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.

 vipoid wrote:
Did they even update anything?

it looks like they left the faqs the same and just changed the dates.

some like the dark angels but I haven't looked to hard, but like I said, pretty wussy "FAQs" but a right step in a direction either way.

Another also: Didn't kirby leave this year?

 Grumblewartz wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
So much sarcasm, so little content. It will be more constructive to not get emotional, you're not GW so try not to take it personally

If you are annoyed by people complaining about GW, the solution is simple. Don't visit forum threads discussing issues with aspects of GW. There are plenty of other threads that can enrich your GW experience. Bliss is just a click away. You can't come onto a thread to complain about the thread causing you annoyance because you're doing it to yourself. People aren't forcing you to read it.

What a strange world that we live in where the person who is positive about the hobby and game that we are on a forum discussing is the one who is told to leave the forums.

If only that were the world we live in. Sadly the world we live in is one where the positive "hobby goers" tell people who are discontent with anything to leave. Leading to problems in government, social care, financial ruin, corruption, and countless other areas of our lives when we could have just spoke out against them. No, make no mistake, a world where criticism was valued and the "happy" mindless were told to shove off would be a utopia.

 vipoid wrote:
Did they even update anything?

it looks like they left the faqs the same and just changed the dates.

Here is the zip file stashed away on the black library site. Not much changed. I think there are only two guys left who can do FAQs part time.
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/warhammer-40000-dec15.zip

 Arkaine wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
So much sarcasm, so little content. It will be more constructive to not get emotional, you're not GW so try not to take it personally

If you are annoyed by people complaining about GW, the solution is simple. Don't visit forum threads discussing issues with aspects of GW. There are plenty of other threads that can enrich your GW experience. Bliss is just a click away. You can't come onto a thread to complain about the thread causing you annoyance because you're doing it to yourself. People aren't forcing you to read it.

What a strange world that we live in where the person who is positive about the hobby and game that we are on a forum discussing is the one who is told to leave the forums.

If only that were the world we live in. Sadly the world we live in is one where the positive "hobby goers" tell people who are discontent with anything to leave. Leading to problems in government, social care, financial ruin, corruption, and countless other areas of our lives when we could have just spoke out against them. No, make no mistake, a world where criticism was valued and the "happy" mindless were told to shove off would be a utopia.

Around 6th ed when GW started down the Apocalypse-isation of 40K, the standard response to complaints about their direction was "If you don't like it, you don't have to play".
So people didn't play, hence the declining sales, and shop/club and tournament play dropping off.
If GW want to jettison a section of their player base, they need to recruit new players to make up for it. Which so far they've failed to do.

Let's see...I play at a FLGS that has 8 high quality gaming tables, enough terrain to fill them well, all tables with nice FLG mats. In addition, the other half of the store is reserved for Magic.

I've never seen fewer than 50 people playing MTG on a given night.

The last 40k tournament drew out 7 people. The one before that drew out 3 so it wasn't run.

Meanwhile, at a much smaller FLGS in a mall with 4 gaming tables (different location obviously...this was expanded to 8 on tourney days) where I used to play 5th edition, we would regularly fill the available 16 slots and have at least 6 guys hanging around in the morning in case someone backed out.


Yes 40k is dying, it's just taking a long time to peter out. People are still buying models, but new people aren't getting into the game. High buy-in cost and low purchase security (you have no idea whether your purchase will even be usable a year from now) are huge turnoffs to new players. I've been playing for 24 years now but haven't bought a model in at least 2 years because 40k is probably the worst gaming investment imaginable.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Let's see...I play at a FLGS that has 8 high quality gaming tables, enough terrain to fill them well, all tables with nice FLG mats. In addition, the other half of the store is reserved for Magic.

I've never seen fewer than 50 people playing MTG on a given night.

The last 40k tournament drew out 7 people. The one before that drew out 3 so it wasn't run.

Meanwhile, at a much smaller FLGS in a mall with 4 gaming tables (different location obviously...this was expanded to 8 on tourney days) where I used to play 5th edition, we would regularly fill the available 16 slots and have at least 6 guys hanging around in the morning in case someone backed out.


