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.
2015/02/03 21:34:22
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
MWHistorian wrote: I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.
I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.
Alot of this depends on where you play. Club or group of friends casual play typically doesn't experience this becauses it normally gets stomped out quickly, but pick up games at FLGS in my area are often notorious for it.
I've played a few places and the ones who had that mindset for casual games where the same ones who played 'Ard Boys and the like.
2015/02/03 21:35:49
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Vaktathi wrote: O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.
A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.
Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.
I would posit that if you have to rebuild and tailor an army to respond to a single unit (assuming such is reasonably possible), something is wrong with that unit, particularly when quality of fire means relatively little due to its save mechanics.
Really here, we're doing far too much defense of poor game design, and basically telling people "L2P" instead of acknowledging the legitimate game design failure present.Yeah, there's things you can try to do to adapt, but the raw level of firepower we're talking about here is unavailable to many armies to have a chance of dealing with the Wraiths before they get to do their thing, particularly if they want to retain other critical capabilities that you would need for a general "Take All Comers" list.
I mean, yeah, I could roll up to a table with nine Leman Russ Punishers and that'd deal with Wraiths, but then that's three quarters of my army dedicated to that role and almost nothing left for engaging other threats.
You mean propose something that we've been seeing since 40k launched and has been a pretty big part of tournament meta forever?
It's not a casual play issue because you can control what you will play and bring. It's a competitive issue. Which is an issue the game has had forever.
I'm not saying the game can't or shouldn't be better, but the fact is that for the majority of players it's not a real issue.
Hrm, I'm would argue that.
My local "casual" meta and tournament meta aren't too different, my chief Necron opponent routinely ran 12-18 Wraiths in the last book in casual games with the last book. My only recourse really is to turn down playing him in general, which isn't good for either of us, or the game. Having played in multiple cities and multiple states, such isn't uncommon.
Such things really do have absolutely real effects outside of tournaments.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/02/03 21:38:20
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
MWHistorian wrote: The problem is, "casual" means different things to different people.
different that 5 minutes of conversation before the game couldn't fix. Either your ideas are too far apart, and you both move off to play a more enjoyable matchup, or you agree and both have a good game.
2015/02/03 21:39:08
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
MWHistorian wrote: The problem is, "casual" means different things to different people.
different that 5 minutes of conversation before the game couldn't fix. Either your ideas are too far apart, and you both move off to play a more enjoyable matchup, or you agree and both have a good game.
This is a fallacious argument. These mythical "other games" regularly don't exist in the real world, often the choice is play the list in front of you or go home.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Er, no it isn't? You ask 'would you mind using less Wave Serpents so we have a more enjoyable game?' (asking to drop them completely is unreasonable, I feel). Either they say yes, in which case you play, or they say no, in which case you play someone else. You're never obliged to play.
MWHistorian wrote: The problem is, "casual" means different things to different people.
different that 5 minutes of conversation before the game couldn't fix. Either your ideas are too far apart, and you both move off to play a more enjoyable matchup, or you agree and both have a good game.
This is a fallacious argument. These mythical "other games" regularly don't exist in the real world, often the choice is play the list in front of you or go home.
Well, to me at least, I'd rather go home that play a game that's a predetermined conclusion. At least that way, you're not wasting the time. Of course, that's always your call to make, whether you'd rather spend 2 hours getting stomped and having no fun or doing something more constructive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/03 21:43:36
2015/02/03 21:46:41
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Vaktathi wrote: O_o
I guess my response to that would be the problem lies with the poor game design and lack of functional playtesting resulting in clearly overpowered units that result in one-sided games rather than it being the fault of players getting discouraged or fatalistic as a result of these issues. Hand-waving away issues by and blaming people for recognizing and acknowledging said issues is a somewhat silly response.
A silly response is to not re-evaluate your army and look at possible ways to deal with a new threat and instead jumping on the "everything is ruined train" right out of the gate.
Knee jerk responses like that aren't a healthy response.
