neat division between "casual" and "competitive", where you can just include the appropriate elements and leave out the rest.

 Blacksails wrote:

I have no idea about anything Magic related, so I can't really comment on this.

MtG, and most TCGs are relevant because they appeal to the same playerbase and are often sold at the same stores (not GW ones obviously ). In MtG, you can pick whatever cards you want to play, much like building your 40k army. To optimize your chances of winning, the single most important task as a player is to stack the deck so that you have good odds of pulling resources, spells, and creatures to combat your opponent.

The problem with casual vs WAAC in MtG is that the most powerful cards are very, very rare -- you might have to, on average, spend thousands of dollars to get one of those cards. So, the person who has invested tens of thousands of dollars will have a huge potential advantage to stack their deck against someone with far more common cards. It is impossible, with a $100 budget buying starter/booster packs, to win a tournament, because your cards won't be good enough.

There are also some out of print cards that are massively overpowered -- essentially, they are vastly superior versions of regular cards, that have no downsides. You can only get these cards either by paying hundreds of dollars for each card, unless you were spending thousands of dollars twenty years ago.

To adjust for this, there are different rulesets that you can adopt that limit what and how many of each card you may play. Most often, the massively overpowered cards (that were made before WoTC knew better.. I guess) are simply prohibited, though between friends or in a casual game, they might be allowed. In most cases, you are limited in how many of a single card you can play. That type of thing.

Most casual players love MtG when they start playing (the game is very fun), and hate it when they run into a bunch of WAAC players that mercilessly destroy them.

Oh yes, and you can play for ante (a relatively rarity at FLGS), meaning that you the first card, at the top of your shuffled deck is up for grabs by your opponent, should you lose.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me.

Speaking for myself, I make the same amount of effort to understand yours I do everyone else, but you aren't always clear.

It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.

Yep, just your view, I had no idea you had any sort of disability, and I won't treat you any differently now I know you do. You're not an outsider, we're all pretty much strangers here, I have met precisely one Dakka user IRL since I started posting here, this could just be an advanced AI pretending to be every other poster at once for all I know.

I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.

To be blunt, if you're aware that you sometimes have difficulties composing you're replies, then take your time. I can see by the speed you reply sometimes you simply cannot be taking your time with thinking through what you're trying to say. Oh, and for the record, an irrelevant point is never a good point, even if it is expressed in the most succinct and witty way ever conceived.

I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.

Magic has one ruleset, the different formats govern what cards since the first set ever printed can be used, the tournament formats tend to be focused on the latest core set plus a fixed, normally most recent, number of expansions. To apply that to 40K, it would be somewhat akin to having a list of acceptable units, "restricted" units (one per army) and banned units. Not quite the same, but probably the way it could work.

 EVIL INC wrote:
On topic. Unbound can be a great asset to fluff gamers in the correct setting when used as it was intended. However, as it is too easily abused (or used as it was not intended), it can be bad.

It is certainly not a great asset, for two reasons:

1) Unbound isn't intended to open up "fluff" armies (even ignoring the fact that overpowered unbound armies can also be very fluffy), it's intended to make you buy more GW products. GW added it to the book so the employee in your local GW store can say "sure, get that big new Tyranid kit, even if you place space marines you can still use it" and sell another $50 model. If you use unbound as GW intends it you get incredibly unfluffy armies that consist of nothing more than the most recent new releases, without any theme beyond "I BOUGHT A GW MODEL!!!!".

2) It removes all limits on using "rule-breaking" armies. Previously if you wanted to break the FOC and/or army list rules in a "fluff" environment you had to justify your list to everyone. So the only "unbound" armies were the ones that had awesome fluff behind them and were fun to play against. Now it's just the default that you're allowed to bring whatever you want, and the burden of being the bad guy and refusing to allow it now falls on everyone else. This adds nothing for the "fluff" players (who already got to use their armies) while simultaneously giving them extra work to do in trying to keep things balanced and fun. So no, that's not really a "great asset".