Yes 40k is dying, it's just taking a long time to peter out. People are still buying models, but new people aren't getting into the game. High buy-in cost and low purchase security (you have no idea whether your purchase will even be usable a year from now) are huge turnoffs to new players. I've been playing for 24 years now but haven't bought a model in at least 2 years because 40k is probably the worst gaming investment imaginable.

could be local ebbs and flows (happened where I play once or twice) but who knows. Honestly, most people find out about the game online, and then they bump into the 7 metric tons of people whining, and I think that scares away more people then the price. A "starter (~1500)" army of your faction (books included) is roughly the same as getting a console, starting your gaming PC, or most other Hobby entry costs, so I doubt high buy-in. Also, not sure why you brought up purchase security, unless your referring to books. Almost all of the basic models for an army haven't been made obsolete in years, and same goes for most vehicles, unless your referring to a new version of the model coming out.

Honestly, I feel that the game's "new population" is hurt by the price less then it is by the community, 'cause yes, were scorned, but the only other more toxic community that I can think of is the Total War forums.

We live in a universe where the negative views of some users on DakkaDakka are the major turn-off from the game while simultaneously the negative users are an unprepresentative minority because there are far more people who like the game who never visit forums.

 Brennonjw wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Let's see...I play at a FLGS that has 8 high quality gaming tables, enough terrain to fill them well, all tables with nice FLG mats. In addition, the other half of the store is reserved for Magic.

I've never seen fewer than 50 people playing MTG on a given night.

The last 40k tournament drew out 7 people. The one before that drew out 3 so it wasn't run.

Meanwhile, at a much smaller FLGS in a mall with 4 gaming tables (different location obviously...this was expanded to 8 on tourney days) where I used to play 5th edition, we would regularly fill the available 16 slots and have at least 6 guys hanging around in the morning in case someone backed out.


Yes 40k is dying, it's just taking a long time to peter out. People are still buying models, but new people aren't getting into the game. High buy-in cost and low purchase security (you have no idea whether your purchase will even be usable a year from now) are huge turnoffs to new players. I've been playing for 24 years now but haven't bought a model in at least 2 years because 40k is probably the worst gaming investment imaginable.

could be local ebbs and flows (happened where I play once or twice) but who knows. Honestly, most people find out about the game online, and then they bump into the 7 metric tons of people whining, and I think that scares away more people then the price. A "starter (~1500)" army of your faction (books included) is roughly the same as getting a console, starting your gaming PC, or most other Hobby entry costs, so I doubt high buy-in. Also, not sure why you brought up purchase security, unless your referring to books. Almost all of the basic models for an army haven't been made obsolete in years, and same goes for most vehicles, unless your referring to a new version of the model coming out.

Honestly, I feel that the game's "new population" is hurt by the price less then it is by the community, 'cause yes, were scorned, but the only other more toxic community that I can think of is the Total War forums.

Exalted especially considering the number of "Go play WMH/X-Wing/FoW/etc." posts that show up in "New to 40k, where do I start"

It didn't use to be like that. Veterans used to be the most important selling tool for 40K, thanks to the network effect, and the enthusiasm of forums like DakkaDakka.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It didn't use to be like that. Veterans used to be the most important selling tool for 40K, thanks to the network effect, and the enthusiasm of forums like DakkaDakka.

That says more about the game than it does about the players. Infinity, for example, has a much more positive and healthy veteran community for the simple fact that it is a better game.

Referring to myself

Yes I'm generally anti-GW (with respects to pricing, the recent rapid turn-over of codices which has left a massive jilted feeling, the removal of fluff and flavour (see Dark Eldar) and the actions of some of the stores preventing non-newbies to play on them).


You won't see a single complaint from me about games such as SAGA, Lion Rampant/Dragon Rampant, Frostgrave, Ronin, Bolt Action and a series of other games. The reason is simple - those producers listen to the players (I've even visited Warlord Games HQ and had very pleasant email conversations with Osprey and Gripping Beast about the games). The games are balanced because they care about making a good game - rather than using the excuse that they are a model shop first (which makes little sense considering GAMES Workshops history. The rulebooks are written to the best of their ability and they aren't constantly being slightly modified to force you to spend more - a model used by MTG and other collectible games I don't personally care for. They also provide all the rules in one book, avoiding the sort of pay-to-win situation we have with GW and the formation dataslates.

I used to like much of GW, but that has changed - now I'm more a fan of the fluff and background. I've found far more pleasure in the Black Library compared to the game for the reasons stated above. Rather than the annoyance of playing 40K, I read a book instead. If I want to play a physical game, I play one of the ones I mentioned above, for the reasons stated.