I would posit that if you have to rebuild and tailor an army to respond to a single unit (assuming such is reasonably possible), something is wrong with that unit, particularly when quality of fire means relatively little due to its save mechanics.
Really here, we're doing far too much defense of poor game design, and basically telling people "L2P" instead of acknowledging the legitimate game design failure present.Yeah, there's things you can try to do to adapt, but the raw level of firepower we're talking about here is unavailable to many armies to have a chance of dealing with the Wraiths before they get to do their thing, particularly if they want to retain other critical capabilities that you would need for a general "Take All Comers" list.
I mean, yeah, I could roll up to a table with nine Leman Russ Punishers and that'd deal with Wraiths, but then that's three quarters of my army dedicated to that role and almost nothing left for engaging other threats.
You mean propose something that we've been seeing since 40k launched and has been a pretty big part of tournament meta forever?
It's not a casual play issue because you can control what you will play and bring. It's a competitive issue. Which is an issue the game has had forever.
I'm not saying the game can't or shouldn't be better, but the fact is that for the majority of players it's not a real issue.
Hrm, I'm would argue that.
My local "casual" meta and tournament meta aren't too different, my chief Necron opponent routinely ran 12-18 Wraiths in the last book in casual games with the last book. My only recourse really is to turn down playing him in general, which isn't good for either of us, or the game. Having played in multiple cities and multiple states, such isn't uncommon.
Such things really do have absolutely real effects outside of tournaments.
But both yours and his is sort of anecdotal evidence. I mean, we can only ASSUME that casual play doesn't suffer the same issues as tournament play in terms of list tailoring/power lists. I mean, I can toss my own experiences in here, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything, except that I have an EXCELLENT local meta where we all happen to be very like minded with a few very rare instances, but those were not enough to stop us from playing those specific people.
We'd have to do a global poll to find out the true state of affairs, if casual and tournament play suffer the same issues. I'm not saying that the game's lack of direction DOESN'T have a bigger effect that we might think, or that it might NOT have as much of an effect as we might think. Because...we can only base our assumptions on our personal experiences and what the vocal minority says on the interwebs.
Also, I like potatoes.
2015/02/03 21:47:18
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
MWHistorian wrote: The problem is, "casual" means different things to different people.
different that 5 minutes of conversation before the game couldn't fix. Either your ideas are too far apart, and you both move off to play a more enjoyable matchup, or you agree and both have a good game.
This is a fallacious argument. These mythical "other games" regularly don't exist in the real world, often the choice is play the list in front of you or go home.
Well, to me at least, I'd rather go home that play a game that's a predetermined conclusion. At least that way, you're not wasting the time. Of course, that's always your call to make, whether you'd rather spend 2 hours getting stomped and having no fun or doing something more constructive.
No, you are, and petrol, possibly parking charges or other transport costs etc., what if you've arranged a babysitter even? Plus any time you've spent working on a list (although I guess you could called that deferred if you ran the same list the next time you played.)
Plus, what if you have a busy life and you don't often get a chance to game at all? You still just pack up and go home?
It's all well and good to say "I'd just go home" but that really fails to account for a multitude of factors that make that decision less black and white.
All of which disappear if GW actually took a proactive approach to managing their fething game and at least made the effort to nerf the worst offenders to try and keep as many units close to that midline of performance as possible.
EDIT Changed your post while I was responding didn't you, you little tinker?
I'll let my original response stand.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/03 21:49:58
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I'm not usually one to defend GW, but the 7th ed codices have been much better in terms of balance. Yeah, I don't think the BA or DE codices are very good, but they aren't in as big of a hole against other 7th ed codices as they are against C:SM, Eldar, or Tau.
I expect to beat SW about 1/3 times with BA as it stands. I don't expect to beat Eldar ever with BA, even with the dice gods. That's a big change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/03 21:50:51
2015/02/03 21:58:00
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Martel732 wrote: I'm not usually one to defend GW, but the 7th ed codices have been much better in terms of balance. Yeah, I don't think the BA or DE codices are very good, but they aren't in as big of a hole against other 7th ed codices as they are against C:SM, Eldar, or Tau.