 Psienesis wrote:

Sure, some people will say that they prefer 40K because they think the fluff is cooler,the models are cooler, they have X amount of money invested in it, all their friends play it, ect. That's all fine, well, and good... but none of these subjective criteria make 40K a better game than another, they just indicate why someone would play 40K over a different game.

Actually, objectively, the price per model and the number of available models in the 40k universe is better than other Scifi games. Plus, the models have interchangeable configurations, and may be posed.

So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior. If your desire is to collect, build, and paint models, and have a context in which to play with them when you wish, 40k is, objectively, a better game.

If your desire is to play a game, and owning and painting models is of secondary importance (or a nuisance), then objectively, 40k is an inferior game.

If your desire is to play a quick skirmish game, objectively, 40k rules and units make it a terrible game.

If your desire is to play a high model count (100+) Scifi game, or if you wish to mix infantry, vehicles, large creatures, and flying units, 40k is pretty much the only game, whether that's good or bad.

But anyhow, why does it have to be either/or? Why not just play them all ^^.

Talys wrote:
The problem with casual vs WAAC in MtG is that the most powerful cards are very, very rare -- you might have to, on average, spend thousands of dollars to get one of those cards.

Or just buy the specific cards you want online. If you're opening booster packs to find a specific card then you're just throwing away money.

It is impossible, with a $100 budget buying starter/booster packs, to win a tournament, because your cards won't be good enough.

Well yeah, because spending $100 on booster packs to get a new deck is stupid. A $100 budget to buy single cards, on the other hand, is a pretty good start to a tournament deck (and sometimes the entire deck).

And of course this is much better than 40k, where $100 isn't even close to enough to buy a tournament-legal army. At least in MTG you can maybe have some fun in the losers' bracket at your local tournament, in 40k you don't get to play at all.

There are also some out of print cards that are massively overpowered -- essentially, they are vastly superior versions of regular cards, that have no downsides. You can only get these cards either by paying hundreds of dollars for each card, unless you were spending thousands of dollars twenty years ago.

This is one reason the rotating format system exists, to support sanctioned tournaments where costs aren't massively inflated by the scarcity of cards that went OOP almost 20 years ago. Cost of OOP stuff is certainly a factor if you want to play in the "everything since 1993 is legal" formats, but most tournaments (especially local tournaments) use much cheaper "only the current sets" formats.

Oh yes, and you can play for ante (a relatively rarity at FLGS), meaning that you the first card, at the top of your shuffled deck is up for grabs by your opponent, should you lose.

In theory you can use house rules and play for ante, but this has been incredibly rare since 1994 or so and there are no longer official rules for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:
So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior.

Not really. It has a larger total number of sculpts than other games, but the quality of each model isn't all that impressive. So it really depends on what you want to collect: if you want to get a huge collection of decent models then 40k is great. If you want to collect a smaller number of models but have each of them be an awesome centerpiece then 40k kind of sucks.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?

How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.

Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]

That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?

40K can really only stand as a casual game, because its rules and mechanics are broken for actual competitive games.

I'd be careful saying that too loudly or they will come after you like they did me when i said the exact same thing. lol
Glad to see I'm not the only one with that opinion at least. Cheers

No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.

It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.

The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.

40K is not that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.

It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.

The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.

40K is not that.

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the wooshing noise over EVIL's head.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.

It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.

The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.

40K is not that.

Actually, he is expressing exactly what I have been saying all along (different words, same exact point) while you tried your best to disagree.
If you agree with what he and I are saying, than maybe trying to pick an argument when the person disagrees with you would be a better bet than just doing it for the sake of doing it.

Have you ever considered you are absolutely terrible at making a coherent point?

Indeed, sometimes, it is hard to get a point across and say in 1500 words what some one else says clearer in 15. It is still the same point.