So yes, you may consider me a vocal anti-GW person, but I didn't suddenly decide this. I am also a very vocal pro-Saga, Frostgrave etc person. Essentially I say exactly how I feel based on my experience. In my opinion, GW deserves what I say about it because I'm literally stating my experience with it.

 Brennonjw wrote:

could be local ebbs and flows (happened where I play once or twice) but who knows. Honestly, most people find out about the game online, and then they bump into the 7 metric tons of people whining, and I think that scares away more people then the price. A "starter (~1500)" army of your faction (books included) is roughly the same as getting a console, starting your gaming PC, or most other Hobby entry costs, so I doubt high buy-in. Also, not sure why you brought up purchase security, unless your referring to books. Almost all of the basic models for an army haven't been made obsolete in years, and same goes for most vehicles, unless your referring to a new version of the model coming out.

Honestly, I feel that the game's "new population" is hurt by the price less then it is by the community, 'cause yes, were scorned, but the only other more toxic community that I can think of is the Total War forums.

Sure, some core units have staying power. Tactical Marines are a safe buy, as are Jetbikes.

Some armies tend to suffer a lot more than others though. For example, if you played CSM in 5th edition, 6th hit and now you need to buy a ton of cultists. Now in 7th the CSM codex is nearly unplayable, so it's time to pick up the Khorne Daemonkin codex - along with a bunch of Flesh Hounds and Bikers as your core units. IG players suffered similarly - I feel bad for the guys who went out and bought 3+ Hydras for use in 5th only to find them useless in 6th.

To be perfectly fair, it's honestly not the rules so much as it is the release schedule. For a game based upon army building rather than individual units, 40k could really benefit (both from gameplay and business perspectives) from a slower release schedule that permits metagames to be broken and reform.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We live in a universe where the negative views of some users on DakkaDakka are the major turn-off from the game while simultaneously the negative users are an unprepresentative minority because there are far more people who like the game who never visit forums.

Schrödinger's Hater?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We live in a universe where the negative views of some users on DakkaDakka are the major turn-off from the game while simultaneously the negative users are an unprepresentative minority because there are far more people who like the game who never visit forums.

Schrödinger's Hater?

Coiuld be Pavlovs hater. Conditioned to turn up at the sound of someone praising GW.

GW games are completely dead at my FLGS...and our store is the only one with dedicated gaming space for miles and miles.

Still going strong in order of popularity here...

Warmahordes
Malifaux
Infinity
Guildball is picking up steam

Games like X-Wing, Imperial Assault, and Star Wars: Armada are seeing play as well.

Kings of War gets play occasionally, equal mix of GW model armies and Mantic ones.

Of course, it helps that there is an active Press Ganger there on game night every week, who schedules regular tournaments, leagues, and launch events. I have no doubt if GW made some balanced competitive rules and started supporting something like thier 'Outrider' program again, that things would pick back up for them here. Most of the people there every week have multiple armies for either 40K, Warhammer Fantasy (pre-AoS),or both (me)...they just find playing those other games to be more fun/rewarding

Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, but GW is not more expansive than other Wargame Companies. In fact, on a model for model basis, PP or CB, to name two well-known examples, are actually more expansive.

Your point would have merit if wargames were based around buying a single model. Comparisons on a model for model basis can be incredibly misleading. A more accurate measure is based on cost of entry as well as the total cost of an army.

Saying CB have more pricy single models is correct (but the quality is outstanding). Saying its more expensive as a game is false, as you need about ten of those models and you’re ready to game at a top level.

GW games are very much on the top end of the price bracket, both with cost of entry and total cost of play. And even if we want to talk about the 'single' model category, I can guarantee you I can find any number of examples of gw producing single models at price points that are nothing if not exorbitant.

Grumblewartz wrote:
The decline of local clubs is also, it seems, partially driven by the economy in general. 40k, board games, etc. are not an incredibly safe investment. Even now when nerd is cooler than ever, it isn't easy to turn a major profit. So, with the economic down turn, many stores are shifting their focus, using their space in order to diversify their product, leaving less room for tables that don't generate that much money (most people buy product online because it is cheaper).

If anything, board games etc tend to see a bit of a boost during economic downturns, and to be fair, the economic downturn argument doesn’t really hold water any more. I remember a few years ago Kirby talking about their product being recession proof as well.

