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.

 Nazrak wrote:

rtb02 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the mistake that quite a lot of people make is to assume that just because they're only interested in the most hyper-competitive, point-efficient method of choosing which units they want to play games with, that's the only way anyone else plays 40K too. "Bad" rules ≠ nobody buying the kit at all. Sure, there are going to be some outlying instances of competitive players buying multiples of the same kit because it's the "best" one, but this is far from the way most people play 40K. I think forums like this one skew people's perception of that quite heavily.

Can't agree enough

Thanks; good to know I'm not the only one on here. I think it's a useful thing to remember that some people are just doing this stuff for the sense of fun they derive from it, without necessarily worrying about how "good" they are at the game/hobby.

Of course if how you derive fun from it is by finding the most effective combos of units and grinding your opponent into a fine paste in a competitive environment, then good for you and I'm glad you're having a nice time. However I think it's important to remember that there are plenty of people out there who *don't* approach the hobby this way, so viewing everything through the lens of the competitive side of the hobby is a somewhat myopic approach. I'm not saying it's an entirely invalid approach, just that, by doing so, you're not looking at the entire picture.

100%

I don't think the majority of players are looking to win a ton of GTs with the best list possible and crush every opponent without mercy. I'm sure most of us want to be competitive with the army we have available and most importantly with what we think is cool.

If I posted some of my lists on here, you'd wonder how I ever won a game There is something to be said for eking a victory (or even a draw) when the odds are against you though. It's just about finding the combos that work well for your army and playstyle.

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the mistake that quite a lot of people make is to assume that just because they're only interested in the most hyper-competitive, point-efficient method of choosing which units they want to play games with, that's the only way anyone else plays 40K too. "Bad" rules ≠ nobody buying the kit at all. Sure, there are going to be some outlying instances of competitive players buying multiples of the same kit because it's the "best" one, but this is far from the way most people play 40K. I think forums like this one skew people's perception of that quite heavily.

I'm totally with you. I mainly buy the miniatures to convert and paint. I rarely play the actual games. So for me the main purpose of buying a miniature is if it looks fun to paint or if it has a cool aesthetic. I would guess a rather big chunk of GW sales are to people like me and we are usually an older segment with better than average economy.

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the mistake that quite a lot of people make is to assume that just because they're only interested in the most hyper-competitive, point-efficient method of choosing which units they want to play games with, that's the only way anyone else plays 40K too. "Bad" rules ≠ nobody buying the kit at all. Sure, there are going to be some outlying instances of competitive players buying multiples of the same kit because it's the "best" one, but this is far from the way most people play 40K. I think forums like this one skew people's perception of that quite heavily.

ill have to add my 2cents to this. a lot of people agreeing with you, and i partially do too...only partially.

i love my dreddmob, its the reason i got into the hobby, i bought so many kllkans that i can fill out the 3min limitation and then some (over 18 killakans). but nothing destroys my enthusiasm in the hobby more then losing almost all battles with my favorite army.

saying "get into the hoby aspect of the game" is all good and all, but not being able to have fun in the "game" aspect will and has hurt the ork player base. im not talking about running the cheese list that will win every tournament type of fun, im talking about the type of fun of having a close game with your opponent without having to beg them before hand to dumb down their list or to give you extra points because your a charity case in the rules department.

we NEED good rules. we need a GOOD codex.

getting awesome models with awesome rules helps on the path of solving the issue that has been debilitating the ork fanbase. you wonder why so few of us stay active (or stay at all)? because there always seems to be greener pastures in another army.

lets not sell ourselves into delusions that we can survive in the hobby with just "kool minis" alone, good rules sell models, GW does this often ( not everything gets good rules obviously, looking at the last big ork model release). hoping that all the new speed freek models will be great on the tabletop should also be our focus, not just getting cool stuff.

edit- strangly your line of thinking also lines up with old GW. the infamous "we are a models company, not a game company" saying that defined GW for at least a decade did more harm then anything else. we should expect more from the rules team. (so far they have been doing good compared to the past GW, but they could be doing better)
(note, im not comparing you to the old Dbag that ran GW, im just saying your viewpoint can lead to a slippery slope).

I'm with geargutz. If the buggies are all decent they will sell, even if not all of them are tournament-winning material.

If the rules flat-out suck, they will not sell. I mean, how many wazzbom blasta jets do you guys own? How many mega-armoured tellyporta blasta meks? How many mini-meks?

A rad model is not enough to sell a model in an army that has so many rad models

That said, I'm going to get at least one shockjump dragsta, no matter how bad it sucks

If all are decent choices, I'll probably get one of each... and the Mad Max: Road to Fury sound track.

People that believes competitive and tournament players will buy the legit thing if its very OP to spam it, instead of using proxies or going to recasters to have them cheap is kidding himself.

