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.

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

You do realize that you're playing a PvP game. And the whole goal is to win.

And for 25+ years, I thought the whole goal was to have fun recreating apocalyptic scifi battles. Dang, I knew I was missing out on something.

I think the vast majority of people who play 40k enjoy the competitive aspect of playing two armies against each other and trying to win. Like every sport, every game, every activity that people play, they enjoy the structure and rules and set out to best their opponent and be labeled the champion (no matter how small that victory is)

If the game devolves to the point where you might as well make up the rules, it becomes two people holding their models up saying "I got you! No you didn't, this SM captain has a force field!" and playing imaginary isn't something I want to do with an army that costs about $500.

And my Starcraft marines never miss and have awesome dps. Kinda the reverse of Astartes.

I'll also point out that I laid down my hand on Everquest and WoW, and I'm not afraid to fold on this game as well. Regardless of investment up until this point.

 Talys wrote:

I've never in 2+ decades had a problem playing the game with actual people, who also wanted to play the game. There are tons of games out there, but not a single one that allows you to recreate large-scale, scifi themed battles with collections of models. I mean, literally, not one.

If another company had a catalogue of decent miniatures remotely the size of 40k (I mean, even 1/3 the models), and a gaming system to play hundred-plus model games, there's the possibility I'd jump ship -- but nobody else has even tried.

Nobody tries because GW has glutted the market with said miniatures. It's not a matter of making a better product, it's that competing in that arena introduces you to the inability to sell minis because people will just use 40k stuff.

The best thing for players to do if they want that setting, but not have it be garbage, is to either get the message across to GW or let them fail. Simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:


And let all my time and money spent on my armies go down the drain? Not a viable solution.

Incredibly wrong viewpoint.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:

I've never in 2+ decades had a problem playing the game with actual people, who also wanted to play the game. There are tons of games out there, but not a single one that allows you to recreate large-scale, scifi themed battles with collections of models. I mean, literally, not one.

If another company had a catalogue of decent miniatures remotely the size of 40k (I mean, even 1/3 the models), and a gaming system to play hundred-plus model games, there's the possibility I'd jump ship -- but nobody else has even tried.

Nobody tries because GW has glutted the market with said miniatures. It's not a matter of making a better product, it's that competing in that arena introduces you to the inability to sell minis because people will just use 40k stuff.

The best thing for players to do if they want that setting, but not have it be garbage, is to either get the message across to GW or let them fail. Simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:


And let all my time and money spent on my armies go down the drain? Not a viable solution.

Incredibly wrong viewpoint.

Without the sunk cost fallacy I doubt GW would even be in business today.

This thread is a joke.

 Bhazakhain wrote:
This thread is a joke.

Much like the game it's based upon. I agree.

 Accolade wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

You do realize that you're playing a PvP game. And the whole goal is to win.

And for 25+ years, I thought the whole goal was to have fun recreating apocalyptic scifi battles. Dang, I knew I was missing out on something.

I think the vast majority of people who play 40k enjoy the competitive aspect of playing two armies against each other and trying to win. Like every sport, every game, every activity that people play, they enjoy the structure and rules and set out to best their opponent and be labeled the champion (no matter how small that victory is)

If the game devolves to the point where you might as well make up the rules, it becomes two people holding their models up saying "I got you! No you didn't, this SM captain has a force field!" and playing imaginary isn't something I want to do with an army that costs about $500.

I doubt that. If it's about "besting" the other player competitively, cheap chess-sets or a set of poker-cards go for a dollar or two (and tournaments can win you millions of dollars). If I spend the kinda money 40K requires (with no pay-out or even bragging rights comparable to chess, poker, golf, etc.., for competitive events), I'm looking for spectacle and escapism, not competition.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Without the sunk cost fallacy I doubt GW would even be in business today.

But, but, collectors?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


I doubt that. If it's about "besting" the other player competitively, cheap chess-sets or a set of poker-cards go for a dollar or two (and tournaments can win you millions of dollars). If I spend the kinda money 40K requires (with no pay-out or even bragging rights comparable to chess, poker, golf, etc.., for competitive events), I'm looking for spectacle and escapism, not competition.

Then why invest in a game that requires further emotional/intellectual investment to make sure you have Fun™ versus the plenitude of others which don't require that and, likely, are much cheaper?

I wonder if there's anything stopping someone from making "WarMace 41000," just making rulebooks for factions that look suspiciously like GW factions, and then just not making models.

Just put in the rules for a unit the size of the model, and let them use what they want.

 TheKbob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Without the sunk cost fallacy I doubt GW would even be in business today.