Grumblewartz wrote:
Yes, it is GW's fault that people constantly try to break a game that was never designed for competitive play.

So its tims fault be picked blood angels and bob picked necrons eh? Assuming malevolent intentions behind this is asinine. Some people will try and break the game, plenty more just want to play it, and it doesn’t help when the game’s appalling balance gets in the way. 'I love the idea of airborne guard!' back in fifth was often enough to get labelled as tfg, and that has everything to do with gw writing terrible rules. It didn't have to be that way. So yes, it was gw's fault.

And by the way, gw used to run tournaments. 40k used to be the game where everyone was welcome.

Grumblewartz wrote:
Yes, it is their fault the game is sooooooo expensive (oh wait, don't look now, model WWII tanks of any quality are at least $45 new).

Well, yes it is. Its even more ridiculous when they half the contents of the boxes (dire avengers for example) and jack up the prices at the same time, whilst simultaneously pushing for bigger games with ridiculously expensive centre pieces…

Grumblewartz wrote:
Oh x army is better than y army. Spread more hate over things that are
1.) beyond their control;

Balancing the game (ie not making x army better than y army) is actually entirely within their control. They’re the writers.

Grumblewartz wrote:
3.) my friends are all http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/7ae18ba11c7ba79f6898e876a4b8ba4a.gifbecause they spam the best units of an elite army and I refuse to play anything other than my favorite list that hasn't changed in 4 editions - it is totally GW's fault, yet again;

Its called power creep, and yes, cynically invalidating someones previous purchases at the altar of new shinies fosters ill will and resentment. This also plays into the argument of 'gw should write a balanced game where everyone can be on the same level'.

Grumblewartz wrote:
4.) I quit playing the game 5 years ago but I constantly feel the need to badmouth the hobby because, you know, internet reasons;

The ‘game’ and the ‘hobby’ are two entirely separate things. 40k is not the hobby. Don't be so naive or short sighted. Badmouthing asinine and counter productive business practices is fair game. And to be fair, you don’t need to play the game of 40k to have an interest in the topic. Plenty people don’t actually play the ttg. For many, it’s the painting/converting. For others it’s reading the fluff. For others it’s a general interest in gaming. GW, being a big player is often a central point of discussion. And they do a lot of things worthy of comment

Grumblewartz wrote:
5.g) Screw GW for not supporting my favorite army that no one else really plays, but they should spend hundreds of thousands of $$$$...by the way I am not going to buy any of the new sets.

Ironically – possibly because they’re not supporting your favourite army? And surely, this links into making a decently robust system that supports those armies so they’re all viable?

Brennonjw wrote:
It doesn't help that the WM/H crowd loves to say their game is cheaper, when it costs the same price, if not more for less models (however, you need less to play a game of WM/H) which just riles up the "defenders" and reaffirms the "anti-GW's" biases (I suppose thats the best word)

Please don't speak for 'the wmh crowd' like we're a hive mind?

Because I personally think you are wrong. I don’t think its fair to say that the WMH crowd says the game is cheaper. Some might, and they're only seeing part of the picture. And often, others in the very same community point this out. Wmh is certainly far cheaper to buy into, and it is far easier to expand your army – all the costs are not front loaded for example. But I would disagree with the notion that it ‘costs the same price’. Lets be clear – it can do. It can be as pricy as 40k. Cavalry for example can be quite pricy, and cavalry based armies (vlad3 charge of the horselords comes to mind immediately) can be ridiculous, but these are far from the norm. hordes armies tend to come in quite a bit cheaper for example. I know of quite a few legion of everblight, or circle of orboros 2-list pairs that come out at very reasonable prices and often quite a bit cheaper than your 40k armies.