I expect to beat SW about 1/3 times with BA as it stands. I don't expect to beat Eldar ever with BA, even with the dice gods. That's a big change.
That would be okay, but it looks like Necrons might have broken that trend already.
2015/02/03 21:58:22
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
No, you are, and petrol, possibly parking charges or other transport costs etc., what if you've arranged a babysitter even? Plus any time you've spent working on a list (although I guess you could called that deferred if you ran the same list the next time you played.)
Plus, what if you have a busy life and you don't often get a chance to game at all? You still just pack up and go home?
It's all well and good to say "I'd just go home" but that really fails to account for a multitude of factors that make that decision less black and white.
All of which disappear if GW actually took a proactive approach to managing their fething game and at least made the effort to nerf the worst offenders to try and keep as many units close to that midline of performance as possible.
EDIT Changed your post while I was responding didn't you, you little tinker?
I'll let my original response stand.
Like I said in my edit (apologies for not including it in the original post, it only occured to me a clarification might be needed after hitting post), it's your decision to make, based on the factors you mention, as to whether you stay and play or pack up and go (or, if the facilities are there, spend your time doing some painting//modelling work so your trip isn't a waste). I'm fortunate in that I've never been forced to make that call, but it's in your hands when you do, to weigh up those pros and cons.
2015/02/03 21:58:58
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Er, no it isn't? You ask 'would you mind using less Wave Serpents so we have a more enjoyable game?' (asking to drop them completely is unreasonable, I feel). Either they say yes, in which case you play, or they say no, in which case you play someone else. You're never obliged to play.
The issue is that they're the only dedicated transport the army has, and many units don't really work without them, especially in 1500-2000pt games. You'd have to build an entirely different army if you wanted to go without Wave Serpents in many cases.
But both yours and his is sort of anecdotal evidence. I mean, we can only ASSUME that casual play doesn't suffer the same issues as tournament play in terms of list tailoring/power lists. I mean, I can toss my own experiences in here, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything, except that I have an EXCELLENT local meta where we all happen to be very like minded with a few very rare instances, but those were not enough to stop us from playing those specific people.
We'd have to do a global poll to find out the true state of affairs, if casual and tournament play suffer the same issues. I'm not saying that the game's lack of direction DOESN'T have a bigger effect that we might think, or that it might NOT have as much of an effect as we might think. Because...we can only base our assumptions on our personal experiences and what the vocal minority says on the interwebs.
Also, I like potatoes.
Regardless, as MWHistorian pointed out, it's a lame choice to have to make, and a failure of game design that could easily have been avoided (unless the rules are being sales-driven), and *is* largely avoided in most other games.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/02/03 22:43:04
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
No, you are, and petrol, possibly parking charges or other transport costs etc., what if you've arranged a babysitter even? Plus any time you've spent working on a list (although I guess you could called that deferred if you ran the same list the next time you played.)
Plus, what if you have a busy life and you don't often get a chance to game at all? You still just pack up and go home?
It's all well and good to say "I'd just go home" but that really fails to account for a multitude of factors that make that decision less black and white.
All of which disappear if GW actually took a proactive approach to managing their fething game and at least made the effort to nerf the worst offenders to try and keep as many units close to that midline of performance as possible.
EDIT Changed your post while I was responding didn't you, you little tinker?
I'll let my original response stand.
Like I said in my edit (apologies for not including it in the original post, it only occured to me a clarification might be needed after hitting post), it's your decision to make, based on the factors you mention, as to whether you stay and play or pack up and go (or, if the facilities are there, spend your time doing some painting//modelling work so your trip isn't a waste). I'm fortunate in that I've never been forced to make that call, but it's in your hands when you do, to weigh up those pros and cons.
I don't think anyone would ever argue that you always have the right to not play - I just wanted to make the point that for many people it isn't simply a question of "does this person's list equate to a fun game for me to play with mine?" and if the game was better maintained, it would be a non-issue anyway.
