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.
Wurfelrolle wrote: 6E really hurt the game with my group (11 of us, everyone having at least one 40K army), mostly with complaints of wound allocation during shooting really slowing down the game and killing the beer-and-pretzels vibe.
7E pretty much killed it, mostly due to the disgust from expensive rulebooks being negated so soon, and a lot because of Unbound & Formations. Since 7E came out only four of the group have played 40K at least once, and one of those said to hell with it after the Eldar codex being replaced after less than a year (not an issue with changes in power creep, just money wasted on rules).
As a group we've replaced it with Bolt Action, and are very happy about it.
That's how life goes. We started HH. The game is more smooth with only Marines to play.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Well, in a nutshell, having a ton of 40k models because of prior rule sets makes me rather invested in the game, agreeing to new editions or not.
I happen to keep slugging away at building and painting them since they only look more "pretty" as the hordes increase.
My "like minded" friends allow the game to be fun for me despite the "terrible" rules.
I am somewhat disappointed how much choice is replaced with random events.
I cannot, shall not, play the game with strangers: never ends well.
I depend on other systems for pick-up games for sufficient balance to get a "good" game in (X-wing, Armada, Battletech)
If you play the game competitively (take the rules to the max!) and play someone like-minded it can be incredibly funny and "nasty" to watch.
Two players who know each other with no holds barred can demonstrate how the game can be forced to work.
If you like to play fluffy, I would suggest crafting scenarios.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
jeffersonian000 wrote: Just want to point out that if you aren't actually playing the current edition, your opinion on the current edition doesn't matter. Gripes about Maelsrom which you never play is useless input, complants about large models or formations you never play are useless input.
Yes, its great to have an opinion, and to voice that opinion. But if your opinion is uninformed because you don't bother to actually gain any form of experience with the subject at hand, your opinion has no weight, its just being negative because you can. Now, if you are actually playing the game, and you want to voice your opinion on its bad points, feel free. If not, then please understand that no one cares about your assumptions on how bad you think it really is.
Points people hate, yet actually fix the game:
Maelstrom > fixes the game by breaking peole out of stale tactics
Except it's random to the point where tactics don't really matter, or they're just not "tactical" in the first place."Cast a psychic power" doesn't really involve any tactics, it just requires you to have a Psyker.
Formations > uses suboptimal units in optimal ways
In a handful of cases maybe, but doesn't in the majority of cases, and goes about doing so in probably the worst way possible from a game design issue.
Large models > grows the game by adding a new dimension (vertical) to our tactics. This includes flyers, GCs, and SHWs.
There is no "new dimension", There's nothing new about having to fight T8 big creatures or armies composed heavily of AV13/14 units, they just inflate the scale of the game. You fight a Baneblade the same way you fight a Leman Russ, just as you fight a Wraithknight the same way you typically fight a Wraithlord, the tactics of dealing with these units aren't any different, they just require a greater concentration of firepower and incur a greater level of firepower back in return.
Price gauging > while kits are more expansive, you are getting more for your money in kits these days in comparison to older kits dosn the years.
Two points on this one. First, no, in many cases you're not (e.g. Dire Avengers getting reboxed from $45 for 10 to $535 for 5, Land Raiders goin from $55 to $75 in 6 years, all IG tanks losing the Accessory sprue that they now have to pay $15 for, guardsmen getting reboxed from $35 for 20 to $30 for 10).
Even if you can accept that you're getting more "stuff", you can't really make use of it. Sure the new Fire Warrior kit looks neat with all those extra gubbins to make multiple units, but you're only able to build 10 models instead of 12, and you can't actually make multiple units, the overwhelming bulk of that extra stuff just goes straight into a bitz bin.
Assuming its a game > its a business, not a game. You pay to play. Complaining about it is just voicing your own childish ignorance on how economy works.
It's a game. Yes, there's a business behind it, but they're selling a game. Ultimately, no other game has the same aspects in anything near the same degrees that GW does in this regard, and they're also made by companies to generate revenue. The fact that GW's revenue is down to an 18 year low (adjusted for inflation) tells us that people *are* voting with their wallets.
That said, 7th Ed is in a good place. The 40k community is in a bad place. due in part to player expectations having drifted from the game's core concepts. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You are playing with someone, not against someone. The cancer is in the community mind set, not GW's bad business practices.
SJ
If the cancer is in the community, you can blame GW. It's their community. They are the ones that have shut down every non-sales communication channel with the community, and seem to constantly put out things neither asked for nor cared for by the community and allow major longstanding issues to stand by and fester unaddressed. The community, being their customers, should be what GW listens to and responds to, that's how market forces work. They're not, and their sales numbers reflect this. Blaming "the community" is absurd in this light, when the community got the way it did because GW basically cut off all interaction that didn't involve a sales transaction. If you look at other game systems, they run their own forums where they often solicit feedback, they have active FAQ & Errata, they put out Designers Notes, and many are growing (Dropzone Commander, Malifaux, Warmahordes, etc) while GW is shrinking.
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.
6th edition was fun. People still had to make lists using their smarts, we had some new shiny toys, etc.
7th edition has turned the game into apocalypse battles, where the person with the most super heavies or power formations wins (spend more, win more!). It seems things slowed a bit when 7th edition came out so close to 6th (people were mad about having to buy another edition rule book). Things slowed even more after the re-release of several codex books that were 1-2 years old.
Our few flgs used to have 40k tournaments every weekend. This went to bi-week tournaments, which were still very well attended. Then Spring 2015 hit and no one holds tournaments anymore and a person is more likely to see folks playing x-wing on the tables than 40k.
