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.
Sure as hell not. But the 1850pts 40k list will also give you a lot more toys than the 300pts Infinity list will.
And it costs a hell of a lot more. Which was the bloody point. And it has every chance of being entirely invalidated with gw's next codex/edition update.
Oh, you can compare all right. But just as with comparing apples to oranges, you have to wonder whether that comparison has any meaningful value
If you're talking about fruit in a general sense, or value per fruit, or how the fruit companies treat their customers, and grow their crops then yes it does.
True. Yet to me, those 10 miniatures are a far higher value because I can assemble them in whatever way I want as part of a slowly expanding and unique personalised miniature army. In 40k, every group of Space Marines is unique, but in Infinity, all Caledonians look exactly like all other Caledonians, maybe just differently painted.
Every single space marine is the same bloody homogenous and boring power armour, just with slightly different bling or nipples on the armour. They're not as 'unique' as you'd claim. And it gets worse when you consider the sheer hard-on gw has for them and their over saturation in both the lore and the table top, And it makes sense that every Caledonian looks Similar It's a pretty small culture from a tiny part of the universe. And even then I have mormaers, grey rifles, the 2nd and 6th scots, volunteers, galwegians, Caterans , wulvers, William Wallace and so so. Full blooded army of bile, anger, fire, passion, bitterness and good old fashioned spite. Kinda like Scotland really.
It's far easier to claim that all grey hunters look the same. Same power armour, pelts and bolt guns and statline at the end of the day. And if you go 'but paint schemes/conversions!' Then what's stopping me giving every Caledonian his own unique tartan and converting them? There's 4000+ tartans out there and plenty opportunity to convert.
And what's stopping me slowly expanding a unique personalised miniature army with any other game? Hmm?
As someone who values the miniatures far more than the actual game, this is extremely important to me. The greatest fun on 40k is not playing the game, it is building and collecting the army. Again, it is things like this that make Infinity and 40k really hard to compare.
Be careful about those absolutist statements about defining what 'the greatest fun is'. At least qualify it as 'in your opinion'. Because it's not a 'fact'. And let's be clear, in terms of contrast - valuing the miniatures - I value my infinity miniatures more than Almost anything I've done for 40k (some tau and kroot conversions aside - and I love those boys!) so there's that. Which goes back to cost of play. Which is a big deal to a lot of people.
Mountainbiking and sailing are rather normal hobbies afaik. I know a lot more people who mountainbike or sail than I know people playing miniature wargames, so what is the 'normal hobby' really?
They're hardly cheap though. Really Good mountain bikes can set you back a massive chunk of cash.
(Also, with my boat, there is no need to be envious. It is over 50 years old and I bought it for about €500. The yearly harbour and maintenance costs are much more expansive than the boat itself! )
Like I said, the fact you can talk about this and it's maintenance so off handedly is nice, but not indicative of cheapness on the part of 40k or that these are 'normal hobbies'. Here- not at all!
If you don't play the game, it will be hard to make any insightful comments on it. At best you will be stuck echoing what others have said.
Unless you are knowledgeable about the meta, which plenty people are. It's not hard to read a codex with previous understanding of a the game, or to read the rules and understand what's good, bad and flat out broken and open to abuse.
I don't need to be a Chelsea fan to understand how poorly they are doing in the football- I can plainly see it on the TV.
. Having valid reasons of disliking gw and 40k is enough of a reason to Bring it up and point it out when the topic is brought up. If I dislike something, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss this and point this out. Or are we going down the road of censorship, echo chambers and stating that 'only posters who agree with me are allowed to comment'?
Remember the original comment I responded to was basically saying that while it was ok to dislike 40k and gw, it's apparently not ok to talk about it. Obviously of course, this being a sub forum dedicated to gw/40k, opinions relating to either have no place here.
The critical comments are important, but I think the problem that Grumblewartz sees with it is that it is no longer constructive because too often it devolves into an unending repetition of the exact same opinions over and over and over again in every single thread about GW, and even worse, in many unrelated threads as well. That is where it goes from being constructive criticism to whining. Unfortenately some people just can't seem to pull themselves away from 40k, even if they hate it. That is why they keep coming back to post negativity, which greatly diminishes the fun of Dakka for people with more positive attitudes.
Grumbles is also previously blaming the players for the faults in the game and wants a skewed narrative that hushes up criticism and only allows people that are positive about 40k to post. That's hardly a 'constructive' or an entirely honest attitude either, is it? But I guess that's ok?