Personally, I've taken a hiatus from 40K since before Xmas and concentrated on playing X Wing. Partially because, on top of having to transport all the models, books etc, I play daemons and I was fed up with all the bookkeeping, so games just felt like this enormous logistical exercise and partially because of one player who refuses to bring anything other than his tournament Serpent spam list to our club, week in, week out, despite mine and several others attempts to tease, cajole and persuade him to mix things up (he did, but then he didn't win and got mad and went back to playing easy mode.)
Now I'm big enough and ugly enough to take losing on the chin, but because of the dynamics of the regular group, if I avoid playing him, I regularly end up playing either the same guy week in week out, or not playing at all. So my choice is be bored playing against a dull list, or play the same guys over and over.
I choose X Wing!
This is the reality of gaming for many people. I had a small group of friends who we played at each other's houses back in 2ed days, and I still view that with a real sense of nostalgia (even if I did occasionally have to duck the odd metal dread hurled in anger!) and 40K still fundamentally works in that environment, but these days if I wish to get my gaming fix I have to negotiate with people who don't approach it the same way as I do, heck sometimes with people who I wouldn't even choose to spend time with in other circumstances.
I suspect my experiences are fairly typical, and why "move on to the next guy" is not always a possibility and "don't play this guy" isn't always an easy choice.
We'd have to do a global poll to find out the true state of affairs, if casual and tournament play suffer the same issues. I'm not saying that the game's lack of direction DOESN'T have a bigger effect that we might think, or that it might NOT have as much of an effect as we might think. Because...we can only base our assumptions on our personal experiences and what the vocal minority says on the interwebs.
.
We kind of do have a global poll, it's called the last three financial reports.
Revenue and profit doesn't fall of many happy gamers are falling over themselves to buy your product, whatever the reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/03 22:46:49
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
No, you are, and petrol, possibly parking charges or other transport costs etc., what if you've arranged a babysitter even? Plus any time you've spent working on a list (although I guess you could called that deferred if you ran the same list the next time you played.)
Plus, what if you have a busy life and you don't often get a chance to game at all? You still just pack up and go home?
It's all well and good to say "I'd just go home" but that really fails to account for a multitude of factors that make that decision less black and white.
All of which disappear if GW actually took a proactive approach to managing their fething game and at least made the effort to nerf the worst offenders to try and keep as many units close to that midline of performance as possible.
EDIT Changed your post while I was responding didn't you, you little tinker?
I'll let my original response stand.
Like I said in my edit (apologies for not including it in the original post, it only occured to me a clarification might be needed after hitting post), it's your decision to make, based on the factors you mention, as to whether you stay and play or pack up and go (or, if the facilities are there, spend your time doing some painting//modelling work so your trip isn't a waste). I'm fortunate in that I've never been forced to make that call, but it's in your hands when you do, to weigh up those pros and cons.
I don't think anyone would ever argue that you always have the right to not play - I just wanted to make the point that for many people it isn't simply a question of "does this person's list equate to a fun game for me to play with mine?" and if the game was better maintained, it would be a non-issue anyway.
Personally, I've taken a hiatus from 40K since before Xmas and concentrated on playing X Wing. Partially because, on top of having to transport all the models, books etc, I play daemons and I was fed up with all the bookkeeping, so games just felt like this enormous logistical exercise and partially because of one player who refuses to bring anything other than his tournament Serpent spam list to our club, week in, week out, despite mine and several others attempts to tease, cajole and persuade him to mix things up (he did, but then he didn't win and got mad and went back to playing easy mode.)
Now I'm big enough and ugly enough to take losing on the chin, but because of the dynamics of the regular group, if I avoid playing him, I regularly end up playing either the same guy week in week out, or not playing at all. So my choice is be bored playing against a dull list, or play the same guys over and over.
I choose X Wing!
This is the reality of gaming for many people. I had a small group of friends who we played at each other's houses back in 2ed days, and I still view that with a real sense of nostalgia (even if I did occasionally have to duck the odd metal dread hurled in anger!) and 40K still fundamentally works in that environment, but these days if I wish to get my gaming fix I have to negotiate with people who don't approach it the same way as I do, heck sometimes with people who I wouldn't even choose to spend time with in other circumstances.