But, but, collectors?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


I doubt that. If it's about "besting" the other player competitively, cheap chess-sets or a set of poker-cards go for a dollar or two (and tournaments can win you millions of dollars). If I spend the kinda money 40K requires (with no pay-out or even bragging rights comparable to chess, poker, golf, etc.., for competitive events), I'm looking for spectacle and escapism, not competition.

Then why invest in a game that requires further emotional/intellectual investment to make sure you have Fun™ versus the plenitude of others which don't require that and, likely, are much cheaper?

Because blowing the gak out of xenos scum and or having my Chapter master give the smack down on some MCs is awesome and I love it. And I can't do that anywhere else. If I could, I'd leave in a minute

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

You do realize that you're playing a PvP game. And the whole goal is to win.

And for 25+ years, I thought the whole goal was to have fun recreating apocalyptic scifi battles. Dang, I knew I was missing out on something.

I think the vast majority of people who play 40k enjoy the competitive aspect of playing two armies against each other and trying to win. Like every sport, every game, every activity that people play, they enjoy the structure and rules and set out to best their opponent and be labeled the champion (no matter how small that victory is)

If the game devolves to the point where you might as well make up the rules, it becomes two people holding their models up saying "I got you! No you didn't, this SM captain has a force field!" and playing imaginary isn't something I want to do with an army that costs about $500.

I doubt that. If it's about "besting" the other player competitively, cheap chess-sets or a set of poker-cards go for a dollar or two (and tournaments can win you millions of dollars). If I spend the kinda money 40K requires (with no pay-out or even bragging rights comparable to chess, poker, golf, etc.., for competitive events), I'm looking for spectacle and escapism, not competition.

But you are looking for some level of balance, yes? Don't get me wrong, I'm not equating what people want out of 40k with some sort of ruthless, cut-throat version of competition. Most 40k players are like middle-tier tennis players, they don't have the drive for the insanity of trying to play in the big leagues, but at the same time they value the balance of the game where their own decisions, strategy and technique player the biggest role in the game. Were the middle-leaguers suddenly getting an unfair advantage (let's say steroids for example), there would be a great deal of complaining and you'd start to see people dropping out because the legitimacy of the game has come into question.

Additionally, everyone enjoys a little randomness here and there, but for the game to become permeated to the point where most of your decisions come at the flip of a coin...well, I think that is one of the bigger failings of 40k today and why you see it going down in revenue generation.

And for the portion of 40k fandom who is cited as just collecting without playing the game, I say that the idea of the game at the end of the road is just as important. It's like playing an MMO from the beginning- the promise of what's to come drives people onward, and if that end-goal becomes eroded, the number of people playing will start to drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niv-mizzet wrote:
I wonder if there's anything stopping someone from making "WarMace 41000," just making rulebooks for factions that look suspiciously like GW factions, and then just not making models.

Just put in the rules for a unit the size of the model, and let them use what they want.

There's honestly not a lot to stop you from doing it. The hard part would be getting people to universally accept these rules as what they use. Heck, people spit on the idea of playing older versions of 40k like it's sacrilegious, let alone playing a whole other ruleset. It's an authority issue.

The closest thing I've seen to success with this is the Heralds of Ruin Kill-team rules. Those seem to have done well-ish because 40k's version of Kill-team is (a) poor and (b) expensive and (c) not advertised out of fear that it would leech sales from the Apoc-style 40k they've got going now.

GW is plagued with Scrub mentality, mainly because GW is bad at rules writing. It's the only game system with the "WAAC" attitude towards someone trying to build the best army out of their book. In every other game, that's called strategy. In 40k, it's being TFG. So yes, my stance stands.

Wierd cos I have found exactly the same thing playing:

Judge Dredd
ACTA
Malifaux
Warmachine/Hordes
Magic
Uncharted Seas
Bolt Action
Star Wars

There are always good and bad lists, styles of play, rules and people who are TFG in every system - GW just make the situaition so much worse with their poor rules /Balance. IF 40K wa gone all the those WAAC / TFG players just find something new in which they can argue every minor detail and rule point over and cheese their way to victory regardless of the envrionment..................

On the other hand at our club we now mostly have fun with adapting 40K (and other systems) to a level or style that suits us.

its not perfect - but it never will be with ANY system.

"its not perfect - but it never will be with ANY system. "

There are degrees of imperfection, though.

Martel732 wrote:
"its not perfect - but it never will be with ANY system. "

There are degrees of imperfection, though.

Oh agreed - GW do seem to be trying their hardest to screw over the game..........nice models and love the background but the Eldar Codex is just a kick in the teeth for everyone.