Edit: Of course, 12 hour shifts, 3.5 hours driving time and a 3 ring circus in the house preventing sleep can also make a difference. lol

 EVIL INC wrote:
Indeed, sometimes, it is hard to get a point across and say in 1500 words what some one else says clearer in 15. It is still the same point.

It may have been the same point you intended, but you can't very well point your finger anywhere but at yourself when people fail to understand what you were trying to say all along.

If you were struggling to make the point, you should have said so; I also asked if you needed clarifying what I was asking, and indeed asked you at several points to clarify your position with some questions.

Regardless, the point many of us apparently agree on is that 40k is a rather poor game for competitive play, and only barely works when everyone agrees exactly how to play in a casual environment. That said, nothing about 40k is inherently casual or lends itself to being a game geared towards that goal, and thus I'd argue its not even a good casual game, but works marginally better in an environment of similar attitudes.

Other, better balanced games don't have this problem and function equally well in a basement six beers in or in a tournament hall with 200 players.

Talys wrote:
I'm just saying that people at opposite ends of the spectrum don't mesh well in the same game. Someone whose only army is DV and DV expansion and plays once a month can't compete with someone who owns $50,000 in models that they've collected over the last 20 years, and who has read every rulebook and plays ten games a week.

Why can't they? Since when did owning all the right models actually matter to how a game for fun is played?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Why can't they? Since when did owning all the right models actually matter to how a game for fun is played?

Because options are power, and GW's starter sets often have weak unit choices. The DV player will have a poorly-optimized mix of random units built from a very limited supply of models, and may or may not have basic tools like melta guns, AA, etc, that are not included in the starter set. And because of their lack of experience they are likely to struggle with understanding how the rules work or what makes a good strategy. The experienced player, on the other hand, will have a well-practiced list drawn from all of the possible options and will know far more about how to win the game even with a weaker list. If you're playing against someone with such an extremely limited budget you have two choices:

1) Make a conscious effort to cripple your own list so that the both players have a roughly equal chance of winning, which probably means abandoning your army's theme, not getting to use your favorite units, etc. In fact, you might even have to go out and buy new stuff just to bring yourself down to their level. And on top of that you'll probably have to deliberately make bad choices to get your units killed/stay too far away and fail charges/etc to make up for their mistakes, which also isn't much fun.

or

2) Crush them utterly in a game that won't be any fun for either player.

Not that this is a problem unique to 40k, of course. Any game where there is a basic starter set and most of the game's content is bought separately is going to run into problems when you try to deal with players who only buy the starter set, simply because you can't balance a situation with such a huge difference in access to options. It's not really even worth trying, you just have to accept that playing beyond your first intro games has a price tag attached and focus on matchups between players that have "real" armies/decks/whatever.

 Peregrine wrote:
Not really. It has a larger total number of sculpts than other games, but the quality of each model isn't all that impressive. So it really depends on what you want to collect: if you want to get a huge collection of decent models then 40k is great. If you want to collect a smaller number of models but have each of them be an awesome centerpiece then 40k kind of sucks.

That's a very subjective statement. Personally, being someone who buys about half of the PP new releases and a quarter of the GW new releases, it is my personal opinion that new GW models are superior to new PP models. And, GW has far superior centerpiece models. There is nothing to compare with Voidraven, Revenant Titan, Baneblade, Treeman ancient, Wood elf Dragon, Nagash, etc. In other game universes, from a purely modelling perspective.

I feel that in a different "gaming era" it served it's purpose as a casual game. Currently.. not as much so but many of us make do because of a love of the "mythos" and imagery (and for many of us, nostalgia). Top that off with it being one of the largest games with finding opponents easiest and , well, there ya have it. For many, better to make do than go without.
That is why a couple buddies and I are looking into DUST (FF super sale REALLY helped a lot. $9.00 for a $45 model kinda helped out lol) We now all 3 have fully playable armies that we can add to as we move forward.