I suspect my experiences are fairly typical, and why "move on to the next guy" is not always a possibility and "don't play this guy" isn't always an easy choice.
We'd have to do a global poll to find out the true state of affairs, if casual and tournament play suffer the same issues. I'm not saying that the game's lack of direction DOESN'T have a bigger effect that we might think, or that it might NOT have as much of an effect as we might think. Because...we can only base our assumptions on our personal experiences and what the vocal minority says on the interwebs.
.
We kind of do have a global poll, it's called the last three financial reports.
Revenue and profit doesn't fall of many happy gamers are falling over themselves to buy your product, whatever the reasons.
Their financial report has no bearing on the state of casual/tournament play as a general whole.
2015/02/04 01:57:44
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Their financial report has no bearing on the state of casual/tournament play as a general whole.
If GW's revenues have been falling since releasing two editions of 40k, coupled with a rise in prices and rapid release of products, its not unreasonable to draw certain conclusions, one of which being that casual and/or tournament play is suffering in numbers.
The why is also pretty obvious.
So unless you can explain otherwise, the financial report is an indicator of the state of 40k as a whole.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/02/04 02:13:30
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Their financial report has no bearing on the state of casual/tournament play as a general whole.
If GW's revenues have been falling since releasing two editions of 40k, coupled with a rise in prices and rapid release of products, its not unreasonable to draw certain conclusions, one of which being that casual and/or tournament play is suffering in numbers.
The why is also pretty obvious.
So unless you can explain otherwise, the financial report is an indicator of the state of 40k as a whole.
The post I was referencing too from the start has nothing to do with financials, has nothing to do with the NUMBERS when it comes to casual or tournament play. We were discussing the difference between the metas in our areas and how we have no way to determine the overall satisfaction with the codecies/rules on a casual or tournament level. Yes, sales could indicate that there isn't much new blood in the mix, but that doesn't indicate current satisfaction with the edition as it stands on a global scale. It just means people are not buying as much, either due to already having what they need, or not changing their army up, or possibly not happy with the edition. But we would further then need a poll on WHY we aren't buying, which again, isn't what I was discussing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 02:18:30
2015/02/04 02:19:38
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
The post I was referencing too has nothing to do with financials, has nothing to do with the NUMBERS when it comes to casual or tournament play. We were discussing the difference between the metas in our areas and how we have no way to determine the overall satisfaction with the codecies/rules on a casual or tournament level. Yes, sales could indicate that there isn't much new blood in the mix, but that doesn't indicate current satisfaction with the edition as it stands on a global scale. It just means people are not buying as much, either due to already having what they need, or not changing their army up, or possibly not happy with the edition. But we would further then need a poll on WHY we aren't buying, which again, isn't what I was discussing.
And now why do you think people would be buying less of their product?
Do you think its because they're happy with the product?
Or because they're not happy with the product?
Yes, a massive poll would be better, but we did have a petition recently that garnered some 10k signatures about making changes to 40k/GW products. I'd hardly call that insignificant.
The financials of a company like GW can give valuable insight into the overall feeling for their products. If most players were happy, I feel logic would dictate that sales/revenue would be increasing. The reverse is likely also true. Given the data we have, and compiling anecdotal and smaller bits of data, the picture it paints is not one of a happy 40k playerbase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 02:20:34
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/02/04 02:39:48
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
The post I was referencing too has nothing to do with financials, has nothing to do with the NUMBERS when it comes to casual or tournament play. We were discussing the difference between the metas in our areas and how we have no way to determine the overall satisfaction with the codecies/rules on a casual or tournament level. Yes, sales could indicate that there isn't much new blood in the mix, but that doesn't indicate current satisfaction with the edition as it stands on a global scale. It just means people are not buying as much, either due to already having what they need, or not changing their army up, or possibly not happy with the edition. But we would further then need a poll on WHY we aren't buying, which again, isn't what I was discussing.
And now why do you think people would be buying less of their product?
Do you think its because they're happy with the product?
