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.
2016/01/20 19:08:38
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Cieged wrote: I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.
Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?
Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.
If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.
This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.
Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.
Most of us still like the models and background but can't stand the game anymore.
I will readily admit I still paint and occasionally buy GW models, usually used, but their game is an atrocious mess.
It'd be like fans of a band complaining that their new album and direction is terrible, yet still listen to their old music. Or fans of a writer who say "wow, this new stuff is terrible" but still like his old stuff.
You have no idea how badly I wish 40k was a good game, but its not. I would love to play it again without all the BS that's crept into it.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
2016/01/20 19:15:23
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out.
If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy.
I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/20 19:17:01
2016/01/20 19:30:21
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
If you determine a winner at the end of your games, it's oppositional.
Everything else is just Koolaid and bull gak.
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
Also the sunk cost idea does not mean that one cannot be frustrated with the game as it stands due to that sunk cost.
Your argument would be similar to saying.
Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
2016/01/20 19:47:23
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out. If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions. I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now. A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it. This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play. Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy. I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
Then what's the problem? Sounds like you're having fun with 40k on your own time when you feel like you want to. I don't see an issue.
Spoiler:
Azreal13 wrote:If you determine a winner at the end of your games, it's oppositional.
Everything else is just Koolaid and bull gak.
Perhaps you shouldn't declare a winner then! Just call the game at the end of Turn 5, 6, or 7, don't tally points, shake hands, have a beer! It's not like it really matters who won the game, aside from perhaps some people's ego.
Spoiler:
Breng77 wrote:Also the sunk cost idea does not mean that one cannot be frustrated with the game as it stands due to that sunk cost.
Your argument would be similar to saying.
Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
Yes, you can be mad. But trying to play 40k after it is no longer fun is like sitting in your broken down car and shouting "WHY WON'T IT GO!" It's broken. Be mad, go to the dealer and whallop his face, do whatever, but it isn't going to start working because you shouted at it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 19:48:20
2016/01/20 19:52:03
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Which for me is all this amounts to, being mad, playing rarely, and enjoying other games. I just wish (as with the broken car) that my purchase still worked as originally advertised.
2016/01/20 20:05:31
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
I think most people who are beginning to despise this game continue to try because of the community and social aspect of it. Trust me, if I could have pulled everyone from 40k and fantasy into playing blood bowl or infinity I would. Bit I have friends who play 40k, so I play it too. I buy my daemons from eBay, by codexes 2nd hand from people quitting the game, and just enjoy the game for the broken garbage it is. But when GW innevitably one ups its awful history I will point it out, and innevitably apologists will come out and say its all perfect. It's a cycle until cynicism leaves the fanbase as nothing more then model collectors with no upper limit in budget
2016/01/20 20:09:05
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 20:09:58
2016/01/20 20:30:58
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
Or you could be like "God diablo 3 is such trash, blizzard gouged me money for this garbage? I'm going back to 2" ...yknow like people are doing when they start exclusively playing 3e 5e etc instead of the latest edition
2016/01/20 20:32:02
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
I can see that to a point (though video games is a bad analogy at their price point) I don't regret my investment, I only wish it was more transferable going forward. Especially because of the community aspect of it. I would love to enjoy playing 40k with all the friends I made doing it, but many have left the game/hobby as have I to some extent.
2016/01/20 20:34:34
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative.
No, 40k is oppositional. Collaborative games don't have things like winners and losers, or victory conditions that are defined. You'll notice these things are missing from games like Exalted, DnD, Deathwatch, but are present in oppositional games like WMH, Bolt action. The DM/GM/ST doesn't win or lose no matter what the players decide in those games.
Just because 40k requires collaboration before the game starts does not make it a collaborative game.
It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, not, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
In both of those instances, you are clearly opposed to each other and a victor and loser were clearly laid out.
If you enjoy spending 3-4 hours automatically losing before the game begins, more power to you. I don't think that represents the vast majority of players who are interested in a oppositional game, and GW certainly does not make that clear. There is no "Winner" stamp on the eldar dex and "Loser" stamp on the IG dex.
1) I play other games, but I don't mind putting a little extra time in for 40k.
That's your decision, other people do mind having to put in extra time. Time that wasn't required in earlier editions.
I would hope you can understand why some people, like myself who work quite a bit, don't relish spending time not playing the game. I've given up playing against strangers at this point because of it, I only do WMH at my local club.
2) It's okay not to play some one. An agreement is required to play the game, but no one is forcing you to play the game in the first place.
While technically true, if you own $500 worth of models and bought $150 worth of dexes/rule books, you probably want to play the game. The big draw of 40k has always been that you can play anywhere with anyone (I used to bring a suitcase with my 40k models to science conventions knowing at least 5 people would do the same). This is not the case at all now.