I will agree with others who are more pro-40k and say this: the most reent Skitarii release was, to me, largely a success. They priced the rangers fairly, the book was better-priced and not game-breaking, and the esthetics were good. The walkers were a bit on the expensive side (especially for what they could do in the game), but overall I saw it favorably, more so than the Harlequin release which I saw as okay.

With this Eldar release- well, I like the models but good God they made a mess of the rules. I'm surprised they didn't learn from WHFB 7th edition Daemons, whose imbalance helped bring about the demise of the whole damn game!

 Mr Morden wrote:


Wierd cos I have found exactly the same thing playing:

Judge Dredd
ACTA
Malifaux
Warmachine/Hordes
Magic
Uncharted Seas
Bolt Action
Star Wars

There are always good and bad lists, styles of play, rules and people who are TFG in every system - GW just make the situaition so much worse with their poor rules /Balance. IF 40K wa gone all the those WAAC / TFG players just find something new in which they can argue every minor detail and rule point over and cheese their way to victory regardless of the envrionment..................

On the other hand at our club we now mostly have fun with adapting 40K (and other systems) to a level or style that suits us.

its not perfect - but it never will be with ANY system.

No, it's not. There are scrubs in every game, yes. Those who think things are overpowered because they're either bad players, on a limited budget, or fail to comprehend list building strategy. But all of those games, the ones I have played at least, do no fail in the rules development or game play departments anywhere near as bad as GW. Even insinuating as such shows huge naivete.

A jerk of a player will be a jerk in any system. Playing to win is not synonymous with being a jerk. All those games, at least the ones I play, are built on bringing your A game, not your B tier, calling it "fluffy" and then complaining because you lost because X, Y, Z is overpowered. There are bad lists, but that's the player's fault for not using correct strategy. There's not amount of rules balancing in the world that will correct this unless you play chess or mirror matches. The best balance is having near 100% of a faction be usable in lateral style choices that excel in one instance, but fail in another. You then build your list to excel in one area, as most games pivot on the notion of maximizing strengths versus shoring up weaknesses. Then, games have unique functions to mitigate said weaknesses, like Malifaux in their list building style or Warmachine with their 2 list format.

GW fails because it has neither unit parity (and unit parity changes every two years with their broken codex system) nor a system to ensure weaknesses are covered with their static list format. Given the game is now literally bring anything you want, you desperately need the latter. And the latter would ensure their's less chance of having a poor match up and making games fair.

Flat out, you're paying the most money for the most broken rules and then saying it's on the players to self-correct and self-police. And then getting mad at those who don't subscribe to your very specific style of fun. That's moronic at best and toxic at worst. If you make it work for a small group of people, huzzah! But at that point, why even spend money on the rules?

It's "All Boys Club, No Girls Allowed". Just change boys with your local group and girls with the flavor of the month release that GW broke. It so happens to be Eldar... again. The compromise should be on what game to play, not on what is or is not allowed in the confines of $100+ rules.

 TheKbob wrote:

Nobody tries because GW has glutted the market with said miniatures. It's not a matter of making a better product, it's that competing in that arena introduces you to the inability to sell minis because people will just use 40k stuff.

The best thing for players to do if they want that setting, but not have it be garbage, is to either get the message across to GW or let them fail. Simple as that.

So, to hurt GW, I should deprive myself of something I enjoy? Ummm.... I'll pass, thanks

 Talys wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

Nobody tries because GW has glutted the market with said miniatures. It's not a matter of making a better product, it's that competing in that arena introduces you to the inability to sell minis because people will just use 40k stuff.

The best thing for players to do if they want that setting, but not have it be garbage, is to either get the message across to GW or let them fail. Simple as that.

So, to hurt GW, I should deprive myself of something I enjoy? Ummm.... I'll pass, thanks

Yeah, he tried this noise on me in the rumours thread too.

 Talys wrote:

So, to hurt GW, I should deprive myself of something I enjoy? Ummm.... I'll pass, thanks

With such faulty logic, then sure, pass. Critical thinking is an actual skill that folks choose to forgo when making reasoning based upon emotion (like sunk cost fallacy). If you choose to enjoy it and do, great! Just don't ever choose to impose your fun onto others. And if you suddenly have no opponents someday because other see different, then you're not going to be able to enjoy it.

Given the downward trend of GW lately, literal in terms of financials, you should be worried more so.

Wonderwolf wrote:

I doubt that. If it's about "besting" the other player competitively, cheap chess-sets or a set of poker-cards go for a dollar or two (and tournaments can win you millions of dollars). If I spend the kinda money 40K requires (with no pay-out or even bragging rights comparable to chess, poker, golf, etc.., for competitive events), I'm looking for spectacle and escapism, not competition.

Indeed -- you've described me pretty well That, and I enjoy socializing with friends concurrent with spectacle and escapism.

For me, there are so many other, better avenues of competition than tabletop wargames, that don't have barriers such as models. Tennis, golf, poker, and computer games, for me.

 Las wrote:

Yeah, he tried this noise on me in the rumours thread too.

If you mean use logic and reasoning? Sure. If you make 40k work for you and your friends, great, you did it. Just realize there are options out there that cost less and work better. Choosing inefficiency for fun is a valid option. Many people do it every day. Just don't ever complain about the consequences.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Las wrote:

Yeah, he tried this noise on me in the rumours thread too.

If you mean use logic and reasoning? Sure. If you make 40k work for you and your friends, great, you did it. Just realize there are options out there that cost less and work better. Choosing inefficiency for fun is a valid option.

Telling people to stop enjoying something for no reason is not logical, Captain. Like I said in the other thread, you're actually allowed to enjoy 40k and other games. They don't lock you up for that.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I cannot wait for the flood of "I was just about to start a fluffy army with *enter all OP units* just by chance!" posts.

The two aren't mutually exclusive though. Now yes, spamming Jetbikes who just happen to have maxed out scatter lasers is a bit suspect, but Jetbikes alone with a variety of weapons isn't. Same with Wraiths. An all-Wraith army isn't necessarily chosen to be OP, it could just be that the player wants everything to be a Wraith unit. I know when I was considering it my army concept was no living models other than the Spiritseer, with vehicles built with closed cockpits and having wraithstones (I forget if that's what they're called) to show they were also wraith piloted.

Again: The problem with balance or lack thereof is on GW, not on the player. Someone fielding a Saim-Hann army can and should be able to field all Jetbikes, since that's their thing. If they only take scatter lasers it might be an indication that they're doing it solely for the power/cheese, but tarring and feathering anyone who takes a lot of Jetbikes with the same brush is a bit much.

I totally agree, though I think I have seen 5 people total on this forum saying they want a Saim-Hann army. Watch that number of people claim they have always wanted a Saim-Hann army though were just waiting for new models, and they just happen to have D weapon support.

 Las wrote:


Telling people to stop enjoying something for no reason is not logical, Captain.

Not my goal, Lieutenant. I'm trying to express how you're working against your own interests. There are many things in life where there are no right or wrong answers, but there are better. If you're happy spending tons of money on a plastic army manz game and then invest further effort to make it playable, go for it. It's not going to stop making GW a bad company or making a bad game. Eventually, they will piss off enough people and they will collapse. We have measurable proof of that every 6 months.

*shrug*

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:

So, to hurt GW, I should deprive myself of something I enjoy? Ummm.... I'll pass, thanks

With such faulty logic, then sure, pass. Critical thinking is an actual skill that folks choose to forgo when making reasoning based upon emotion (like sunk cost fallacy). If you choose to enjoy it and do, great! Just don't ever choose to impose your fun onto others. And if you suddenly have no opponents someday because other see different, then you're not going to be able to enjoy it.

Given the downward trend of GW lately, literal in terms of financials, you should be worried more so.

All I'm saying is, I'd rather buy models I like and play a game that I like than to "punish" GW by not buying things that are attractive to me. If GW were to go out of business tomorrow, I'd still own about 300 years worth of models to craft and paint. I'd miss new models, but maybe then I'd get to all the factions I neglect

But seriously, about the game... call it what you will, but there are far more people that approach me to play 40k -- just through word of mouth and random meets in FLGS -- than I possibly have time for, and of them, a very high percentage are pretty fun folks that I get along with. I'm not in fear of not having like-minded 40k play partners.

 Rippy wrote:

I totally agree, though I think I have seen 5 people total on this forum saying they want a Saim-Hann army. Watch that number of people claim they have always wanted a Saim-Hann army though were just waiting for new models, and they just happen to have D weapon support.

So what are you going to tell those people with already built, painted, and played Iyanden armies? "Play something else, you WAAC TRIHARD", eh?

I had an Eldar army in the pipeline before I quit that would have been made absolutely nuts by this change. From powerful to facerolling. Guess it was my fault for picking said units in a previous edition, right?

 TheKbob wrote:

 Las wrote:

Eventually, they will piss off enough people and they will collapse.

Or, you know, the other alternative... they won't. Most companies won't actually close up shop until they lose money, have no money, and can't borrow any money... in that order.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

I totally agree, though I think I have seen 5 people total on this forum saying they want a Saim-Hann army. Watch that number of people claim they have always wanted a Saim-Hann army though were just waiting for new models, and they just happen to have D weapon support.