Brennonjw wrote:
I've noticed that the game is far from dying as, recently as I mentioned before, GW is making moves in the right direction: actual FAQs (however wimpy, progress is progress), bringing back specialist games, making recent codexies around the game general "power level", the incredibly well priced Calth box set. If they stick to these trends, then the game will probably get better. Yes, the game will still be expensive, but no more then other hobbies if you go a month-by-month basis. In most hobbies, it seems that a high entry cost, and then 40-70 a month there after is a standard amount, and fits well for MTG, video gaming, and other miniature hobbies.

the problem here is that gw have to ‘stick to those trends’ for it to take effect. I remember the same words being spoken at the start of 5th ed when folks felt that the ‘stripped back’ back-to-basics chaos and DA codices would herald in a new era of anti-power creep, and these pointed to a general power level that would be followed through for the edition. Hopes were high, and then those same hopes were dashed on some very sharp rocks when orks, space wolves, leafblower guard followed and then there were grey knights which took 5th and broke its back. I’ve seen those same comments said for 6th, and now 7th and the sad truth is that their past performance indicates that no, they will not do as you suggest. Calth is great for what its worth, and while people are hopeful of the return of specialist games, there is every chance GW will miss the goal with it. I’ll wait and see though.

Brennonjw wrote:
In reguards to the game being broken: I hate to quote BoLS, but "it's not broke untill you break it" yes, there are stupid units and rules, but no, they don't ruin the game IF you don't play in a setting where you typically pay for entry, and then rewards happen because you want to win. In more casual games with friends or just people in your local group, you can make new scenarios, play non-balanced point costs, and other parts of the game that are typically ignored when you play competitively. Though tournaments are how some people enjoy the game, so it must be considered none the less, but I don't think it should be the focus.

It’s not that simple. the problem with this approach is that often breaking the game is not intentional. 'Until you break it' can be as simple as 'oh man! I love the idea of these biker saim hann eldar!' Its not necessarily because of ‘tournaments’. No reward. Just two people picking armies they think are Kewl. It just happens. Quite often in the case of gw games, and far too often to be anything other than a bad thing. Tim plays blood angels. Bob plays saim hann. Its often not fair that two players, with no individual input, start on such radically different power levels. ‘don’t break it’ is kind of hard when the logical conclusion is tim can only play a handful of builds to play at bobs feet, and bob has to leave 90% of his stuff at home because its on another level to time as well. Thst doesn't strike me as either fair, or well designed.

Home brewed rules can be great fun (its how we usually play Flames of War) but they are not necessarily a ‘better way’, and often have just as many hurdles to jump though. This approach often risks fragmenting and fracturing the playerbase, as without a universal framework, everyone is essentially playing a different game. There is great value in just being able to turn up and say '1500pts? Roll scenario' and go.

‘sorry, we don’t play flyers or super heavies here’ means the guy with 5 knights is flat out of luck ,and its not really his fault. He didn't 'try to break it'. But here he is, not able to play. Because of a bunch of reasons.

And As a final point though, it is a bit annoying to have to fix a game at our end when it’s a job the developers should have done at theirs.

GW charges a premium price for its rulebooks. It's reasonable to demand a high level of writing quality in said rules and frankly absurd to say that it's the players' responsibility to balance them. Isn't that what we're paying GW to do?

 TheWaspinator wrote:
GW charges a premium price for its rulebooks. It's reasonable to demand a high level of writing quality in said rules and frankly absurd to say that it's the players' responsibility to balance them. Isn't that what we're paying GW to do?

Or just stop buying and torrent. Like I started doing.

Depends on your local scene, but we will have a better picture in January when they release their financials.

This last year IMHO is arguably one of their better/best years from a modeling/release standpoint, with the Admech being one of their best top to bottom releases ever.

I too have been somewhat jaded by the direction the game has been going since 6th edition, ie ApocHammer 40k, but I thankfully play with a group that is thriving and weeds out the BS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
GW charges a premium price for its rulebooks. It's reasonable to demand a high level of writing quality in said rules and frankly absurd to say that it's the players' responsibility to balance them. Isn't that what we're paying GW to do?

This is easily my biggest beef with GW. I could understand if they were giving them out for free, but when a single book is $50+, I would hope they fix their errors more frequently.

i like 30k

Deadnight wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, but GW is not more expansive than other Wargame Companies. In fact, on a model for model basis, PP or CB, to name two well-known examples, are actually more expansive.

Your point would have merit if wargames were based around buying a single model. Comparisons on a model for model basis can be incredibly misleading. A more accurate measure is based on cost of entry as well as the total cost of an army.
Saying its more expensive as a game is false, as you need about ten of those models and you’re ready to game at a top level.