As for the cancer comment above, GW created it. They created it by:
1: raising prices (hit their ceiling a while ago, thus falling sales)
2. changing editions and codex books in less than 2 years
3. formation hammer... spend more = win more
4. nothing if free
I remember GW used to have eavy metal paint tutorials, post free rules, give significant deals with armyboxes, etc. They cared about and listened to the community. It is clear that everything is just a money grab now - LE terrain, minis, books, pay for a 4 page pdf, releases take a month (so you buy a white dwarf for the rules you will get with the future codex). Greed = downfall.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Just want to point out that if you aren't actually playing the current edition, your opinion on the current edition doesn't matter. Gripes about Maelsrom which you never play is useless input, complants about large models or formations you never play are useless input.
I see. So things like "I love the setting, but maelstrom missions ruined the game for me" are useless input? You can only dislike things about 40k if you still like the game enough to keep playing?
Maelstrom > fixes the game by breaking peole out of stale tactics
No it doesn't. It replaces player decisions with random rolls. If anything Maelstrom removes strategic depth because the game tells you what objectives you need to focus on. Which requires more thought, figuring out which objectives are worth fighting for or drawing "cast a psychic power" and rolling some dice in the psychic phase?
Formations > uses suboptimal units in optimal ways
And they also use optimal units in even more optimal ways. But even if we grant your assumption that formations are primarily about making weaker units better they're still terrible. If you know that a particular unit is weak then fix the unit itself. Don't make a formation that requires you to use that unit in one specific way while keeping it useless in every other way.
Psychic phase > removes the confusion of when to use which power by consolidating all powers used into a single phase
There was no such confusion if you bothered to read the rules for your units. And even if you assume that consolidating everything into one phase is a good idea the execution of the idea is still horrible, even without considering the incredibly poor balance of the psychic powers themselves.
Large models > grows the game by adding a new dimension (vertical) to our tactics. This includes flyers, GCs, and SHWs.
Not really. A LRBT squadron and a Baneblade require the same tactics from the opponent, and replacing "wounds on a 2+" with "kills your whole unit on a 2+" isn't really a lot of additional depth. Flyers had the most potential to add new tactics, but GW just made them conventional units with a couple of special rules. Adding "can only be hit on 6s" to a fast skimmer is not a fundamental change in tactics.
Ambiguous Rules > this appears to be intentional, due to an industry wide concept that ambiguous rules lead to player interest via arguing over what those rules are trying to convey.
...
This has to be a joke. Even ignoring the sheer insanity of the idea that arguing over rules makes a game more interesting (it really doesn't) other companies don't do this. When I play a game of X-Wing I don't have to argue about the rules, and when there are rule issues FFG is pretty good about fixing them. And yet somehow none of the people I've talked to feel that something is lacking in their game because there are no rules to argue about, while everyone who used to play 40k complains about how much less fun it was because of the rule arguments.
Price gauging > while kits are more expansive, you are getting more for your money in kits these days in comparison to older kits dosn the years. Sorry Australia, GW is still F'ing you. : (
This only works if you compare GW prices to past GW prices and ignore the rest of the industry. GW's prices are a joke compared to plastic model kits outside of their tabletop wargaming niche, and the quality of their kits is mediocre at best.
Assuming its a game > its a business, not a game. You pay to play. Complaining about it is just voicing your own childish ignorance on how economy works. If you don't like this specific financial model, don't sornd your money on. Vote with your wallet. Want things to change? Start by sprnding your money and time on the things you like.
Err, lol? Are you really defending GW with "it's a business" and ignoring the fact that, as a business, GW is experiencing major problems?
You are playing with someone, not against someone. The cancer is in the community mind set, not GW's bad business practices.
No, you're playing against someone. 40k is a zero-sum game, you win by making your opponent lose. And you can call that a cancer, but I could say the same about "casual at all costs" attitudes like yours, where people are shamed for caring "too much" about winning or bringing the "wrong" lists.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/30 19:11:01
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because it's the player's fault... I'll make you a guarantee, almost 100% of the people you accuse of being 'toxic' will have at some stage or another thought that 40K was awesome. People want, or wanted, to like and enjoy the game, and the constant tinkering by the makers with little or no regard for the quality of experience they were generating has actually prevented them from doing so. I it any wonder they're annoyed and frustrated?
In a way, it is actually. This is a psychological issue tied to the effects of addiction and commonly explored in AA meetings, rehab centers, and group counseling. If you know the organizers of such groups, you'll learn quite a bit from them. Take the tinkering for instance... there's a horde of college students who are acclimated to ForgeWorld usage because they didn't experience the days before it or the stigma associated with its use. Likewise, they're thoroughly enjoying the game in its present state because for them nothing has changed, this is how 40k has always been and always will be until it isn't. With youth also comes adaptability, they can transform their opinions to accept any changes. So yes, when some players are having a hard time accepting how the game is and calling it terrible, the player is at fault. It's your own perspectives that are causing the distress, similar to how players who have played World of Warcraft since launch become increasingly more frustrated by the changes while players new to the game see it as a wonderful experience. I mentioned addiction counseling because 40k is effectively like World of Warcraft or any other mania-inducing element -- it's a drug that feeds a player's needs. When anyone first starts using a drug, it's a positive experience to them, affecting their mind in new ways and keeping them happy with the feelings they produce. However, as time moves on, the dosage needs to be increased. More and more is expected from an addict. New expansions, new card sets, new models to buy, more of the drug he craves. As long as there is some level of consistency in the product and service, the addict continues to purchase increasing amounts to satisfy a higher tolerance and greater need for them. Warhammer 40k being reusable greatly aids the financial element since you can continue to use old models, but even that eventually grows dull to an addict who will eventually desire more. The fact that 40k's meta changes and incorporates a growing model count is a boon to feeding his addiction, reinforcing it as a core need in his life and possibly even replacing others, like how some folks will abandon their social lives to play video games.