 Galas wrote:
People that believes competitive and tournament players will buy the legit thing if its very OP to spam it, instead of using proxies or going to recasters to have them cheap is kidding himself.

They might not have a choice moving forward if GW get more involved in tournaments. Not even allowing resin bases?! Damn.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Redemption wrote:
My guess it option D: All of the above.

I have a feeling you may be right. That way they can say everyone picked correctly no matter what options they go with to reveal the model. Plus, all the options together makes a lot of sense considering squigs are in fact a source of food, so options A and B especially go naturally together.

don't forget bomb squigs who are some sort of target seeking mines

 Galas wrote:
People that believes competitive and tournament players will buy the legit thing if its very OP to spam it, instead of using proxies or going to recasters to have them cheap is kidding himself.

arnt you being a little absolute?
can you prove this claim?
admittedly with GW getting more involved in tournaments, they arnt going to actively take pics of 3rd party models and etc to post online.
i just came back form a tournament where hobby scores are more important and the tournament score is only worth 1/3 of the final score, but all of my 5 opponents used official models (very few armies i saw used proxies, my army was only rivaled by 2 other armies for shear amount of "non GW" and this is out of 50).
now i use proxies in excess because i love the spirit of conversions and not being limited to a single model design, especially since i play orks (where it would be reasonable to assume that every truck would look different, orks arnt often known for uniformity...unless they are zoggin stormboy wierdos), and my army was not spamming da cheese (almost everything was either bikes or buggies)

Here the tournament's aren't run by GW and don't have strict GW only policy yet...what you see is GW models. Look at that.

Yeah some do cheap proxies etc. Funny that many tournaments are banning non-GW models to fight that syndrome. Especially for super competive one could see this seeing all the modeling for advantage to ensure silhouette and size are 100% official.

geargutz wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People that believes competitive and tournament players will buy the legit thing if its very OP to spam it, instead of using proxies or going to recasters to have them cheap is kidding himself.

arnt you being a little absolute?
can you prove this claim?
admittedly with GW getting more involved in tournaments, they arnt going to actively take pics of 3rd party models and etc to post online.
i just came back form a tournament where hobby scores are more important and the tournament score is only worth 1/3 of the final score, but all of my 5 opponents used official models (very few armies i saw used proxies, my army was only rivaled by 2 other armies for shear amount of "non GW" and this is out of 50).
now i use proxies in excess because i love the spirit of conversions and not being limited to a single model design, especially since i play orks (where it would be reasonable to assume that every truck would look different, orks arnt often known for uniformity...unless they are zoggin stormboy wierdos), and my army was not spamming da cheese (almost everything was either bikes or buggies)

I'm not talking in absolutes, but the context of where I play should have been explained, my fault.
To put an example, the last big tournament where I live (In June) had 120 participants. When they announced that china recasts where forbidden, something like 20-25 players (And many of them, of the most competitive ones, that you see usually in the top tables with a completely different army every 4-5 months) began to complaint, and ask for models to their friends because they basically had no valid armies.
And I'll say that I'm a very fan of proxies, 3-rd party legit models, conversions, etc... but something rubs me the wrong way when you see someone spamming the new hotness with lazy proxies. And thats very common around here.

 Galas wrote:
.

well i guess we both used anecdotal examples lol. man, that's kinda pathetic to hear about though (the tourney you talked about). youll find players of all stripes and the extreme can shine negative lights on the whole fanbase. those who only really care for the painting and models (while hard to find a negative aspect, they are the least likely to do games and were the preferred "customers" of old GW), and then those who only care for bragging rights (and maybe money if its in the prize pool).

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I thought that orks could more or less photosynthesize energy (what with being part plant)- and that food/drink was more of a bonus.

Nope. Also technically this is accurate to Orks being a fungus, because fungus does not photosynthesize.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I thought that orks could more or less photosynthesize energy (what with being part plant)- and that food/drink was more of a bonus.

Nope. Also technically this is accurate to Orks being a fungus, because fungus does not photosynthesize.

Fungus does not ingest food either. Orks do.

Ragweek wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I thought that orks could more or less photosynthesize energy (what with being part plant)- and that food/drink was more of a bonus.

Nope. Also technically this is accurate to Orks being a fungus, because fungus does not photosynthesize.

Fungus does not ingest food either. Orks do.

Fungus does not drive around in ramshackle vehicles and axe-murder human soldiers. Orks do.

They certainly do take in nutrients, otherwise they wouldn't grow.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I thought that orks could more or less photosynthesize energy (what with being part plant)- and that food/drink was more of a bonus.

Nope. Also technically this is accurate to Orks being a fungus, because fungus does not photosynthesize.

Why are we back to this? Orks have symbiotic green plants, like lichen.

Stop arguing about the biology of a made-up race of angry green fungus hooligans.