Which is why you can't compare Infinity to 40k. They are on a fundamentally different scale, with the only similarity that they both make use of miniatures. It is somewhat like the difference between buying a Nintendo DS and buying a super high-end gaming PC. The DS allows you to fully play games at a much lower cost than the PC. The PC gives you more, but at higher costs. Just as playing a game of 40k gives you much more miniatures on the table than playing a game of Infinity will. That said, the big question, is gaming on that expansive PC really more fun than gaming on the DS? Maybe the DS games are actually better designed and more fun? The answer to that will depend on the player. Personally, I enjoy wargames with lots of miniatures better than wargames with less miniatures.

Regardless, the whole argument is invalid because you can also play a game of Kill Team with only 10 GW miniatures. Therefore GW still is much cheaper than CB
In my opinion, the comparison should therefore not be based on the costs of playing a single game (which in the end, you could make as big or small as you want it to be) but on the value you get for the money. When I buy a box of 10 GW figures, I get 10 highly customisable figures with lots of extra options. When I buy 10 Infinity miniatures, I get 10 monopose figures at a higher cost. Buying the GW box just gives me more stuff for less money, and therefore is imo cheaper. In the end, 10 miniatures are 10 miniatures, I can do the same things with them. I can even play a full game of Infinity with my 10 GW miniatures!

Deadnight wrote:

Saying CB have more pricy single models is correct (but the quality is outstanding).

It is a matter of opinion, but their quality imo is not always that great. CB produces some really outstanding miniatures, but others are not nearly as nice. Of course, that holds true for GW as well ( Gorilla Cadians!)

Deadnight wrote:
GW games are very much on the top end of the price bracket, both with cost of entry and total cost of play. And even if we want to talk about the 'single' model category, I can guarantee you I can find any number of examples of gw producing single models at price points that are nothing if not exorbitant.

The game, yes. That is true. 40k really is one of the most expansive games, altough for a large degree that also depends on how large you want your game to be. You can play a 1000pts game quite cheaply.
For the models, GW is expensive when compared to pure scale model companies, but not when compared to other wargame companies. It is also not expansive compared to most other hobbies. For what I paid for my mountainbike, computer games and sailing boat, I could have had a lifetime supply of all the 40k models I ever want.


[quote=Deadnight 673317 8325993 nullAnd As a final point though, it is a bit annoying to have to fix a game at our end when it’s a job the developers should have done at theirs.

I always love when people say this hobby is cheaper then other hobbies like collecting rare cars or boats. Apples to apples..

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It didn't use to be like that. Veterans used to be the most important selling tool for 40K, thanks to the network effect, and the enthusiasm of forums like DakkaDakka.

Ask yourself what happened to turn all that around.

It is a pity 40k is hardly fun to play without house rules.

That should be a big, honkin' huge red flag to anyone interested in the game.

riburn3 wrote:
Depends on your local scene, but we will have a better picture in January when they release their financials.

It will show a small decline in reported sales for the period.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Which is why you can't compare Infinity to 40k. They are on a fundamentally different scale, with the only similarity that they both make use of miniatures. It is somewhat like the difference between buying a Nintendo DS and buying a super high-end gaming PC. The DS allows you to fully play games at a much lower cost than the PC. The PC gives you more, but at higher costs. Just as playing a game of 40k gives you much more miniatures on the table than playing a game of Infinity will. That said, the big question, is gaming on that expansive PC really more fun than gaming on the DS? Maybe the DS games are actually better designed and more fun? The answer to that will depend on the player. Personally, I enjoy wargames with lots of miniatures better than wargames with less miniatures.
Regardless, the whole argument is invalid because you can also play a game of Kill Team with only 10 GW miniatures. Therefore GW still is much cheaper than CB
.

He, to be fair - it Depends what ten miniatures you take though. Ten Bolter marines? Sure, why not. Now chuck in that ba chaplain, some vanguard, stern guard or whatever and the price rocks up. Meanwhile I can go with some Caledonians and some single model blisters or whathaveyou. Absolutist statements that 'gw is still much cheaper' fall apart under a bit of scrutiny (or at best, aren't as clear cut as you'd like them to be) and will get you into trouble here,

In any case, Kill team isn't 40k. so there's that. :p it's not the main game. Its a very stripped back game using some elements and game mechanics of the main parent 40k game, and a whole bunch of limitations, restrictions and bans a heck of a lot of stuff you'd normally see etc. so let's talk about a generic 300pt infinity list versus a generic 1850pt 40k list. Is gw cheaper? Probably not.