Essentially, the quality of the experience doesn't deteriorate, in fact it only gets better over time as more is added to the game and the rules are polished. What diminishes is the addict's enthusiasm regarding his drug of choice and the unfulfilled need for more and better, a stronger high than his last fix which new rules cannot deliver by altering the core foundation of his expectations. Each edition is like pushing a new drug upon him when all he wants is the same one he's already hooked on. Eventually the addiction will wane and he'll quit the game for whatever contrived reason and either rejoice in his newfound life and past memories of "good times" or become a salty SOB who mourns the time he has wasted addicted to a substance that abandoned him later in life. Totally his own fault, not the game's. Granted that GW is the worst company ever but addicts shouldn't be trying to pin the blame on them as is typical behavior of addicts seeking a scapegoat for their own actions or state of mind.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Arkaine wrote: Essentially, the quality of the experience doesn't deteriorate, in fact it only gets better over time as more is added to the game and the rules are polished.
That would only be true if in the course of that 'polishing' the game remained essentially the same or got better.
The fact that each edition doesn't just refine rules but outright changes things around makes this not the case. In the change from 5th to 6th/7th, the 'quality of the experience' most certainly did change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/30 19:49:34
Azreal13 wrote: Yes, because it's the player's fault... I'll make you a guarantee, almost 100% of the people you accuse of being 'toxic' will have at some stage or another thought that 40K was awesome. People want, or wanted, to like and enjoy the game, and the constant tinkering by the makers with little or no regard for the quality of experience they were generating has actually prevented them from doing so. I it any wonder they're annoyed and frustrated?
In a way, it is actually. This is a psychological issue tied to the effects of addiction and commonly explored in AA meetings, rehab centers, and group counseling. If you know the organizers of such groups, you'll learn quite a bit from them. Take the tinkering for instance... there's a horde of college students who are acclimated to ForgeWorld usage because they didn't experience the days before it or the stigma associated with its use. Likewise, they're thoroughly enjoying the game in its present state because for them nothing has changed, this is how 40k has always been and always will be until it isn't. With youth also comes adaptability, they can transform their opinions to accept any changes. So yes, when some players are having a hard time accepting how the game is and calling it terrible, the player is at fault. It's your own perspectives that are causing the distress, similar to how players who have played World of Warcraft since launch become increasingly more frustrated by the changes while players new to the game see it as a wonderful experience. I mentioned addiction counseling because 40k is effectively like World of Warcraft or any other mania-inducing element -- it's a drug that feeds a player's needs. When anyone first starts using a drug, it's a positive experience to them, affecting their mind in new ways and keeping them happy with the feelings they produce. However, as time moves on, the dosage needs to be increased. More and more is expected from an addict. New expansions, new card sets, new models to buy, more of the drug he craves. As long as there is some level of consistency in the product and service, the addict continues to purchase increasing amounts to satisfy a higher tolerance and greater need for them. Warhammer 40k being reusable greatly aids the financial element since you can continue to use old models, but even that eventually grows dull to an addict who will eventually desire more. The fact that 40k's meta changes and incorporates a growing model count is a boon to feeding his addiction, reinforcing it as a core need in his life and possibly even replacing others, like how some folks will abandon their social lives to play video games.
Essentially, the quality of the experience doesn't deteriorate, in fact it only gets better over time as more is added to the game and the rules are polished. What diminishes is the addict's enthusiasm regarding his drug of choice and the unfulfilled need for more and better, a stronger high than his last fix which new rules cannot deliver by altering the core foundation of his expectations. Each edition is like pushing a new drug upon him when all he wants is the same one he's already hooked on. Eventually the addiction will wane and he'll quit the game for whatever contrived reason and either rejoice in his newfound life and past memories of "good times" or become a salty SOB who mourns the time he has wasted addicted to a substance that abandoned him later in life. Totally his own fault, not the game's. Granted that GW is the worst company ever but addicts shouldn't be trying to pin the blame on them as is typical behavior of addicts seeking a scapegoat for their own actions or state of mind.
I don't even know where to start with that.
Aside from making a tenuous point based on a shaky comparison, it makes GW a lousy dealer if they can't keep making a product that keeps everyone on the hook.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brennonjw wrote: Doom and gloom, it's the end of the hobby, I mean, back in MY day, when everything was tinted rose for some reason, it was all great!
No, it wasn't. 5th was probably the best it's been (with personal experience to some degree or another back to RT) but it still wasn't perfect. But rather than evolve it, they decided to breed something different, and, IMO, inferior.
You can mock, but everything I see, in GW accounts, on here and IRL suggests to me that things are closer to that point than ever.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/30 19:51:16
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
Brennonjw wrote: Doom and gloom, it's the end of the hobby, I mean, back in MY day, when everything was tinted rose for some reason, it was all great!
No, it wasn't. 5th was probably the best it's been (with personal experience to some degree or another back to RT) but it still wasn't perfect. But rather than evolve it, they decided to breed something different, and, IMO, inferior.
You can mock, but everything I see, in GW accounts, on here and IRL suggests to me that things are closer to that point than ever.
I agree to a point about some issues (power creep and the like), but having never been a tournament player, most of the major rules issues are minor as it's not about winning the tournament.
Beyond my own biases, your comment kind of goes on to prove my point; you like 5th more and you have, probably to a smaller degree then most judging by your comment, nostaliga for it (not a bad thing)
Really, all this argument could go to is "NO! the Legend of zelda that came out when Iwas 12 is the best!"
The game has flaws, yes, it always has and always will. But I honestly feel like most of those issues are mitigated when you play more for fun (things like scenario games, uneven point costs, etc.) the game is much more enjoyable.
I'll never be able to repay CA for making GW realize that The Old World was a cash cow, left to die in a field.
The thing is though, there also seem to be a large number of people who think that all change must automatically be positive. There's this weird idea that change always equals progress, and that everyone has to move with the times, even if the changes are negative ones.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Brennonjw wrote: [But I honestly feel like most of those issues are mitigated when you play more for fun (things like scenario games, uneven point costs, etc.) the game is much more enjoyable.