Or because they're not happy with the product?
Yes, a massive poll would be better, but we did have a petition recently that garnered some 10k signatures about making changes to 40k/GW products. I'd hardly call that insignificant.
The financials of a company like GW can give valuable insight into the overall feeling for their products. If most players were happy, I feel logic would dictate that sales/revenue would be increasing. The reverse is likely also true. Given the data we have, and compiling anecdotal and smaller bits of data, the picture it paints is not one of a happy 40k playerbase.
Again, I think you are not reading what I'm posting. Or perhaps I am simply not phrasing things correctly. Sales has nothing to do with the previous discussion I was originally trying to partake in. Both Clockwork and Vaktathi used anecdotal evidence on what 'casual' and 'competitive' metas were like right now. Which isn't a good indicator on what the metas are actually like. To which I was responding that we cannot apply our personal experiences as the general consensus. Sales figures are indicative of totally different things.
The sales do not identify if the casuals or competitives are satisfied with how the game is now. Sales can be stagnant or dropping because of more than just customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Prices in general are a dampener. I'm happy with the game as it is right now. Some would like to think I'm a fool for doing so, but I play casual, with a pure casual crowd, all of whom are a close group. So, I'm happy with everything as it is.
But just because I'm happy with the state of the game DOESN'T mean I'm buying more product from GW. Why? Because 1.) It's expensive and 2.) Because I don't NEED anything else from them. I play one army. I have my books. I have everything I really need for my army, sans a single plane that I'll buy from them this week, but that's the only model I've purchased direct from them in over a year. Not buying doesn't mean I'm not satisfied. It just means I don't have the cash to buy direct.
Edit: There are too many factors to take into account than to just look at the number and assume that their sales = customer dissatisfaction. That's only one factor. Some don't need anything else for their army/list. Others aren't starting new armies because they can't afford too. Some just can't afford to buy new stuff nearly as often. Others ARE unhappy with the game so opt not to buy anything at all. The list goes on. What we know is sales ARE dropping. We just don't know the exact reasons. There are too many to blanket statement as 'everyone is unhappy'
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 02:53:31
2015/02/04 02:59:34
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
GW were growing,YoY, despite prevailing economic conditions suggesting they shouldn't.
GW are now shrinking, despite prevailing economic conditions suggesting they shouldn't. (As well as consistent reports that their sector specifically is growing healthily.)
We have, as Blacksails mentioned, the signature with what was, ultimately 13k or so signatures.
Occam's razor is in effect.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
MWHistorian wrote: I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.
I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.
Indeed. If you were facing defeats of that manitude, then the chances are your opponent or their list were not 'casual'. If both players are approaching a game with the same mindset (the product of communication), be that casual or competitive, they both know what to expect and the game should be fine.
The problem is that even in casual games (one could argue especially in casual games, since casual gamers are likely unworried about balance) it's entirely possible for people to like armies of radically different power levels.
What happens when a guy likes Imperial Knighs or a themed Mechdar force (which has to be full of Wave Serpents) and the other guy likes SM foot gunline for example, or DA Deathwing?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 05:28:56
2015/02/04 05:22:08
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
Casual gamers are just as worried about balance as any other gamer. Nobody wants to invest hundreds of hours into buying, building, and painting an army built around a great background concept in adherence with the background just for it to get curbstomped every time it sees play. That's not really fun for anyone.
Particularly when fluffy really should equate to some sort of effectiveness, as these fluff forces operate in those specified manners precisely because of their effective functionality.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/02/04 05:42:48
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
I still can't believe that their's a dissonance that only Timmy Power Gamers want a balanced game. And it's quite obvious, in a period of the highest volume releases in GW's history, to include an entire revamp of their premiere game with two rules revisions (and the highest costing rules in the industry), that through all that the financial results show massive down turn. Down turn through all that having stealth price increases across the board to boot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 05:43:54
Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb
2015/02/04 13:05:58
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
MWHistorian wrote: I say it's more of an issue with casual gammers. I was a casual and was tired of getting rolled by armies I really had no chance of beating. I'm not a win or go home kind of guy, but for me to have fun, I need a fair chance of victory or it becomes pointless.