Fo me, what's galling isn't necessarily the price tag per mini - I don't mind paying. It's the cynical cash grabs - halving the contents of the boxes while jacking up the prices, invalidating codices and models to force you to buy the next shiny and keep up with the meta. Then there are the rulebooks and codices and so on...

You like wargames with lots of miniatures over those with very few? Fair play. I prefer the latter, personally. Neither of us is wrong in our opinions.

And to be fair, you can very much compare and contrast infinity and 40k. They're both wargames using 28mm models. You can compare rules, model quality, price to play etc. strengths, merits and differences.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In my opinion, the comparison should therefore not be based on the costs of playing a single game (which in the end, you could make as big or small as you want it to be) but on the value you get for the money. When I buy a box of 10 GW figures, I get 10 highly customisable figures with lots of extra options. When I buy 10 Infinity miniatures, I get 10 monopose figures at a higher cost. Buying the GW box just gives me more stuff for less money, and therefore is imo cheaper. In the end, 10 miniatures are 10 miniatures, I can do the same things with them. I can even play a full game of Infinity with my 10 GW miniatures!
.

The 'value you get for your money' is open ended. I love infinity, so I get great 'value for my money' from that. Then there is buying second hand Etc. to have an honest conversation on this, you need to look at the go-to sizes and the total cost of play.

And I disagree with you. Those 10 miniatures are all well and good, but with infinity - that's you ready to rock and roll. In 40k, that's a squad. You can play Mickey Mouse games of kill team with it, and you can ignore those huge battles with loads of models that you claim to love as well and it's those things that really make 40k what it is. And you then still need a bunch more to get up to a 'normal' size. Cost of entry and costs of armies should be considered too, for the simple reason that the discussion doesn't end with ten models.

By the way, I might have issues with your proxies! then again, I have played intro games of warmachine with space marines too...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The game, yes. That is true. 40k really is one of the most expansive games, altough for a large degree that also depends on how large you want your game to be. You can play a 1000pts game quite cheaply.
.

Other games can be scaled down too, just as easily. Thousand pointers in 40k? Here's 150pts infinity, and mangled metal/tooth and claw in warmachine.

What's the default, or 'go-to' size that most people play? Back when I played it was 1500-1850pts and thousand pointers were mainly for newer players. And even then, it's a very limited scale.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

For the models, GW is expensive when compared to pure scale model companies, but not when compared to other wargame companies. It is also not expansive compared to most other hobbies. For what I paid for my mountainbike, computer games and sailing boat, I could have had a lifetime supply of all the 40k models I ever want.
.

And when compared to what I pay for my marathons (£50 to enter, and £100 for good trainers) it's a hell of a lot more expensive! For what it's worth though - don't talk about 'normal hobbies' in the same breath as sailing boats, mountain bikes and that - wow, that's a whole different level! I'm envious by the way. Now, if we're talking about boozing, then it's quite a bit cheaper!
Generally though I'll agree with you - I don't see wargaming as ridiculously expensive on the whole - it's easy enough to put aside £10 a week as a hobby budget that'll get you a decent chunk of stuff over a long period of time. For me, the problem is the bloody painting (looks at lead mountain and groans!)

Cheers

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It didn't use to be like that. Veterans used to be the most important selling tool for 40K, thanks to the network effect, and the enthusiasm of forums like DakkaDakka.

When was dakka never a rant fest in part?

I mean the majority of posts on dakka are not rants, but like all things, all it takes is one turd in the punch bowl for no one to want to drink any,

 Brennonjw wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Let's see...I play at a FLGS that has 8 high quality gaming tables, enough terrain to fill them well, all tables with nice FLG mats. In addition, the other half of the store is reserved for Magic.

I've never seen fewer than 50 people playing MTG on a given night.

The last 40k tournament drew out 7 people. The one before that drew out 3 so it wasn't run.

Meanwhile, at a much smaller FLGS in a mall with 4 gaming tables (different location obviously...this was expanded to 8 on tourney days) where I used to play 5th edition, we would regularly fill the available 16 slots and have at least 6 guys hanging around in the morning in case someone backed out.