A couple of things there -
- For one, most tournament players do play for fun. I'm honestly not sure why else people think that anyone plays a game. It's not like there are massive prize money packages on the line... It's a game of toy soldiers. For most tournament players, all that the tournament format brings to the game is a guaranteed change to get in a number of games against different opponents in a weekend.
- For two, rules issues hurt casual players just as much, if not more than tournament players. In a tournament, you (ideally) have a tournament FAQ, and a judge you can call over for anything that crops up mid-game. If you're playing at home with a regular group of like-minded friends, you have a similar ability to iron out rules issues as you go... but for the casual pick-up player, you're left either playing the game and hoping for the best, or wasting time before every game establishing with your opponent whether or not you're both actually playing the same game.
That was one of the things that made me drop the game for a time back in 4th edition... There were just so many rules conflicts and grey areas, that playing anyone I didn't know well was just painful and tedious.
- And for three, limiting where the game can be played is hardly a positive thing. In 5th edition, I was playing in regular tournaments, I was playing pick-up games at a local gaming club, and occasional games at home with a couple of family members who are just starting out. 6th edition killed the first two for me, and 7th edition just went further in the wrong direction... so the end result is much, much less 40K happening.
Martel732 wrote: "I'm not going to address all your crazy points because I'll assume for now that it's satire"
He likes the game. I hate it. There's no point in arguing about it. I still maintain terrain is a non-fix for poorly pointed units. But whatever.
I've always had the impression that his play group lets him set up the board the way he likes and never adapt to his play style, letting him baby seal club everyone to death with GK. I could be totally wrong, but that's just the impression I get from his L2P NOOB! posts. And the claims of things that fix the game but actually just break it more.
Its not satire, just a point of view from someone active in the game. My local meta went through an adjustment phase of excluding more and more of the things people didn't like until the game was unplayable. We started over fresh, found that LoS blocking terrain was key, found Maelstrom forced people to think (which is why most people seem to hate it), and ended up embracing the edition as an overall improvement. Games are more fun now that we moved past 5th Ed paradigm. Personally, I'm enjoying the game more today than I did with RT when I started. It has the same feel, the same nostalgia, yet takes an hour and half instead of all night to play.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: found Maelstrom forced people to think (which is why most people seem to hate it)
No, most people hate it because it's bad design. And, if anything, maelstrom makes you think less for two reasons:
1) It tells you what to do. Let's say I have a tactical squad. It can run closer to an objective, shoot its main guns, or shoot its bolt pistols and charge. In a normal mission I have to think about what the best choice is. In a maelstrom mission I just look at whether I score VP from shooting, melee, or claiming objectives, and do what the random dice tell me to do.
2) It removes long-term planning. In a normal game you have to create and execute a plan over several turns, while adapting to your opponent's attempts to destroy your plan. In a maelstrom game you have much less ability to plan beyond the current turn because all of your objectives could be completely different next turn. So instead of an extended battle of move and counter-move leading up to the final objectives you just roll dice to see what you need to do this turn and pay little attention to the future.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Martel732 wrote: "I'm not going to address all your crazy points because I'll assume for now that it's satire"
He likes the game. I hate it. There's no point in arguing about it. I still maintain terrain is a non-fix for poorly pointed units. But whatever.
I've always had the impression that his play group lets him set up the board the way he likes and never adapt to his play style, letting him baby seal club everyone to death with GK. I could be totally wrong, but that's just the impression I get from his L2P NOOB! posts. And the claims of things that fix the game but actually just break it more.
Its not satire, just a point of view from someone active in the game.
From some people who are active. I still play, and don't view the game the same. We are slowly coming around to house ruling pretty much everything.
I really can't say why we were fine with house ruling mordenheim so much but seem hesitant to do it with 40k though.
We started over fresh, found that LoS blocking terrain was key, found Maelstrom forced people to think (which is why most people seem to hate it), and ended up embracing the edition as an overall improvement.
I think the bolded part is why people are taking offense to what you're saying.
For the record, I found the opposite with the Maelstorm missions. Some of them are absurdly easy to do (Cast a power if your army can do so is pretty much automatic) while others are flat out impossible (destroy a flyer if the enemy lacks them).
Granted, you can toss cards that are impossible out, but you still have the problem of them being worth random values. It feels weird when casting a power is worth more than winning a challenge. The victor becomes random.
We are currently debating heavily house ruling the missions. We are including the obvious discard rule that everyone uses. Also, thinking about assigning values to some of the cards instead of rolling. It's a good idea, but the execution as written is poor.
Games are more fun now that we moved past 5th Ed paradigm. Personally, I'm enjoying the game more today than I did with RT when I started. It has the same feel, the same nostalgia, yet takes an hour and half instead of all night to play.
SJ
Fun is subjective. We had more fun with 5e but we believe skimmers, as written, wouldn't work in 5e (if you remove jink they are over costed, including jink with the old tank rules makes them absurdly good, a nice catch 22) and a lot of us play eldar and tau. Fliers and some other things don't really work in 5e. I would go back if I didn't have to re-write the dexes, and to be fair, some of the dexes that are new are very good, internally. Probably the best they have ever been.
Arkaine wrote: Essentially, the quality of the experience doesn't deteriorate, in fact it only gets better over time as more is added to the game and the rules are polished.
That would only be true if in the course of that 'polishing' the game remained essentially the same or got better. The fact that each edition doesn't just refine rules but outright changes things around makes this not the case. In the change from 5th to 6th/7th, the 'quality of the experience' most certainly did change.