I've seen very little of the "spam the most powerful thing over and over" from casual lists like I do in competitive lists.
Alot of this depends on where you play. Club or group of friends casual play typically doesn't experience this becauses it normally gets stomped out quickly, but pick up games at FLGS in my area are often notorious for it.
It's all well and good to say "I'd just go home" but that really fails to account for a multitude of factors that make that decision less black and white.
All of which disappear if GW actually took a proactive approach to managing their fething game and at least made the effort to nerf the worst offenders to try and keep as many units close to that midline of performance as possible.
So you are asking of GW that they make their game so fool proof that it's impossible that people end up disagreeing and having bad experiences ?
Why not ask god directly to make life only about good experiences ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Casual gamers are just as worried about balance as any other gamer. Nobody wants to invest hundreds of hours into buying, building, and painting an army built around a great background concept in adherence with the background just for it to get curbstomped every time it sees play. That's not really fun for anyone.
Particularly when fluffy really should equate to some sort of effectiveness, as these fluff forces operate in those specified manners precisely because of their effective functionality.
The thing is that casual gamers have no clue what balance is because they don't play competitively.
They are, by far, way more concerned about balance somehow as I don't remember hearing a fraction of the whine that I hear from self-identified casuals from tournament players (and it's the same on these forums).
And you thus end up with Blood Angels players whining because they don't want to build an army that can handle their friends' mechdar, even though they're not in a tournament and thus do not have the obligation to run a TAC list.
Why are they ruining their fun ? I have no idea.
Why do they want to ruin others' fun ? I have no idea.
There are even solutions to enable a fun game with lists having a vastly different power level (most lists in 40K to the exception of the competitive ones which are a lot closer to each other) but nobody's looking for a solution, they're just running around screaming "OP, CHEESE, Eldar, Tau, WHATEVER IT'S NOT MY FAULT I'M GETTING STOMPED".
Well guess what, if you're having a bad time, maybe it's time you changed your way of doing things ?
Maybe it's time you considered either writing a proper army list OR playing with a handicap that represents your desire for a fair game while taking into account the relative power level of the flavor of list you want to run ?
In other words, dear whiners, you have all the keys to your own happiness, so stop telling us you're unhappy because we frankly don't care.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 13:20:53
2015/02/04 13:25:13
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
morgoth wrote: So you are asking of GW that they make their game so fool proof that it's impossible that people end up disagreeing and having bad experiences ?
Why not ask god directly to make life only about good experiences ?
It's funny, because just recently I prayed for exactly that. And then my friend showed up to introduce me to X-Wing! The Lord works in mysterious ways!
(sorry, stupid post deserves a stupid reply)
Battlefleet Gothic ships and markers at my store, GrimDarkBits:
2015/02/04 13:28:55
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
It's funny, because just recently I prayed for exactly that. And then my friend showed up to introduce me to X-Wing! The Lord works in mysterious ways!
(sorry, stupid post deserves a stupid reply)
Its not a stupid reply though.
It perfectly demonstrates how a balanced, well written game can avoid almost entirely the notion of lopsided bad match-ups. Just about every other popular game now achieves this goal, except for 40k.
There's a reason 40k is shrinking when every other game is growing.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2015/02/04 13:32:05
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?
It's funny, because just recently I prayed for exactly that. And then my friend showed up to introduce me to X-Wing! The Lord works in mysterious ways!
(sorry, stupid post deserves a stupid reply)
Its not a stupid reply though.
It perfectly demonstrates how a balanced, well written game can avoid almost entirely the notion of lopsided bad match-ups. Just about every other popular game now achieves this goal, except for 40k.
There's a reason 40k is shrinking when every other game is growing.
I hear that all the time.
Show me a game that's even half as complete as 40K and has even half the number of players and no more than half the problems.
Here, I have a very simple game that doesn't have lopsided bad match-ups, it's called "flip a coin".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 13:33:04
2015/02/04 13:34:15
Subject: Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?