If it comes up in different threads posted by different people discussing gw, and aspects of the game then maybe there is a reason for it? Smoke and fire, and all that. If it's an off topic rant, the mods will step in. A lot of Internet debates in everything are endless repeats of previous threads. Talking issue about a specific set of opinions being repeated over and over again is pointless - this is part and parcel of the internet. These threads are part of forum bingo And there will always be someone new who wishes to bring it up. Don't be surprised when the same points of view get repeated. You don't get an echo chamber in this I'm afraid.
Calling it 'whining' isn't helping matters either. There is a difference between constructive criticism, objective analysis and this 'whining'. And to be fair - that whining is going on on both sides. whining about whining is somewhat amusing.
As an example: There is nothing constructive about posting "Go play something game X instead" in a thread of someone asking about how to get started 40k. That is just rude and off topic.
It's relevant though. Maybe not phrased like that though lol.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 00:04:16
Jeebus Cripes. I don't log on for a few days and this thread blows up. I couldn't even get through the 8 pages of whining, flaming and a few good posts. XD
The local game shoppe is closing after signing their deal with the devil, but living in oil country and buying a bunch of miniatures to try and turn for profit when world oil price has gone down (and the chuckleheads here blame the new provincial government... when they can't even point out Saudi Arabia on a map) is like attempting auto-erotic asphyxiation when you are impotent... a whole lot of effort for no gain.
However, it has lead me to the local group, which I am happy for, having only moved here 4 years ago. I also tried clearing them of whatever models they do have that are relevant to the ones I am working on (minus orks, they're beerhammer only).
I guess what I am trying to say is although it seems bleak, there must be enough fanboys and old geeks looking to relive their glory days out there to keep the hobby alive. (I say this as I constantly have talks with a friend on how to kill GW... doo de doo de doo.)
Oh well... when it all comes down to it, at least we had fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 02:03:28
Gamgee wrote: People often mistake shrinking with dying.
Most things wilt before they die :/.
Your assuming a lot of things.
1. It's dying.
2. It's not sick.
3. It can't be fixed.
4. A donor can't be found (new owner)
5. It's not just a down tick because of factors outside of their control.
Gamgee wrote: People often mistake shrinking with dying.
Most things wilt before they die :/.
Your assuming a lot of things.
1. It's dying.
2. It's not sick.
3. It can't be fixed.
4. A donor can't be found (new owner)
5. It's not just a down tick because of factors outside of their control.
So many factors.
1.) This is a safe assumption when things are going downhill. Whether it dies or not is a different matter.
2.) Sickness is a path to death, if not treated even basic ailments can lead to death.
3.) This is not an assumption, something can be dying and be fixed. Dying does not equate to impossible to fix, it simply means it needs fixing before it does die D:
4.) See point three, you can be dying until you find a donor, after the transplant you won't be dying anymore potentially.
5.) It's a rather consistent tick, and whether or not it's in their control doesn't matter to a dying state. Some forms of dying can be in our control, others can not, that's just how reality functions. We can control a bleeding wound that is causing us to die, we can not control aging which is causing us to die, in either case we're dying, but the decline is visible, and it becomes rapid in the case of either becoming critical.
Basically, what I'm saying is that dying does not mean dead, it simply means if something isn't done it will lead to death.
Gamgee wrote: People often mistake shrinking with dying.
Most things wilt before they die :/.
Your assuming a lot of things.
1. It's dying.
2. It's not sick.
3. It can't be fixed.
4. A donor can't be found (new owner)
5. It's not just a down tick because of factors outside of their control.
So many factors.
1.) This is a safe assumption when things are going downhill. Whether it dies or not is a different matter.
2.) Sickness is a path to death, if not treated even basic ailments can lead to death.
3.) This is not an assumption, something can be dying and be fixed. Dying does not equate to impossible to fix, it simply means it needs fixing before it does die D:
4.) See point three, you can be dying until you find a donor, after the transplant you won't be dying anymore potentially.
5.) It's a rather consistent tick, and whether or not it's in their control doesn't matter to a dying state. Some forms of dying can be in our control, others can not, that's just how reality functions. We can control a bleeding wound that is causing us to die, we can not control aging which is causing us to die, in either case we're dying, but the decline is visible, and it becomes rapid in the case of either becoming critical.
Basically, what I'm saying is that dying does not mean dead, it simply means if something isn't done it will lead to death.
Exactly.
Like an airplane going down. It doesn't mean it will crash, only that if they don't pull up they will. I don't see GW pulling up any time soon. How long they have to reach the ground? No idea, but if they don't do something, they will go down.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Gamgee wrote: People often mistake shrinking with dying.
Most things wilt before they die :/.
Your assuming a lot of things.
1. It's dying.
2. It's not sick.
3. It can't be fixed.
4. A donor can't be found (new owner)
5. It's not just a down tick because of factors outside of their control.
So many factors.
1.) This is a safe assumption when things are going downhill. Whether it dies or not is a different matter.
2.) Sickness is a path to death, if not treated even basic ailments can lead to death.
3.) This is not an assumption, something can be dying and be fixed. Dying does not equate to impossible to fix, it simply means it needs fixing before it does die D:
4.) See point three, you can be dying until you find a donor, after the transplant you won't be dying anymore potentially.
5.) It's a rather consistent tick, and whether or not it's in their control doesn't matter to a dying state. Some forms of dying can be in our control, others can not, that's just how reality functions. We can control a bleeding wound that is causing us to die, we can not control aging which is causing us to die, in either case we're dying, but the decline is visible, and it becomes rapid in the case of either becoming critical.
Basically, what I'm saying is that dying does not mean dead, it simply means if something isn't done it will lead to death.
Exactly.
Like an airplane going down. It doesn't mean it will crash, only that if they don't pull up they will. I don't see GW pulling up any time soon. How long they have to reach the ground? No idea, but if they don't do something, they will go down.
I forgot who said it, but there was a quote that went along the lines of "We're all in a giant car that's headed towards a brick wall at a hundred miles per hour, and we're all arguing about where we'd like to sit..."
I know some people might say that we should vote with our wallet, but honestly, we all like the minis and want the game to be good, so we don't want to simply kill it by not buying. I guess things like the ITC are the actual voting, as it's a display of desire for something more, even on as small of a level as their power extends. At least we haven't hit the level of some games, where people state that the company shouldn't care about a game if people are leaving, since it went from highly profitable to losing money, instead of asking themselves why that shift happened, right?
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
My stupid theory is that it was easy to pirate rules, but hard to pirate models, so they tried to go with that in a weird alien logic type of way :/. I mean it makes sense in a business type of way if you don't consider reality as a thing.
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
It isn't a theory. It is their printed, stated policy.
Active armies, still collecting and painting First and greatest love - Orks, Orks, and more Orks largest pile of shame, so many tanks unassembled most complete and painted beautiful models, couldn't resist the swarm will consume all
Armies in disrepair: nothing new since 5th edition oh how I want to revive, but mostly old fantasy demons and some glorious Soul Grinders in need of love
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
It isn't a theory. It is their printed, stated policy.
It's their very recent policy, which many view as a cop out.
From 3rd - 5th, GW very much treated this game as a competitive wargame, in every sense of the term.
I might have missed it in 8 pages of this but has anyone actually reported their local community to be *growing*, or is the counter to 'it's dying in my area' simply 'it's not declining in mine'?
I ask this because in Australia it would seem that there is nowhere it is really growing. Our largest online retailer, who boast they are the largest FLGS in the southern hemisphere, post pictures of all their new stock arriving. A table of stencils here, two tables of some obscure game there, a literal pallet of PP or Infinity stuff now and then, and god dammed shipping containers of x wing. They used to show off the one table of GW stuff, but have stopped doing that over a year ago. They still haven't aknowledged the existence of AoS either and told the ACCC GWs products had fallen to 10-15% of their revenue. If you'd allow me to be a pessimist for a moment I'd suggest GW lost Australia as a market around the launch of 7th.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid. The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
It isn't a theory. It is their printed, stated policy.
It's their very recent policy, which many view as a cop out.
From 3rd - 5th, GW very much treated this game as a competitive wargame, in every sense of the term.
I in 2nd edition the game was still kind of in that weird limbo between the two; they did, however, have and encourage tournaments since they had Rogue Trader Tournaments (RTTs) and the Grand Tournament. Then as you point out, 3rd shifted more to a homogenized game with solid rules, versus 2nd edition's still somewhat wacky and differing special rules per army. I understand 4th and 5th did similar, and then 6th decided to backtrack to similar to 2nd edition with lots of various things that some armies have and some don't, but they have kept the core rules from 3rd edition ever since.
I think the underlying issue is A) GW doesn't realize that good rules will sell models and people aren't likely to buy whatever junk they put out because "zomg kewl model" if it's gak on the table, and B) The rules are for a platoon-level game a la 3rd edition, but they keep tacking stuff on without actually improving the core rules to facilitate it better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 14:36:18
Grumblewartz wrote: But the army doesn't work, if a friend wants to buy a motor bike and you know it does not work or will break after 2-3k km, your not going to tell him it is a bad idea to buy it. Not everyone is ready for the GW xpiriance, where you can spend 700$ or more on an army and it is unplayable, a new player or even someone that played other systems won't be ready for something like that.
As the hobby itself is a social pastime rather than anything super competitive (at least by the rules), different styles of armies exist that suit different player types.
Ok dude.a Game that is a table top game witha clear winner and loser is a non competitive. What next some crap about painting being as important as playing the game?
Well, that was in fact the purpose of the game form the start. The founders of GW liked making models, so they created a game to sell it. The game came 2nd and that has been their stance ever since the start. It was a segment of the gaming community that tried to make it hyper-competitive. Your claim that there is a clear winner and loser isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest. The core rule book gives generic missions, but every single edition has encouraged players to make up their own missions and otherwise amend the game as they see fit.
Okay, I'm going to have to stop you right there because you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
The founders of GW didn't make the game to come second to selling models, they were intrinsically linked together, neither one more important. The models were doofy and the game was fun. The real problem happened when their marketing department gained too much power in GW and started making more calls about models instead of the game, as one of the former founders lamented in an interview.
It isn't a theory. It is their printed, stated policy.
Not sure where you got that idea. GW doesn't have "printed policies," so I can only assume you're basing that on the recent semi-annual ravings of the Chairman?
The mistake you've made is taking a leap from "mass battle games were created as a vehicle to sell more models" which is absolutely true, Rick Priestley says as much in the article that's been linked to "we actually don't give a gak about the game, we're only making it to give people a reason to buy the models and we have absolutely no investment in making it good" which is a commonly held theory but, for obvious reasons, isn't a stated aim.
Nobody can dispute the games are a good way to drive model sales, but the flaw in "modern" GW as opposed to the era where the likes of Rick and Alessio were still involved is they don't seem to realise that if you're not making a game that people are excited to play, they're not going to buy your models.
The two are intrinsically linked, in fact, they're symbiotic, and without one, the other withers and dies, which is what I believe we're seeing start to happen.
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
Psienesis wrote: The flip-side to that is you get a newbie dead-set on playing BA, you tell them "this is an uphill struggle, but, here you go" and, six months later, newbie is back with a raging hatred for GW because he spent $500 on a BA army and is getting wiped off the board by his friend's Tau gunline or Eldar list by Turn 3 in every game.
You can then tell them that either they try to convince their friend to change their list, they buy a different army (another $500+ outlay), or to make up some variant rules (not always an option, depending on locale and local meta). You are more likely to end up with someone who says "Feth this", ebays their toys, and jumps to another game entirely and will never touch another GW product in their lives.
Better to be upfront and say "this army sucks right now, it might one day get an update and be much better, but there's no guarantee that will ever happen". This, though, leads to the promulgation of Tau and Eldar lists (or whatever the current hotness is, this is not just a modern problem) which is basically rewarding GW for creating unbalanced units, because you're pushing people to buy them, and that's bad for the game overall.
I have never actually seen that happen. People who hate GW tend to be veterans (hell, I never seen someone dislike GW who wasn't a veteran of at least a few editions) who have been dissapointed with the direction or decisions GW has taken, not new players. In fact, most new players do plenty of research before jumping into something expansive like 40k, and already know about the state of the game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 15:18:40
Sure as hell not. But the 1850pts 40k list will also give you a lot more toys than the 300pts Infinity list will.
And it costs a hell of a lot more. Which was the bloody point. And it has every chance of being entirely invalidated with gw's next codex/edition update.
Apart from the infamous Squats and a few character models (still pissed about that) GW rarely invalidates its models.
True. Yet to me, those 10 miniatures are a far higher value because I can assemble them in whatever way I want as part of a slowly expanding and unique personalised miniature army. In 40k, every group of Space Marines is unique, but in Infinity, all Caledonians look exactly like all other Caledonians, maybe just differently painted.
Every single space marine is the same bloody homogenous and boring power armour, just with slightly different bling or nipples on the armour. They're not as 'unique' as you'd claim. And it gets worse when you consider the sheer hard-on gw has for them and their over saturation in both the lore and the table top, And it makes sense that every Caledonian looks Similar It's a pretty small culture from a tiny part of the universe. And even then I have mormaers, grey rifles, the 2nd and 6th scots, volunteers, galwegians, Caterans , wulvers, William Wallace and so so. Full blooded army of bile, anger, fire, passion, bitterness and good old fashioned spite. Kinda like Scotland really. It's far easier to claim that all grey hunters look the same. Same power armour, pelts and bolt guns and statline at the end of the day. And if you go 'but paint schemes/conversions!' Then what's stopping me giving every Caledonian his own unique tartan and converting them? There's 4000+ tartans out there and plenty opportunity to convert.
Every one of the Tactical Marines in my collection has a different combination of armour, head, weapons and accessoires. Not to mention that they all have different poses. Meanwhile, My Warmachine collection has 20 Winter Guard, but 15 of them look exactly the same as the first 5. There are only 5 unique Winter Guard in the entire world. That is boring. the same is true for Infinity. Every unit has a hard limit on the amount of variety in clothing, weapons and pose. It is the difference between multipose and monopose miniatures. And yes, you can claim that apart from your Caledonian unit, you also have different units, but those are different units. Apart from tactical Marines, I also have Scouts, Assault Marines, Veterans, Terminators, Captains, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Rhinos, Predators, Drop pods, Dreadnoughts etc. And again, even the units I have two or more of, are unique.
And certainly you could convert an Infinity army, but is very hard to do and your modelling possibilities will never be as large as with a 40k army. How often do you see converted Infinity armies? If you play against a player who also plays Scottish Ariadna, chances are you are both going to have exactly the same models.
And if you think Grey Hunters all look the same, I would like to invite you to just type "Grey Hunters" into google image search. Does the fact that they all wear a different variant of power armour make them the same? How many of them are truly the same?
Fact is that if you are a modeller, and you care more about miniatures than about rules, you are likely going to have a lot more fun with 40k than with Infinity, even though I will admit Infinity is the better designed game.
As someone who values the miniatures far more than the actual game, this is extremely important to me. The greatest fun on 40k is not playing the game, it is building and collecting the army. Again, it is things like this that make Infinity and 40k really hard to compare.
Be careful about those absolutist statements about defining what 'the greatest fun is'. At least qualify it as 'in your opinion'. Because it's not a 'fact'. And let's be clear, in terms of contrast - valuing the miniatures - I value my infinity miniatures more than Almost anything I've done for 40k (some tau and kroot conversions aside - and I love those boys!) so there's that. Which goes back to cost of play. Which is a big deal to a lot of people.
Mountainbiking and sailing are rather normal hobbies afaik. I know a lot more people who mountainbike or sail than I know people playing miniature wargames, so what is the 'normal hobby' really?
They're hardly cheap though. Really Good mountain bikes can set you back a massive chunk of cash.
True. I was lucky to get a really good bargain, otherwise I would never have been able to get a good one. But you can have as much fun with a cheaper one. Many more people ride mountainbikes than play 40k.
(Also, with my boat, there is no need to be envious. It is over 50 years old and I bought it for about €500. The yearly harbour and maintenance costs are much more expansive than the boat itself! )
Like I said, the fact you can talk about this and it's maintenance so off handedly is nice, but not indicative of cheapness on the part of 40k or that these are 'normal hobbies'. Here- not at all!
Almost everyone I know can sail. It depends on where you live I guess.
. Having valid reasons of disliking gw and 40k is enough of a reason to Bring it up and point it out when the topic is brought up. If I dislike something, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss this and point this out. Or are we going down the road of censorship, echo chambers and stating that 'only posters who agree with me are allowed to comment'?
Remember the original comment I responded to was basically saying that while it was ok to dislike 40k and gw, it's apparently not ok to talk about it. Obviously of course, this being a sub forum dedicated to gw/40k, opinions relating to either have no place here.
It is okay to discuss negative aspects, it is okay to point it out when the topic is brought up, such as in this thread. But there is a difference between this and the same people bringing up the same things yet once more again in unrelated threads. That is just annoying and actually takes away value from otherwise perfectly fine arguments.
The critical comments are important, but I think the problem that Grumblewartz sees with it is that it is no longer constructive because too often it devolves into an unending repetition of the exact same opinions over and over and over again in every single thread about GW, and even worse, in many unrelated threads as well. That is where it goes from being constructive criticism to whining. Unfortenately some people just can't seem to pull themselves away from 40k, even if they hate it. That is why they keep coming back to post negativity, which greatly diminishes the fun of Dakka for people with more positive attitudes.
Grumbles is also previously blaming the players for the faults in the game and wants a skewed narrative that hushes up criticism and only allows people that are positive about 40k to post. That's hardly a 'constructive' or an entirely honest attitude either, is it? But I guess that's ok?
If it comes up in different threads posted by different people discussing gw, and aspects of the game then maybe there is a reason for it? Smoke and fire, and all that. If it's an off topic rant, the mods will step in. A lot of Internet debates in everything are endless repeats of previous threads. Talking issue about a specific set of opinions being repeated over and over again is pointless - this is part and parcel of the internet. These threads are part of forum bingo And there will always be someone new who wishes to bring it up. Don't be surprised when the same points of view get repeated. You don't get an echo chamber in this I'm afraid.
Calling it 'whining' isn't helping matters either. There is a difference between constructive criticism, objective analysis and this 'whining'. And to be fair - that whining is going on on both sides. whining about whining is somewhat amusing.
It is telling though. Clearly there are a lot of people annoyed with the constant repetition of the exact same negative opinions by usually the exact same people in both related and unrelated threads over and over again.
As an example: There is nothing constructive about posting "Go play something game X instead" in a thread of someone asking about how to get started 40k. That is just rude and off topic.
It's relevant though. Maybe not phrased like that though lol.
How is it relevant? This person is asking for advice about how to get started with 40k, not about what game he should play instead of 40k, or what good alternatives to 40k are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 16:07:05
I love GW's IP. I love the narrative potential of 40k.
I don't want to keep up with the radical meta shifts of competitive play. It's not that I can't, but I found spending $500+ every six - nine months less than satisfying. It just wasn't worth it.
Now, with Forgeworld bringing back specialist games, I might spend some of my hobby dime there. GW needs smaller games that hook into the larger games in some way. Execution Force seems like a great step in that direction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 16:12:59
-Loki- wrote:
40k is about slamming two slegdehammers together and hoping the other breaks first. Malifaux is about fighting with scalpels trying to hit select areas and hoping you connect more.
IF I happen to be at the LGS and I see anyone near the GW section, I amble over and say howdy.
THEN I begin to ask them what brought them to that section. If it is someone already involved with the game I make small talk for a bit and then move on.
If it someone new or thinking about getting into the game; or even thinking about buying some GW for someone as a gift, I swing into action.
I say something along the lines of;
"That was once a really well supported game, but it is slowly dying off. The manufacturer even ended one of their games about a year ago and dropped support."
or
"Do you like Star Wars? Because there are FOUR fantastic games out for it right now."
or
"Those prices are a bit gougy and GW has been known to kill off entire armies before. Have you looked at XXXXXX? They are really well supported and have a robust tournament system so you can play for fun and glory against your friends!"
Practically anything that falls out of my mouth makes GW look like the gaks that they are.
Captain Killhammer McFighterson stared down at the surface of Earth from his high vantage point on the bridge of Starship Facemelter. Something ominous was looming on the surface. He could see a great shadow looming just underneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, slowly spreading northward. "That can't be good..." he muttered to himself while rubbing the super manly stubble on his chin with one hand. "But... on the other hand..." he looked at his shiny new bionic murder-arm. "This could be the perfect chance for that promotion." A perfect roundhouse kick slammed the ship's throttle into full gear. Soon orange jets of superheated plasma were visible from the space-windshield as Facemelter reentered the atmosphere at breakneck speed.
IF I happen to be at the LGS and I see anyone near the GW section, I amble over and say howdy.
THEN I begin to ask them what brought them to that section. If it is someone already involved with the game I make small talk for a bit and then move on.
If it someone new or thinking about getting into the game; or even thinking about buying some GW for someone as a gift, I swing into action.
I say something along the lines of;
"That was once a really well supported game, but it is slowly dying off. The manufacturer even ended one of their games about a year ago and dropped support."
or
"Do you like Star Wars? Because there are FOUR fantastic games out for it right now."
or
"Those prices are a bit gougy and GW has been known to kill off entire armies before. Have you looked at XXXXXX? They are really well supported and have a robust tournament system so you can play for fun and glory against your friends!"
Practically anything that falls out of my mouth makes GW look like the gaks that they are.
Confession time. I do the same thing. I encourage them with other games so the FLGS gets monies. I just steer them away from GW.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Wouldn't call this being a barrier. Someone who feels cheated by gw policy may never play a table top ever again. I have yet to find some who left warmahordes or ifinity and didn't start playing something else. I have never seen someone quit xwing.
I have seen a ton of people pick up wfb or w40k, and never come back.
Apart from the infamous Squats and a few character models (still pissed about that) GW rarely invalidates its models.
What about BA assault marines and their razorbacks, people who played BA ended up without legal armies when GW made the last new codex.
Or when demons were removed from csm dex and there were no ally rules in 5th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 17:13:21
Makumba wrote: Wouldn't call this being a barrier. Someone who feels cheated by gw policy may never play a table top ever again. I have yet to find some who left warmahordes or ifinity and didn't start playing something else. I have never seen someone quit xwing.
I have seen a ton of people pick up wfb or w40k, and never come back.
Apart from the infamous Squats and a few character models (still pissed about that) GW rarely invalidates its models.
What about BA assault marines and their razorbacks, people who played BA ended up without legal armies when GW made the last new codex.
Or when demons were removed from csm dex and there were no ally rules in 5th.
Or just near-useless like my Penitent Engine and Repentia heavy army. They actually nerfed those two units and they were far from stellar to begin with.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
Sure as hell not. But the 1850pts 40k list will also give you a lot more toys than the 300pts Infinity list will.
And it costs a hell of a lot more. Which was the bloody point. And it has every chance of being entirely invalidated with gw's next codex/edition update.
Apart from the infamous Squats and a few character models (still pissed about that) GW rarely invalidates its models.
Not what I was referring to bud, and you know it. What I was referring to was get invalidating whole builds. Like, for example how third edition was very heavily mechanised (rhino rush being the affectionate nickname) only for this whole play style to be invalidated in fourth, with rhinos and about ninety percent of transports being turned into death traps. Anyone who build their army a certain way all of a sudden found it necessary to invest in a whole different line to remain effective. The same shifts wwere forces on the game in the transition to fifth (with a push on armour), sixth (flyers, super heavies, etc) and seventh.
You also saw in codex shifts how things were randomly made different and changed around, and not necessarily to make things better. And a lot of people got screwed over this way. Builds have been made invalid - a mate of mine back home had three 40k armies invalidated by this.
Then there is other examples. Nidzilla was a tyranid thing in fourth ed for example, and the old carnifex was a pretty mean beatstick. New codex is released and the carnifex was essentially castrated and forcibly invalidated as a legitimate choice with the 'big new' being the cynically forced in go-to big bad bug. All those people who liked and bought into nidzilla saw their whole damned armies effectively castrated with a cynical cash grab forced on them. A lot chose to walk instead.
Not only is the initial investment pricy, but long term health is questionable as well.
Every one of the Tactical Marines in my collection has a different combination of armour, head, weapons and accessoires. Not to mention that they all have different poses.
Like I said, same homogenous and boring power armour, bolters, just with different bling. They're not as unique as you claim - there is only so far 'snarling helmet less face' can be pushed.
And yes, you can claim that apart from your Caledonian unit, you also have different units, but those are different units. Apart from tactical Marines, I also have Scouts, Assault Marines, Veterans, Terminators, Captains, Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Rhinos, Predators, Drop pods, Dreadnoughts etc. And again, even the units I have two or more of, are unique.
Read what I wrote. I never said 'apart from' - all the things I listed - wulvers, galwegians, 2nd/6th Scots, Caterans, volunteers, mormaers, grey rifles etc are all Caledonians. And they all look different if you're talking about a whole 'codex-equivelant', then I can play that game too.
And if you think Grey Hunters all look the same, I would like to invite you to just type "Grey Hunters" into google image search. Does the fact that they all wear a different variant of power armour make them the same? How many of them are truly the same?
Fact is that if you are a modeller, and you care more about miniatures than about rules, you are likely going to have a lot more fun with 40k than with Infinity, even though I will admit Infinity is the better designed game.
Like I said - boring, homogenous power armour with slightly different bling. At the end of the day, they're all the same bloody thing to me.
And let's be honest here - I know people that care more about the miniatures than the rules, and thry go absolutely bananas over the quality and sheer beauty of the infinity sculpts, and look at stuff from 40k with its squat, out of proportion heroic look and go 'meh'. You're doing that thing with ansolutist statements again.
If you play against a player who also plays Scottish Ariadna, chances are you are both going to have exactly the same models.
I've also seen plenty identical, or near-identical space marine and tau armies and whatever else going at it. Same models. And so on. Amusingly, I've seen some stunningly converted wmh armies amid the grey legions too.
It is okay to discuss negative aspects, it is okay to point it out when the topic is brought up, such as in this thread. But there is a difference between this and the same people bringing up the same things yet once more again in unrelated threads. That is just annoying and actually takes away value from otherwise perfectly fine arguments.
In a thread titled 'is 40k dying' points raised regarding the reasonings behind why this is the case - ie reasons why people are leaving the game - price, shoddy balance etc are not 'unrelated'.
You don't see them pop up in 'painting and modelling'. But general discussion? Yeah, fine...
It is telling though. Clearly there are a lot of people annoyed with the constant repetition of the exact same negative opinions by usually the exact same people in both related and unrelated threads over and over again.
And those same people also seem to want to sweep all criticism away and say 'gw is fine. GTFO you haterz'
How is it relevant? This person is asking for advice about how to get started with 40k, not about what game he should play instead of 40k, or what good alternatives to 40k are.
'Because I think starting 40k is a bad idea? I'll explain why. Here are the hurdles you will face. Wargaming is fun, but before you invest, look at what else is there too,'
See? Relevant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 19:09:02
IF I happen to be at the LGS and I see anyone near the GW section, I amble over and say howdy.
THEN I begin to ask them what brought them to that section. If it is someone already involved with the game I make small talk for a bit and then move on.
If it someone new or thinking about getting into the game; or even thinking about buying some GW for someone as a gift, I swing into action.
I say something along the lines of;
"That was once a really well supported game, but it is slowly dying off. The manufacturer even ended one of their games about a year ago and dropped support."
or
"Do you like Star Wars? Because there are FOUR fantastic games out for it right now."
or
"Those prices are a bit gougy and GW has been known to kill off entire armies before. Have you looked at XXXXXX? They are really well supported and have a robust tournament system so you can play for fun and glory against your friends!"
Practically anything that falls out of my mouth makes GW look like the gaks that they are.
Confession time. I do the same thing. I encourage them with other games so the FLGS gets monies. I just steer them away from GW.
I'm guilty of it too
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 18:47:19
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
If someone came up to me and started pestering me like that I would give them the stink eye. If I want your opinion I'll ask. I researched extensively before jumping into this hobby and I did ask the FLGS owner a ton of questions before diving in (mostly paint related).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 19:23:33
IF I happen to be at the LGS and I see anyone near the GW section, I amble over and say howdy.
THEN I begin to ask them what brought them to that section. If it is someone already involved with the game I make small talk for a bit and then move on.
If it someone new or thinking about getting into the game; or even thinking about buying some GW for someone as a gift, I swing into action.
I say something along the lines of;
"That was once a really well supported game, but it is slowly dying off. The manufacturer even ended one of their games about a year ago and dropped support."
or
"Do you like Star Wars? Because there are FOUR fantastic games out for it right now."
or
"Those prices are a bit gougy and GW has been known to kill off entire armies before. Have you looked at XXXXXX? They are really well supported and have a robust tournament system so you can play for fun and glory against your friends!"
Practically anything that falls out of my mouth makes GW look like the gaks that they are.
Have you no sense of decency? Or something better to do with your time? When people need advice they will ask for it. What you do is just rude.
There is plenty of reason to be critical or negative about GW. But going from constructrive criticism and providing honest advice when asked to harrasing others about it crosses too many lines. I'd advise you to do some critical self-evaluation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 19:42:17
Now hold on guys, while I don't encourage what Jamesk1973 does directly, it doesn't sound like he's just running up to people and harassing them with his opinions. He does mention that he makes contact first with a greeting and then if the conversation continues he provides his opinion, as opposed to just walking up to them and stating that opinion.
I mean if you saw a new person at your LGS looking at a game you play, would you consider it particularly wrong to go up to them, introduce yourself, and then chat about the game if the conversation progresses?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 19:47:24
)
First and greatest love - Orks, Orks, and more Orks 
largest pile of shame, so many tanks unassembled 
most complete and painted 
beautiful models, couldn't resist 
the swarm will consume all
nothing new since 5th edition 
oh how I want to revive, but mostly old fantasy demons and some glorious Soul Grinders 
in need of love 
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / 
Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / 
Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / 
Black Death 1500pts