Change isn't the same as deterioration. It's a given the game will change... but to deteriorate means to become progressively worse. That's the essential crux of the post. The game certainly improves in model count, variety, depth of special rules (like adding flyers and D weapons and super heavies), so it's only a matter of subjective opinion whether each edition is Better or Worse than the last. I only say it's getting better because More = Better in this example. You can always cherry pick what you like or don't like (such as people already do by banning Titans).
Azreal13 wrote: Aside from making a tenuous point based on a shaky comparison, it makes GW a lousy dealer if they can't keep making a product that keeps everyone on the hook.
Somewhat, I'd say. GW is worse than others because their business practices tend to be anti-consumer. But every type of game cycles regularly through new customers and becomes popular by drawing the crowds, not by retaining veterans for 10+ years. Blizzard has lost millions of WoW players over time and the amount of Magic the Gathering players that played 4th edition are dwindling to non-existence. Yet both grew immensely in popularity simply by picking up as many or more players than they lose. Games based around collections and addiction thrive on new blood. It's even the core of how the Free to Play model works, the very essence of the addiction model. Games Workshop even believes in the value of new blood based on how their employees are trained to offer substantial assistance to beginners looking to buy models then forgetting about them or any other veterans shortly after. They're in the model selling business, after all. No need to focus on your cultists, only on preaching to gospel to new ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/31 01:05:39
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Brennonjw wrote: Doom and gloom, it's the end of the hobby, I mean, back in MY day, when everything was tinted rose for some reason, it was all great!
No, it wasn't. 5th was probably the best it's been (with personal experience to some degree or another back to RT) but it still wasn't perfect. But rather than evolve it, they decided to breed something different, and, IMO, inferior.
You can mock, but everything I see, in GW accounts, on here and IRL suggests to me that things are closer to that point than ever.
I agree to a point about some issues (power creep and the like), but having never been a tournament player, most of the major rules issues are minor as it's not about winning the tournament.
Beyond my own biases, your comment kind of goes on to prove my point; you like 5th more and you have, probably to a smaller degree then most judging by your comment, nostaliga for it (not a bad thing)
Really, all this argument could go to is "NO! the Legend of zelda that came out when Iwas 12 is the best!"
The game has flaws, yes, it always has and always will. But I honestly feel like most of those issues are mitigated when you play more for fun (things like scenario games, uneven point costs, etc.) the game is much more enjoyable.
Funny, the long list of reasons I gave for not liking 7th ed was from a very casual player's point of view. In over 20 years of war-gaming, I've never been to a tournament and have never had interest in doing so. Many of the rules break my narrative immersion.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
I have mixed feelings regarding 7th edition so far.
I didn't like how GW changed editions so soon, but 6th edition was just a mess. Escalation and Stronghold Assault ended up splitting the community. Allies were absolutely broken with the combos that you could pull off (remember Taudar?). Flyers were broken too until everyone got effective forms of AA. The rules were just as much of a mess as they are today. Say what you want about 7th being bad, but 6th edition was just as bad if not worse.
The game has much the same problems that it did back in 6th edition. The rules are a mess, there are still broken combos allies can pull off, there's terrible balance between codexes,and power creep has gotten awful once GW changed their design philosophy with the Necron codex.
While the release schedule has made life more difficult and exposed GW's venality and laziness for all the world to see, we have also gotten entirely new factions added to the game. Imperial Knights and Admech/Skitarii have been great additions to the already established factions. Harlequins are their own army again, as are the Inquisition.
With all that said, I am still having fun and enjoying playing 40k in 7th edition. I play in somewhat casual metas, so a lot of the broken stuff only turns up for the tournaments. Even then, only a couple of players run the really nasty lists. Everyone else just seems to play for fun. I'm having fun with the game, but there are plenty of other games on my radar now that I'm more experienced with tabletop wargaming.
I won't be looking forward to 8th edition next year. GW could either adapt the game to the Horus Heresy rules, which I hear are pretty balanced, or have the game go the way of Age of Sigmar and throw balance out the window. In the first case, I'll definitely still keep playing. In the second case, I will probably play occasionally, but it will no longer be the only game I play.
Arkaine wrote: It's a given the game will change... but to deteriorate means to become progressively worse.
And that's a pretty good description of what the game has done.
The game certainly improves in model count, variety, depth of special rules (like adding flyers and D weapons and super heavies)
Seriously? Adding D-weapons is your idea of an improvement?
You can always cherry pick what you like or don't like (such as people already do by banning Titans).
Which results in fragmenting the community, people who are unhappy about not getting to use their perfectly legal armies, and extensive pre-game arguments about what should be allowed. Remember that "FW in tournaments" argument you were just involved in? If that's happening in a game then it is NOT a good thing.
But every type of game cycles regularly through new customers and becomes popular by drawing the crowds, not by retaining veterans for 10+ years.
This is simply wrong. New players pay the bills, but it's the veterans that make people want to buy the game. Just ask yourself this: which is a better argument for buying 40k, a newbie with a poorly-assembled gray plastic battleforce army, or a veteran with 5000+ points of beautiful models who is eager to help a new customer get to that point with their own armies?
And no, your other examples aren't very accurate. Are there fewer people from MTG's 4th edition? Sure, but that was 15-20 years ago! Of course you're going to have turnover when you look at that kind of time scale. But if you look at shorter definitions of "veteran", such as 3-5 years, you have a very different picture. And, just like in 40k, it's the veteran players that make the game appealing. Consider EVE Online for an MMO counter-example to your WoW ideas: nobody plays the game because they like farming newbie-level NPCs, they pay their $15 a month because they hear awesome stories about things the veterans are doing and want to be a part of that. EVE and MTG would be dead games if they had to rely on their newbie populations alone.
Games Workshop even believes in the value of new blood based on how their employees are trained to offer substantial assistance to beginners looking to buy models then forgetting about them or any other veterans shortly after. They're in the model selling business, after all. No need to focus on your cultists, only on preaching to gospel to new ones.