What gets me is not that people dont like the rules. Heck, we had questions in RT. What gets me is the attitude of the "complainers". I made a point earlier about how different playstyles attracts different sorts of players. My example was that the sit and shoot armies usually sttract one type of player who is more laid back while the in your face assaulty playstyle usually sttracts that sort of player. So that when the shooty armies are weak, those players make do and muddle through while when the assaulty armies are weakened, those players take different and more vocal action.
I dont think that the fact that the current "complainers" are more vocal makes them more numerous, I think it makes them "louder".
Of course, thats my view and others disagree. Just thought I would explain why I think that.

What gets me though (back on track) is not that theycomplain but that they take every opportunity possible to shoehorn in the complaints even in threads where it is not related...

*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."

Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.
Another is the argumentativeness just for the sake of it. Say for example someone says that they dont like the rules but dont think they are QUITE as bad as described for X reason and since the person likes the fluff anyway, they will keep playing. The complainers do everything possible to discredit and flame/troll at that person simply because they arent on the bandwagon. This makes the vast majority of people afraid to voice any opinion at all for fear of repercussions.
Id say, if someone doesnt agree 100%, the complainers should accept that and not spend 12 pages trying to argue and ridicule every little point.
there are shades of grey and much of it is opinion based. Even the results of things that arent opinion based are usually based on preferences and opinions.
For example, I feel that chess is much more balanced than 40k. I can play chess and am decent at it (well, I used to be) but I dont play it because I find it bland and boring. My opinions and preferences cause me to go against what someone else would say would be facts that they feel would make it a "better game".
The I must be 100% right 100% of the time attitude is, to me, much like the "WAAC" attitude that is discussed so often in gaming and I see it here (in discussions, not this locale) MUCH more often than I see on the tabletop.
It isnt that bad to be wrong once in a while just as it is ok to not be 100% right 100% of the time. Trust me. I'm wrong often enough and I found out years ago it's easier to just admit it or acknowledge that both sides can be "right" based on preferred perspective.
We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.

 Peregrine wrote:


Not that this is a problem unique to 40k, of course. Any game where there is a basic starter set and most of the game's content is bought separately is going to run into problems when you try to deal with players who only buy the starter set, simply because you can't balance a situation with such a huge difference in access to options. It's not really even worth trying, you just have to accept that playing beyond your first intro games has a price tag attached and focus on matchups between players that have "real" armies/decks/whatever.

This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.

There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."

Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.

If your point was that the level of complaining tends to get blown all out of proportion by those complaining about the complainers... then yes, I can see where you're coming from.

We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.

Who are you referring to as the 'we' here?

If you're talking about gamers, from my experience most of the 'looking down upon' comes from gamers themselves. The vast majority of the rest of the world couldn't care less what you do with your spare time, and being nerdy is far less of a social stigma than it used to be.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."

Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.

If your point was that the level of complaining tends to get blown all out of proportion by those complaining about the complainers... then yes, I can see where you're coming from.

We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.

Who are you referring to as the 'we' here?

If you're talking about gamers, from my experience most of the 'looking down upon' comes from gamers themselves. The vast majority of the rest of the world couldn't care less what you do with your spare time, and being nerdy is far less of a social stigma than it used to be.

On the first, your spot on to what I was getting at in terms f people complaining. Those complaining about the complainers are almost as bad but not quite. The example was exagerated, but not by a whole lot I was trying to make a funny example to lighten the atmosphere a lil bit. like I said, I dont mind the complaining overmuch except when it gets out of hand and the attitude of the complainers. I complained when the balance went the other way, but I did it in moderation and with respect for others which we simply rarely see now..
With "we", I did mean gamers in general. I admit, my stance on that may be slanted more than a little bit. i grew up in a small town where everyone gossips and loves to have a scapegoat. during the 80s when if you listened to heavy metal and played D&D or any of theat genre of games you were branded as a satanist. I listened to Twisted Sister and Iron Maiden and was an avid gamer so.... It was bad enough i literally had to watch for gangs of "rednecks" trying to jump me in parking lots, forget about trying to find a job in town ect. So it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Your right the "stigma" isnt near what it used to be and we are now usually only considered geeks. I also agree with you that "we" catch MUCH more flack from each other than from non-gamers. often times, we are even held in esteem as 'knowing things" or being good at math or history or whatever but it usually seems, to me at least, as though we arent treated as full equals even then. Regardless, I may not be fully right on that but either way, it still stands to reason we shouldnt be putting one another down and should still try to get along with one another and accept our differences of opinions and perspectives.