 Nazrak wrote:
I think the mistake that quite a lot of people make is to assume that just because they're only interested in the most hyper-competitive, point-efficient method of choosing which units they want to play games with, that's the only way anyone else plays 40K too. "Bad" rules ≠ nobody buying the kit at all. Sure, there are going to be some outlying instances of competitive players buying multiples of the same kit because it's the "best" one, but this is far from the way most people play 40K. I think forums like this one skew people's perception of that quite heavily.

Yeah I agree 100 percent, I hardly know anyone who plays hard core optimised armies for tournaments. I just love painting and playing a fun semi competitive game

Would be nice then if orks got at least semi competive rules? As it is thev are super soft even in casual games

Agree. Give me solid performance across multiple builds. Doesn't have to be broken, op, or super strong. Just enjoyable. I got tabled by turn 2 in two games at nova open. Wasn't very fun just removing models. Died so fast one game, we setup a game of kill team and played that haha.

Matches my experience. My gaming group is very casual when it come to list building (cool stuff > good stuff), but orks didn't stand a chance unless you brought the tide, and then they weren't any fun. When trying to bring speed freaks I was tabled turn two by a 5th edition style wraith construct army - and that army didn't take a single casualty while doing so.

I build my Death Guard army solely for the reason to have fun playing Warhammer 40k again.

 Galas wrote:
When they announced that china recasts where forbidden, something like 20-25 players began to complaint...

Two points here:

1. How would they know they were recasts? Unless we're talking a resin version of a GW plastic kit, who would ever know?
2. The people who complained are very silly. Why draw attention to yourself that way? I half expect that's what the TO's were hoping for, "honest stupidity".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When they announced that china recasts where forbidden, something like 20-25 players began to complaint...

Two points here:

1. How would they know they were recasts? Unless we're talking a resin version of a GW plastic kit, who would ever know?
2. The people who complained are very silly. Why draw attention to yourself that way? I half expect that's what the TO's were hoping for, "honest stupidity".

It's a bit silly, yes. Like putting up a sign " No spies" at the border actually making people turn back

You can often tell because edges and corners are not as sharp as they are on GW's models, flat surfaces have patterns on them, damage in places where excess material was removed and certain details are less defined.

A good paintjob can hide those flaws, but if you know what to look for, you can often tell whether the model is a GW plastic model or a recast.

tneva82 wrote:
Would be nice then if orks got at least semi competive rules? As it is thev are super soft even in casual games

Oh yeah I don’t disagree with this; I think the better chance you have of jumping into a game and not immediately getting battered just because of what army you brought, the better. I was just saying it’s a bit daft to say that if some buggies are not as good as others, the former won’t sell at all.

I don't have any recasts (unless I got taken for a ride on ebay by buying DKoK models in FW plastic bags from an Euro seller), but I've read - on Dakka - several posts jokingly and seriously saying that recasts can have better quali than FW casts. Stuff like "if it's not bent it's probably a recast". I know my cousin's big Nid flyer was terrible warped.

And is it actually a problem right now? I got curious checked AliExpress (it was named as a source on Dakka) and all the stores I could find carrying FW and GW stuff had "no products are in this store" listings or "does not ship to Germany/US" disclaimers on those items.


PS: Unveil that truck already.

 Jidmah wrote:
You can often tell because edges and corners are not as sharp as they are on GW's models, flat surfaces have patterns on them, damage in places where excess material was removed and certain details are less defined.

I've seen some blue-grey pewter recasts of old BattleTech miniatures. They were pretty awful. They were also made some 10+ years ago. Things have improved.

i cant think of any model made over 10 years ago that by todays standards still looks great.
Most of them look like a ton of shortcuts were made to make casting easier. Which on one hand makes sense but when the model looks like hot garbage as a result....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You can often tell because edges and corners are not as sharp as they are on GW's models, flat surfaces have patterns on them, damage in places where excess material was removed and certain details are less defined.

I've seen some blue-grey pewter recasts of old BattleTech miniatures. They were pretty awful. They were also made some 10+ years ago. Things have improved.

I have a couple of friends using a high-end 3d printer to print eldar tanks and another casting daemons manually with some stuff specifically made for re-casting miniatures. You can't tell when they are sitting on the tabletop, but you can definitely tell when looking closely at the models or in the right lighting.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i cant think of any model made over 10 years ago that by todays standards still looks great.
Most of them look like a ton of shortcuts were made to make casting easier. Which on one hand makes sense but when the model looks like hot garbage as a result....

my 25 year old farseer is far and away my favorite Eldar model ever made.
Most of the time for me when I'm looking at an older model what impresses me is the design, and I'm much more apt to forgive scale quirks or other small flaws than I am to forgive a shiny new model with a really lazy, uninspired design overall. Sure, there are old models that get very strange with age, but I think there are also gems hidden in the old stuff.