And this attitude is arguably one of the reasons why GW is in serious financial trouble. They're so obsessed with meeting today's sales quotas that they're willing to throw away the established veterans that are their biggest source of advertising. This is a really stupid way to run a company.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Arkaine wrote: I mentioned addiction counseling because 40k is effectively like World of Warcraft or any other mania-inducing element -- it's a drug that feeds a player's needs.
40k: Not even once
On-topic, I can't really comment that much as 7th is the only edition I know and I'm not interested in or a player of any other wargames.
Don't believe me? It's all in the numbers.
Number 1: That's terror.
Number 2: That's terror.
Dark Angels/Angels of Vengeance combo - ???? - Input wanted!
Arkaine wrote: I mentioned addiction counseling because 40k is effectively like World of Warcraft or any other mania-inducing element -- it's a drug that feeds a player's needs.
40k: Not even once
On-topic, I can't really comment that much as 7th is the only edition I know and I'm not interested in or a player of any other wargames.
There really are some amazing games out there that you should give a chance. Now is a golden age of gaming.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
It's going alright. Then again I have a good dex. I can imagine I wouldn't be so happy if I mained DE for example.
My army to start my 40k journey came down to Tau and DE and I chose TE because I seen how little support DE was getting. Then their new dex hit and sadness happened.
I now have DE codex and have a battleforce I need to start on when I get some spare spare time or finish Tau.
jeffersonian000 wrote: found Maelstrom forced people to think (which is why most people seem to hate it),
This is very definitely not the problem with Maelstrom, in fact it's largely exactly the opposite. They're reactive directives, with lots of "auto-score" and "impossible to score" objectives, largely based on nonsensical mandates (kill something in close combat, cast psychic power, etc), even the objective ones are forced and artificial (I just need someone to walk over to point X? They don't have to hold it or anything?). More to the point, they actively preclude any sort of planning en execution, the heart of strategy, as a result of their randomness.
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.
MWHistorian wrote: There really are some amazing games out there that you should give a chance. Now is a golden age of gaming.
I've heard that, and I've also probably heard of the ones you've pointed to, but they just don't grab me.
I don't begrudge anyone else trying them, enjoying them or whatever, it's just that 40k is the only one that's grabbed me.
Don't believe me? It's all in the numbers.
Number 1: That's terror.
Number 2: That's terror.
Dark Angels/Angels of Vengeance combo - ???? - Input wanted!
Yeah, I was totally on auto-pilot trying to set up assaults with BA in the age of Skyhammer, scatbikes, DKs, Riptides, and GMCs. I was just totally phoning in my games before maelstrom.
Even in 5th, the BA were tricky to play because you had to move cleverly to take advantage of furious charge. The BA haven't had an autowin button since 3rd. So don't even go there with me.
LOS blocking terrain is as likely to hurt as help any kind of list that feature both assault and shooting like BA. It is NOT a balancing factor in a game with 80 S6 shots for 540 pts.
" Games are more fun now that we moved past 5th Ed paradigm. "
I'm glad you are having fun. But many aren't. And putting in a few more walls doesn't make it so Eldar don't completely run over my list. Or most lists, for that matter. Adding an IK to my list would actually make my list WORSE off against Eldar, because of ranged D.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/31 01:52:33
Arkaine wrote: It's a given the game will change... but to deteriorate means to become progressively worse.
And that's a pretty good description of what the game has done.
Subjective opinion. One I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless and irrelevant when expanding the spectrum to the entire 40k fanbase. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You are free to leave so long as someone else takes your place in this business model.
The game certainly improves in model count, variety, depth of special rules (like adding flyers and D weapons and super heavies)
Seriously? Adding D-weapons is your idea of an improvement
Remember that FW thread you were just involved in? It was a common position that More Stuff and variety is a good thing for a game. Again, you can always isolate what you dislike.
You can always cherry pick what you like or don't like (such as people already do by banning Titans).
Which results in fragmenting the community, people who are unhappy about not getting to use their perfectly legal armies, and extensive pre-game arguments about what should be allowed. Remember that "FW in tournaments" argument you were just involved in? If that's happening in a game then it is NOT a good thing.
And yet that's exactly what happens in a game like Magic or HeroClix or Warmachine/Hordes which have different formats that allow/disallow different elements of the game. You're actually one of the only people I know complaining about that. Everyone else embraces the formats they love and doesn't play the ones they dislike. With all the overlapping players, it actually doesn't divide the community, especially when the majority of them play all of the formats.
But every type of game cycles regularly through new customers and becomes popular by drawing the crowds, not by retaining veterans for 10+ years.
This is simply wrong. New players pay the bills, but it's the veterans that make people want to buy the game. Just ask yourself this: which is a better argument for buying 40k, a newbie with a poorly-assembled gray plastic battleforce army, or a veteran with 5000+ points of beautiful models who is eager to help a new customer get to that point with their own armies?
Likewise, you only need 1 veteran per flock of newbies and Games Workshop took care of that personally by setting up stores across the world to do precisely this: showcase armies and the games they're involved with.
Peregrine wrote: And no, your other examples aren't very accurate. Are there fewer people from MTG's 4th edition? Sure, but that was 15-20 years ago! Of course you're going to have turnover when you look at that kind of time scale. But if you look at shorter definitions of "veteran", such as 3-5 years, you have a very different picture. And, just like in 40k, it's the veteran players that make the game appealing. Consider EVE Online for an MMO counter-example to your WoW ideas: nobody plays the game because they like farming newbie-level NPCs, they pay their $15 a month because they hear awesome stories about things the veterans are doing and want to be a part of that. EVE and MTG would be dead games if they had to rely on their newbie populations alone.
EVE runs on a different model from a game where Cash can buy power. In EVE character progression is Time-based. There are a few cash buyable implants that shave off percentages of that, but ultimately you progress through real-time training. All of the expensive in-game ships are elements of Alliance power which isn't the draw if you want to do the awesome things the veterans are doing because the veterans have More Skills and Better Ships than you do.