You use the "branded as a satanist" line a lot EVIL.

Are you sure it was the music and RPGs, or maybe it was the goat sacrifice and cavorting naked around bonfires at midnight?

Talys wrote:
This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.

There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.

Except, as I said, this only applies to extreme cases where one player is limited to almost nothing and the other player isn't. Better games very quickly get rid of this problem once both players have at least a reasonable ability to buy new stuff, while 40k continues to have problems with it until you spend thousands of dollars on building a collection.

Talys wrote:
That's a very subjective statement. Personally, being someone who buys about half of the PP new releases and a quarter of the GW new releases, it is my personal opinion that new GW models are superior to new PP models. And, GW has far superior centerpiece models. There is nothing to compare with Voidraven, Revenant Titan, Baneblade, Treeman ancient, Wood elf Dragon, Nagash, etc. In other game universes, from a purely modelling perspective.

Yes, as you said, it's your subjective opinion. I'm glad you've admitted it now and backed off from your previous statement (which I was responding to in the post you quoted) that, from the point of view of someone who cares primarily about modeling and painting, GW's products are objectively superior.

And by "centerpiece" I'm talking about the difference between painting a whole plastic tactical squad vs. a single high-end resin character model, not just really big stuff. Most of GW's advantage in the modeling/painting side of the hobby depends on a "bigger is better" attitude that wants huge armies with huge models in them. If you instead want individual works of art then GW is a lot less appealing.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You use the "branded as a satanist" line a lot EVIL.

Are you sure it was the music and RPGs, or maybe it was the goat sacrifice and cavorting naked around bonfires at midnight?

Im unsure of your age and dont want to know it. The culture in the U.S. during that period of time might have been a little different from what you had in the U.K.
We had druggies playing D&D and killing themselves. Rather than admit their kids had drug problems or social issues, the parents blamed the games and the music. We had tv stars like geraldo rivera (or however it's spelled) doing big specials talling the U.S. how the games were satanic and destroying our youth". Small towns had churches with great power and charismatic preachers preaching this in church. We had schoolteachers actually teaching in classes. Drunken rednecks used it as an excuse to jump those weaker than themselves.
Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.
This might not haave been as big an issuee in many areas but ii can tell you that in my area, thhis attitude was strong.
we could discuss it in detail and I could give more details wof what I went through during this time just as i'm sure others could too. That may be an idea for a different thread in a different section of the forum. making light of it I feel is insulting and in pooor taste, most definately not polite IMO.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You use the "branded as a satanist" line a lot EVIL.

Are you sure it was the music and RPGs, or maybe it was the goat sacrifice and cavorting naked around bonfires at midnight?

You mean that's not how most people spend their average Wednesday night?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.

There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.

Except, as I said, this only applies to extreme cases where one player is limited to almost nothing and the other player isn't. Better games very quickly get rid of this problem once both players have at least a reasonable ability to buy new stuff, while 40k continues to have problems with it until you spend thousands of dollars on building a collection.

This I agree with. I had a couple of people I work with ask about starting the game, but gave up the idea very quickly when they realized how much it would take to get to an average sized army. The entry point for GW is to the point where it's not even worth it for most people.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.

Woosh.

Also, Azrael's age is proudly displayed in his profile info.

Old fart that he is.