Yes 40k is dying, it's just taking a long time to peter out. People are still buying models, but new people aren't getting into the game. High buy-in cost and low purchase security (you have no idea whether your purchase will even be usable a year from now) are huge turnoffs to new players. I've been playing for 24 years now but haven't bought a model in at least 2 years because 40k is probably the worst gaming investment imaginable.

could be local ebbs and flows (happened where I play once or twice) but who knows. Honestly, most people find out about the game online, and then they bump into the 7 metric tons of people whining, and I think that scares away more people then the price. A "starter (~1500)" army of your faction (books included) is roughly the same as getting a console, starting your gaming PC, or most other Hobby entry costs, so I doubt high buy-in. Also, not sure why you brought up purchase security, unless your referring to books. Almost all of the basic models for an army haven't been made obsolete in years, and same goes for most vehicles, unless your referring to a new version of the model coming out.

Honestly, I feel that the game's "new population" is hurt by the price less then it is by the community, 'cause yes, were scorned, but the only other more toxic community that I can think of is the Total War forums.

Your joking with the non obsolete thing right? If someone buys an ps4, then it is good for years, unless he breaks it. Now show me an IG army that is not obsolete. What about SW who went from lots of GH and LF, to lots of TWC and ally. Or how about the GK armies, can you tell me where those went?
Vehicles didn't get obsolote? please. IG armies were runing 2-3 vendettas before, now they can't even fit in one, becuse of how much it costs. All the razorbacks SW, GK and BA players unusable. Assault marines out of BA codex, gone too. No one is going to invest 700$ in to something that may last a few months, and at best a year or two.

And I disagree with you. Those 10 miniatures are all well and good, but with infinity - that's you ready to rock and roll. In 40k, that's a squad. You can play Mickey Mouse games of kill team with it, and you can ignore those huge battles with loads of models that you claim to love as well and it's those things that really make 40k what it is. And you then still need a bunch more to get up to a 'normal' size. Cost of entry and costs of armies should be considered too, for the simple reason that the discussion doesn't end with ten models.

You know what I like the most in infinity? The fact that I play a game, there are missions, there are scenarios , there are combos and counters. In w40k you just check who has the highest avarge shot per turn with lowest vunerability, and the game is done. And the missions in w40k are so stupid. In infinity I want FO, medics and engineers, because it is important for missions. In w40k the one who zergs objectives first and gets a better draw hand wins.

the42up wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It didn't use to be like that. Veterans used to be the most important selling tool for 40K, thanks to the network effect, and the enthusiasm of forums like DakkaDakka.

When was dakka never a rant fest in part?

I mean the majority of posts on dakka are not rants, but like all things, all it takes is one turd in the punch bowl for no one to want to drink any,

Actually, in earlier editions, warseer was called whineseer and was considered the negative forum. It was filled with people ranting non-stop about how the game sucks and various other issues people had.
Bolter and chainsword was considered....I don't know a nice way to say it, but it was more for children. It was filled with people rping as space marines, poorly, and the quality of advice was pitiful.
Dakka was considered the more competitive forum/modeling forum. The tactics and modeling threads on here were big draws, and you saw the highest amount of GT winners/players here.
The warhammer forum was also for more serious players, but had a smaller amount of activity. I think it was mainly based in the UK and centered around fantasy, but then the races individual forums took off in a big way (starting with empire, bug mans, druchii, and ogre stronghold later on being the big ones).

Portent was the fluff bible of the forums, but that was even further back. I loved that site, especially one poster whose name started with an I and had an evangelion avatar.

 hanshotfirst wrote:
i like 30k

This game is more balanced - Marines vs. Marines.
Here the rule book has not so much influence on the game when you run Marines, a few transports, and a Primarch, and the opponent does the same.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually, in earlier editions, warseer was called whineseer and was considered the negative forum. It was filled with people ranting non-stop about how the game sucks and various other issues people had.
Bolter and chainsword was considered....I don't know a nice way to say it, but it was more for children. It was filled with people rping as space marines, poorly, and the quality of advice was pitiful.
Dakka was considered the more competitive forum/modeling forum. The tactics and modeling threads on here were big draws, and you saw the highest amount of GT winners/players here.
The warhammer forum was also for more serious players, but had a smaller amount of activity. I think it was mainly based in the UK and centered around fantasy, but then the races individual forums took off in a big way (starting with empire, bug mans, druchii, and ogre stronghold later on being the big ones).

You speak in simple past. Do the forums have changed?

Locally it has never been easier to find an opponent for a wargame.

I has never been harder to find an opponent for 40k.