Games Workshop even believes in the value of new blood based on how their employees are trained to offer substantial assistance to beginners looking to buy models then forgetting about them or any other veterans shortly after. They're in the model selling business, after all. No need to focus on your cultists, only on preaching to gospel to new ones.
And this attitude is arguably one of the reasons why GW is in serious financial trouble. They're so obsessed with meeting today's sales quotas that they're willing to throw away the established veterans that are their biggest source of advertising. This is a really stupid way to run a company.
It's how a lot of companies are run so it's tricky to say whether it's a dumb method until you see the profit margins both ways. Catering to veterans who already own a sizable army has a cost associated with and if the return isn't as great as pandering newbies then devoting those assets to making a quick buck off the soon-to-be-addict who just picked up your product for the first time and has thousands of dollars left to spend may actually be the right call. One thing is for sure, almost every Free to Play game operates on this principle. The games are not expected to survive and thrive for years, but seduce as many people as possible into spending as much upfront cash as they can be convinced to. When those players quit a month later because the game is utterly terrible, the company has made maximum return for minimal investment. GW clearly isn't that bad as players stick with the hobby for many months or years before reaching this point. Don't even bring up the costs involved as you'd be fascinated to know some people have spent more than a 40k army's price on the facebook game Farmville.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
vipoid wrote: Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.
Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.
I left World of Warcraft right before Cataclysm. Do I go on Mists of Pandaria or whatever crappy sequel they're on forums and continue to badmouth said game? Nope. :
I like to equate it to someone giving you gak for being pissed at a sports team you follow and expecting you to quit being a fan. I want the team to do well, but the manager and coaching staff are gak and miss every good draft opportunity. It's a dumb feth thing to do.
Arkaine wrote: Subjective opinion. One I agree with, but an opinion nonetheless and irrelevant when expanding the spectrum to the entire 40k fanbase. One man's trash is another man's treasure. You are free to leave so long as someone else takes your place in this business model.
So if it's justifiable to say "the game is getting worse" then your whole absurd rant about 40k addiction and how it's really that we're just not getting enough out of our addiction falls apart completely.
Remember that FW thread you were just involved in? It was a common position that More Stuff and variety is a good thing for a game. Again, you can always isolate what you dislike.
Is this supposed to be a joke? Adding low-quality content does NOT make a game better. 40k would not be a better game than it is now if GW added 40,000 pages of "roll a D6 and then ignore the result" just for the sake of having more stuff.
And yet that's exactly what happens in a game like Magic or HeroClix or Warmachine/Hordes which have different formats that allow/disallow different elements of the game. You're actually one of the only people I know complaining about that. Everyone else embraces the formats they love and doesn't play the ones they dislike. With all the overlapping players, it actually doesn't divide the community, especially when the majority of them play all of the formats.
Are you serious? Have you even playedMTG? That's a game with huge problems with having a fragmented community. Some people like kitchen table EDH, some people like competitive tournaments, and the two groups often can not play together without people having bad experiences. The only difference is that, unlike GW, WOTC recognizes that they have a split community and caters to all groups instead of declaring that the "casual at all costs" crowd is the only group that matters.
Likewise, you only need 1 veteran per flock of newbies and Games Workshop took care of that personally by setting up stores across the world to do precisely this: showcase armies and the games they're involved with.
No, you need way more than one veteran per horde of newbies. And GW's retail stores are irrelevant in the US, one of their largest markets.
EVE runs on a different model from a game where Cash can buy power. In EVE character progression is Time-based. There are a few cash buyable implants that shave off percentages of that, but ultimately you progress through real-time training. All of the expensive in-game ships are elements of Alliance power which isn't the draw if you want to do the awesome things the veterans are doing because the veterans have More Skills and Better Ships than you do.
What's your point? This is a debate about the role of veterans vs. newbies, not sensible game design vs. free-to-play-pay-to-win games. EVE is a clear example of the importance of veteran players in driving a game's success.
Catering to veterans who already own a sizable army has a cost associated with and if the return isn't as great as pandering newbies then devoting those assets to making a quick buck off the soon-to-be-addict who just picked up your product for the first time and has thousands of dollars left to spend may actually be the right call.
The point you're missing is that if you don't cater to the veterans you won't have the soon-to-be addicts. 40k without the veteran community providing a "look at how awesome the game is" example and encouraging their friends to start playing is a dead game.
One thing is for sure, almost every Free to Play game operates on this principle. The games are not expected to survive and thrive for years, but seduce as many people as possible into spending as much upfront cash as they can be convinced to. When those players quit a month later because the game is utterly terrible, the company has made maximum return for minimal investment.
The difference is that a facebook game requires very little investment. You play it, have some fun, and then move on to the next thing. A game like 40k, on the other hand, demands thousands of dollars and countless hours of effort. That's not something you get into expecting to have a bit of fun for a weekend and just move on. GW attempting to use this business model would be financial suicide.
Don't even bring up the costs involved as you'd be fascinated to know some people have spent more than a 40k army's price on the facebook game Farmville.
They're a tiny and irrelevant minority, like the Russian billionaire who dumps tons of real-life cash into his EVE alliance. And remember how you were talking about the key to success being lots of new players? That's the exact opposite of trying to make money off a tiny handful of the most obsessed and wealthy players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/31 02:31:35
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: So if it's justifiable to say "the game is getting worse"
No, because as stated that's a subjective opinion. The post was examining the suspected origin of said opinion.
Peregrine wrote: Is this supposed to be a joke? Adding low-quality content does NOT make a game better.
Players have been commenting on the high quality of the latest models, certainly an improvement over the 2nd edition stuff, but you're arguing the rules. Your idea that they are low-quality is also an opinion that can and will differ according to whom you ask. Your personal truths about GW are, in a word, personal.