A lower playing pool is bad, and disagreements are more common now than ever.
3) Is unfortunately true, though I have run into it and as the person with the larger collection it is my responsibility to compromise more because I can.
There is some truth to that, but that doesn't alleviate the fact that I may not have brought the models needed to play this new guy. We can't get a game in, start talking, and have a new member in our little group because of it.
This doesn't really happen in WMH unless someone just can't design a list at all.
4) This is also true, though I admit I haven't had list designing take so long as your experience provides, I won't deny that it certainly could.
I can't imagine cooperatively building a list quickly. Considering we have a thread on mutilators that is 15+ pages, I don't think it's crazy to think that it can take that long. Especially if collections are limited.
If any of these four things makes you feel like you don't want to go the extra mile, that's fine - no one is forcing you to play 40k, either.
As stated, I own a lot of 40k models and rulebooks. I love the fluff. This makes me want to play, but the game itself isn't fun to set up. Often it isn't fun to play without a lot of work, and it takes a long time to play.
Saying "well just don't play" isn't really much of an argument after I already own a ton of models.
i can understand your frustration, but you're suffering from 'sunk cost' fallacy, which is "I already spent so much money I'd better keep going." There's a reason the sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy - it's wrong. If you don't enjoy an activity, just stop.
Not really, I've already trimmed my 40k games from 3/week to 1-2/month. I've already gone from playing at a few clubs in the area to my friends house with 5 people. You are not correctly applying the fallacy.
I've adjusted my playtime in regards to 40k to reflect my enjoyment I get from the game. My WMH playtime is now massive instead.
Then what's the problem? Sounds like you're having fun with 40k on your own time when you feel like you want to. I don't see an issue.
The issue is that if 40k was a better game I could play more? Pretty sure that is what everyone is complaining about if they are upset. I doubt someone who has never played, doesn't own any models, and never intends to is here complaining.
I'm not really sure how you are not seeing the issue. I've gone from 12+ games a month to 1-2 games a month. I've gone from dropping several thousand a year into models to not buying anything in nearly 3 years outside of the main rule book. Not only is this an issue for me, as older editions of 40k were pretty good and I derived a lot of enjoyment out of that and made new friends, but GW is now losing money and my ability to bring in new players.
Judging by their falling revenue for a while now, this is an issue. Both for me and t he company.
Unless your point is that no one should complain about anything ever, I'm not really sure I understand what you are saying beyond trying to make it seem (and imo, failing) that 40k is not an oppositional game despite it clearly been marketed and working like one. It just doesn't work well, but it's clearly intended to be an oppositional game. You have to houserule (by your own statement) a lot of the rulebook out to make it work as such.
To me that is no different when people used to claim that the 40k rules allowed for narrative games, despite there being zero support for narrative games in the rules and several mechanics that don't contribute (really, hurt) narrative play.
Edit,
Talys, your analogy with the Diablos doesn't really work though.
It is extremely rare in video games for a sequel to allow you to import anything at all. Occasionally you'll get some minor bonuses like the Mass effect or Dragon age series does, but for the most part the Tales games, Final Fantasy, or Diablo 1, 2, and 3 don't allow you to move anything forward.
When you bought Diablo 2, you knew you were getting Diablo 2. If you bought Diablo 2 thinking it would somehow import over to 3, then you made a poor decision. Games generally don't work that way (unless it's an expansion) and Blizzard never mentioned it would continue to do so.
Minis games, however, do not work that way. Minis are good for as long as the game is being played. My space marines I bought in 3rd still are viable in 7th (and there is no game that comes to mind that has that kind of longevitiy for use, including WoW). I might have to buy a new rulebook and codex, but I should not have to buy minis unless I want those new minis. When I bought into the game, that was a selling point for me. I could play this game with my kids if I kept all my models for decades, and use all my minis. It's one reason I was okay with the price of entry being so high...as you provided, over the years it works out to not be a horrible number. Diablo 2 isn't nearly expensive enough for me to think "Okay, I better get 5 years out of this game or I got screwed" like it is with Mini games.
For the most part that has held true. Recently it is starting to fray quite badly, but it's really not comparable to video games in that regard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 20:41:39
2016/01/20 21:55:15
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
2016/01/20 22:27:48
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
2016/01/20 22:30:17
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
2016/01/20 22:39:04
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 22:39:41
2016/01/20 22:42:52
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
Saying that people should just accept their armies as is because you personally are okay with yours is a bit selfish when looked at from the outside. It's like saying everyone's issues are worth less then your own opinion
2016/01/20 22:43:31
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
You said "Well I play 30k and SoB aren't in a bad spot, so I'm fine with it".
Basically, you don't care about people that play CSM, IG, BA, DE, or any of the other weaker codexes. Or anyone who has issues, valid or no, because your portion of the game is working as intended (even though half of that isn't even 40k).
That seems incredibly selfish.
I don't see how you can paint trying to fix a system that is broken for many dexes, when someone plays armies that are excelling right now, as selfish. You'll have to walk me through that one.
2016/01/20 22:46:20
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
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
2016/01/20 22:50:14
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth noting that I'm, at least, fine with the current state of the game. I've been playing 30k and loving it, and my SOB in 40k remain bizarrely competitive at times.
So I don't think it needs to be 'fixed'.
That is, IMO, a very selfish view but you are entitled to it I suppose.
I currently play Eldar but I still see the game as incredibly flawed.
Enjoying things as they are is selfish? I would expect that constantly trying to adjust an okay system is more selfish.
You said "Well I play 30k and SoB aren't in a bad spot, so I'm fine with it".
Basically, you don't care about people that play CSM, IG, BA, DE, or any of the other weaker codexes. Or anyone who has issues, valid or no, because your portion of the game is working as intended (even though half of that isn't even 40k).
That seems incredibly selfish.
I don't see how you can paint trying to fix a system that is broken for many dexes, when someone plays armies that are excelling right now, as selfish. You'll have to walk me through that one.
I do care about those people! It's why I advocate talking to your opponent - because rather than shedding my tears and martyring my own fun by not buying anything, I'll offer constructive aid instead.
Those armies have not been squatted, those armies have not stopped production - all they require is for you and your opponent to be human beings and have a conversation, cooperate to have fun.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
This, basically, at least the part about being gentlemen and local metas. You can work it out people! The world has not ended because your codex is pre-7.5.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 22:51:37
2016/01/20 22:57:22
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
There's only so much you can do for, say, a fight between chaos marines and tau. How many helldrakes would I need to buy to be competitive, knowing that I despise the model? Even if the tau takes nothing but fire warriors and pathfinders they are still likely to win given their army abilities. Should the tau player ignore those rules? Should I get a point handicap? What level of finagling does this setup have to do before its obvious that the game should already have this balanced? I'm honestly curious, because most of my opponents are high tier and they feel guilty when they mop the floor with my marines
2016/01/20 22:59:25
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Unit1126PLL wrote: You fell into my trap! While most wargames are oppositional, 40k is collaborative. It's why I keep saying you have to collaborate before the game, to determine how balanced you want the game to be, or not be, if that's the case. Sometimes, my friend wants to play my Baneblade company with his thundercav spam and I get to be the mowed down goons. Other times he brings footguard to see how long they can endure the onslaught of the tanks! WOO! Collaboration!
Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. 40k isn't "collaborative" because it's some ideal paragon of two players working together to build a story, it requires this "collaboration" because the rules are garbage and it's way too easy for one or both players to have very little fun if you don't carefully negotiate everything up front and work together to fix GW's mistakes. A better game would not have this problem, you could simply play your Baneblade company against any reasonably well designed opposing list and both players would enjoy the game.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/01/20 23:11:08
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
I do care about those people! It's why I advocate talking to your opponent - because rather than shedding my tears and martyring my own fun by not buying anything, I'll offer constructive aid instead.
So far I haven't seen any constructive aid.
Just comments like the above, a really terrible attempt to trap someone, and a comment suggesting that because the game works fine for you personally it's okay and everyone shouldn't shed tears and martyr their own fun.
Those armies have not been squatted, those armies have not stopped production - all they require is for you and your opponent to be human beings and have a conversation, cooperate to have fun.
As has been pointed out, those discussions can be incredibly difficult and complicated to manage if the disparity in power is great. Given infinite models, money, and time, sure, you can come to an agreement, but that isn't often the reality of the situation for most people.
I haven't seen any tips on how to balance the game between two codexes that have a great disparity, merely an offhand remark that those discussions shouldn't go for an hour.
I also find it odd that you think human beings can so easily cooperate, especially if they are strangers. Look at this discussion. You've already suggested others are selfish for wanting the game fixed, were called selfish because you feel the game is fine (and most likely wouldn't be open to change then) because SoB are doing okay, and have tried to trap people into saying the game is collaborative (it's not). This doesn't help cooperation.
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
So you literally do not care that the game was screwed up, then expect that by not complaining or posting criticism in any way, the game will get better on its own?
This is like US citizens complaining that the government sucks, then not voting.
That's not being mature, that's just ignoring the problem and thinking that the company will read your mind and change it.
If Diablo 3 sucks for example, and then people buy it anyways and don't voice complaints, Blizzard would naturally think "ok, so they like this now, we'll keep going with that." Not "huh, maybe we should do it different for Diablo 4"
I don't get how on earth anyone who can say this
"Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!"
Wouldn't be angry that what they used to enjoy was screwed up. Just because you enjoyed something back then doesn't give the company free reign to screw something up now.
Except, that is in no way how it works. GW does not monitor Dakka Dakka or any other forums. Also, it does seem that there is a major division in how people view the game, their time spent playing it, and the money spent on it that just cannot be resolved. One group views it as a limited window hobby (like the vast majority of hobbies) and is OK provided that they had fun while they were still actively involved in purchasing the models, etc. The other group wants GW to respond to their displeasure and "fix" the game (I put in quotations because it is a relative concept) in order to make it more popular in their area.
But, to the OP's initial question, it just depends on your gaming group and the people you associate with (as it usually does in almost all circumstances). Many people play older versions of the game, others agree to restrictions or have gentlemen agreements on what is OK and what isn't for general game play. Being angry over being forced to keep up with the evolution in the game, as so many people who have posted on here seem to be, is misdirected anger. GW has no power to enforce how you play the game, what version of the rules to use, etc. It is your local gaming group and gaming culture that is ultimately responsible. GW makes a product and attempts to sell it based on their own sales model. Exactly how much of their product (i.e., the rulebooks, codices, expansions) each individual decides to support is entirely on them. I will say it seems inexplicably odd that there appears to be a fairly large number of people who think it would be economically viable for a company that makes and sells miniatures in an absolutely tiny niche market to remain stagnant.
This, basically, at least the part about being gentlemen and local metas. You can work it out people! The world has not ended because your codex is pre-7.5.
Again, hyperbole isn't constructive aid.
Why don't you offer a suggestion instead, one that is workable?
I play a Biel-Tan list. I don't own Howling banshees, and have 1-2 of each aspect squad at least. I don't own guardians or many vehicles outside of wave serpents/falcolns/fireprisms (which for a long time were practically the same model).
My friend plays CSM and doesn't own forgeworld and despises nurgle (he plays 1k sons mainly, though owns a lot of the tanks). How should our discussion go so we can play the game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 23:12:35
2016/01/20 23:23:20
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Breng77 wrote: Well I bought this new car and paid into it for 5 years, then it broke down so I should obviously just buy a new car, and not be upset that the old one broke.
I can have cut back on my playing and still lament my enjoyment of the game, and wish it were in a vastly better place, largely due to that sunk cost. If I had only invested say $50 and 2 months before realizing the game was no good, it would be very different from multiple years and several thousand dollars, then having things change (IMO) for the worse.
Essentially there is a difference between "keep going because money spent" and pissed off that I don't want to because money spent.
It depends on your perspective on life and on how you look at the original investment.
If you invested in 40k and expected to play a thousand dollars of models for 20 years but only got 5, that would suck. On the other hand, if you just bought models, played games, and enjoyed it along the way, then you spent $200 a year, which seems like not a lot of money for doing something you enjoyed.
Likewise, you can look back fondly at something that used to be fun, but isn't anymore, and say, "Well, I had a good time with it. Fun while it lasted!" Or, you can scream at how terrible the game has become. I guess, you could have not had fun for any of those years, too, but then that would be kind of crazy that you kept going on with it all.
When I look back at the thousands of hours I spent on Diablo 2 and 3 which have resulted in nothing useful for me today, I don't think, "Gee, I wasted my life. Lord, Diablo 3 sucks now." I think, "That was really fun -- I had a great time with it! When is Diablo 4 coming out?"
Precisely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 23:25:51
Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Just a question, but are points even useable anymore? With the current state of imbalance and the 'free stuff for me' formations is there any real point in using points to build armies or should we just move to a AoS 'bring whatever you like' style of game?
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2016/01/20 23:47:37
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
There is only a few formations that give free things to my knowledge.
Most formations arn't that bad and are even fluffy. There are a handful of over the top formations but if you can avoid them if your looking for a more balanced game
2016/01/20 23:49:55
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
master of ordinance wrote: Just a question, but are points even useable anymore? With the current state of imbalance and the 'free stuff for me' formations is there any real point in using points to build armies or should we just move to a AoS 'bring whatever you like' style of game?
It's at least a rough estimate of what an army contains, a starting point that you can adjust to get better balance if necessary. At least it ensures that you're playing, say, 1500 points of value against 2000 points. In AoS you have no starting point at all and even players who aren't trying to abuse the system could easily end up with 1000 points of value against 5,000 points.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/01/21 00:07:57
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
But look at te power disparity betwixt the codexes.
I can bring 2000 points of my Guard but if the other guy brings Tau or SM then he is getting a lot more for his points than I am.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
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 