So what are you going to tell those people with already built, painted, and played Iyanden armies? "Play something else, you WAAC TRIHARD", eh?

I had an Eldar army in the pipeline before I quit that would have been made absolutely nuts by this change. From powerful to facerolling. Guess it was my fault for picking said units in a previous edition, right?

Clam down chops, no need to get defensive over nothing. Why are you trying to pick fights with everyone?

 TheKbob wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Wierd cos I have found exactly the same thing playing:

Judge Dredd
ACTA
Malifaux
Warmachine/Hordes
Magic
Uncharted Seas
Bolt Action
Star Wars

There are always good and bad lists, styles of play, rules and people who are TFG in every system - GW just make the situaition so much worse with their poor rules /Balance. IF 40K wa gone all the those WAAC / TFG players just find something new in which they can argue every minor detail and rule point over and cheese their way to victory regardless of the envrionment..................

On the other hand at our club we now mostly have fun with adapting 40K (and other systems) to a level or style that suits us.

its not perfect - but it never will be with ANY system.

No, it's not. There are scrubs in every game, yes. Those who think things are overpowered because they're either bad players, on a limited budget, or fail to comprehend list building strategy. But all of those games, the ones I have played at least, do no fail in the rules development or game play departments anywhere near as bad as GW. Even insinuating as such shows huge naivete.

A jerk of a player will be a jerk in any system. Playing to win is not synonymous with being a jerk. All those games, at least the ones I play, are built on bringing your A game, not your B tier, calling it "fluffy" and then complaining because you lost because X, Y, Z is overpowered. There are bad lists, but that's the player's fault for not using correct strategy. There's not amount of rules balancing in the world that will correct this unless you play chess or mirror matches. The best balance is having near 100% of a faction be usable in lateral style choices that excel in one instance, but fail in another. You then build your list to excel in one area, as most games pivot on the notion of maximizing strengths versus shoring up weaknesses. Then, games have unique functions to mitigate said weaknesses, like Malifaux in their list building style or Warmachine with their 2 list format.

GW fails because it has neither unit parity (and unit parity changes every two years with their broken codex system) nor a system to ensure weaknesses are covered with their static list format. Given the game is now literally bring anything you want, you desperately need the latter. And the latter would ensure their's less chance of having a poor match up and making games fair.

Flat out, you're paying the most money for the most broken rules and then saying it's on the players to self-correct and self-police. And then getting mad at those who don't subscribe to your very specific style of fun. That's moronic at best and toxic at worst. If you make it work for a small group of people, huzzah! But at that point, why even spend money on the rules?

It's "All Boys Club, No Girls Allowed". Just change boys with your local group and girls with the flavor of the month release that GW broke. It so happens to be Eldar... again. The compromise should be on what game to play, not on what is or is not allowed in the confines of $100+ rules.

Nope sorry - we live and play in different worlds - we want different things from our games - whatever system it is - most of us at our club are older, probably tierder and usually playing after long days work and quite a few of us just want to watch stuff blow up, chat about the game and play with pretty models etc, winning is nice but we don't always even finish the games or care who wins - we played a 3 player Malifaux last night just really to work on our rules knowledge for one guy who is looking to go to a tounrey..

We don't bring "my A game" or "A list" half the time - we bring stuff to have a fun game - we sometimes make descisions based on what sounds fun or would be what the model might do - or just cos we fancy seeing what happens.....

Toxic and Moronic am I - jeez - whats your Fking issue mate? - your posts on here are in fact repeative and toxic - F this game, play another - over and over again - we get it - the records broken......... Can you even see down from the lofty height at which you are sitting??

I spend money of stuff I like - cos I can - we use the 40k rules as a base - cos we mostly like the 40k rules - but not the balance - see the difference?

I buy and like cool models and pretty and interesting sourcebook as something to read and look at......do you get that - or are we not allowed to work and play like this in your little perfect world ?

[quotet]hose who think things are overpowered

 TheKbob wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

I totally agree, though I think I have seen 5 people total on this forum saying they want a Saim-Hann army. Watch that number of people claim they have always wanted a Saim-Hann army though were just waiting for new models, and they just happen to have D weapon support.

So what are you going to tell those people with already built, painted, and played Iyanden armies? "Play something else, you WAAC TRIHARD", eh?

I had an Eldar army in the pipeline before I quit that would have been made absolutely nuts by this change. From powerful to facerolling. Guess it was my fault for picking said units in a previous edition, right?

If it's a competition, just follow the competition rules.

If it's between friends and you can't make the Wraith units work, just make Distort weapons work like 6e.

That's not so crazy, right?