Peregrine wrote: Are you serious? Have you even playedMTG? That's a game with huge problems with having a fragmented community. Some people like kitchen table EDH, some people like competitive tournaments, and the two groups often can not play together without people having bad experiences. The only difference is that, unlike GW, WOTC recognizes that they have a split community and caters to all groups instead of declaring that the "casual at all costs" crowd is the only group that matters.
For many years since middle school. Your experiences are quite different from mine as our area runs the gambit of Commander, Draft, Modern, Legacy, Standard, and casual play and all are attended in overwhelming numbers with more than half of the community involved in all of the formats. Between this, FW issues, and other criticisms, your local neighborhood community appears to be the common issue, not the games.
Peregrine wrote: No, you need way more than one veteran per horde of newbies. And GW's retail stores are irrelevant in the US, one of their largest markets.
If you say so... I disagree. Moving on...
Peregrine wrote: What's your point? This is a debate about the role of veterans vs. newbies, not sensible game design vs. free-to-play-pay-to-win games. EVE is a clear example of the importance of veteran players in driving a game's success.
The point illustrated that EVE runs on a different business model. It is not an addiction based spend-all-your-money game but a community building sandbox. Next you'll be pointing out how veterans are important to the Dallas Cowboys and I'll be scratching my head searching for the correlation.
Peregrine wrote: The point you're missing is that if you don't cater to the veterans you won't have the soon-to-be addicts. 40k without the veteran community providing a "look at how awesome the game is" example and encouraging their friends to start playing is a dead game.
Disagree. MMOs regularly release expansions that reset and invalidate all veteran progress. As if GW announced that when 8th edition hits the market, you must throw out all of your models and buy new ones to keep playing. Catering to veterans isn't required for an MMO to thrive as some will come along for the ride anyway while new players will see the new edition as a point to chase the dragon. While GW doesn't use such direct measures (usually... 30k and Age of Sigmar do have their own factions), more and more of our core armies have been replaced with newer and better models/rules. Which again, MMOs mimic by releasing a new Raid which raises the soft cap and allows both veteran and newbie to chase the same dream. The core ideologies behind the designs are transparently homogeneous.
Peregrine wrote: The difference is that a facebook game requires very little investment. You play it, have some fun, and then move on to the next thing. A game like 40k, on the other hand, demands thousands of dollars and countless hours of effort. That's not something you get into expecting to have a bit of fun for a weekend and just move on. GW attempting to use this business model would be financial suicide.
And yet they already do. It's something I am sure has cost them countless players due to discontent but they're still around as a company. They're making enough money despite giving us all the finger.
Peregrine wrote: They're a tiny and irrelevant minority, like the Russian billionaire who dumps tons of real-life cash into his EVE alliance. And remember how you were talking about the key to success being lots of new players? That's the exact opposite of trying to make money off a tiny handful of the most obsessed and wealthy players.
Ah, but that's precisely why hoards of new players are so important to a game like Farmville. Only a tiny percentage get seriously addicted but with enough new players, you tag the ones that sink in the wealth. Catering to veterans deprives that opportunity and reduces the amount of fishing attempts. The game must be barely fun enough that you can sell them a little more fun for $59.99 plus tax.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/31 03:10:34
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Arkaine wrote: Players have been commenting on the high quality of the latest models, certainly an improvement over the 2nd edition stuff, but you're arguing the rules. Your idea that they are low-quality is also an opinion that can and will differ according to whom you ask. Your personal truths about GW are, in a word, personal.
Sigh. Did you even read what you wrote? You said that adding ANY content to a game is a good thing, because if you don't like it you can always just remove it. So by your own argument adding 40,000 pages of basic tactical marines that cost 10,000 points per model would be improving the game.
For many years since middle school. Your experiences are quite different from mine as our area runs the gambit of Commander, Draft, Modern, Legacy, Standard, and casual play and all are attended in overwhelming numbers with more than half of the community involved in all of the formats. Between this, FW issues, and other criticisms, your local neighborhood community appears to be the common issue, not the games.
Alternatively, since I've experienced the same problems in a wide variety of groups and locations, you're just lucky enough to have a community that likes to play a lot of different formats. Of course the fact that you're talking about how my community is different just proves my point: having different formats to argue about splits the community.
If you say so... I disagree. Moving on...
You seriously think that one veteran per horde of newbies can keep a game going? What happens when that veteran moves away?
The point illustrated that EVE runs on a different business model. It is not an addiction based spend-all-your-money game but a community building sandbox. Next you'll be pointing out how veterans are important to the Dallas Cowboys and I'll be scratching my head searching for the correlation.
Lol? You used WoW as an example to support your claims, and WoW uses the same business model as EVE. So if EVE is irrelevant then so is your own attempt to "prove" your claims.
Disagree. MMOs regularly release expansions that reset and invalidate all veteran progress.
What's your point? Being a veteran of a game involves more than just your character stats. People don't wake up on patch day and discover that the company broke up their guild and banned everyone from talking to each other, or put someone else in charge and banned the former leader from organizing community activities.
As if GW announced that when 8th edition hits the market, you must throw out all of your models and buy new ones to keep playing.
An act that would instantly end 40k as a game, and GW as a profitable company.
And yet they already do. It's something I am sure has cost them countless players due to discontent but they're still around as a company. They're making enough money despite giving us all the finger.
No. GW IS FAILING AS A BUSINESS. They're losing sales volume, they're losing market share, profit is stagnant, and they're forced to borrow money to pay dividends to their investors. Meanwhile the rest of their industry is growing, thanks in large part to GW self destructing. GW only exists as a profitable company right now because they started from such a dominant position and it takes time for a company like that to fail. A smaller company that copied GW's failures would be dead by now.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
- 
:
