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.

I checked all four boxes.

I almost didn’t click “collecting” I don’t buy things just to own them. The goal is to get stuff built, painted and to the table. Then I remembered my push to get a battle company complete. Is there a legitimate need for that many tactical marines? Did I already have enough bodies, but wanted to have some better ones, just to fill out the TOE and look sharp ranked up?

<checks the box>

 Nevelon wrote:
Then I remembered my push to get a battle company complete. Is there a legitimate need for that many tactical marines? Did I already have enough bodies, but wanted to have some better ones, just to fill out the TOE and look sharp ranked up?

<checks the box>

That's the good stuff. I can't say I ever start out on any project with a 'collection' of sorts in mind - it's always how I can build a list and get it to a good point to play with, at first. Somewhere along the line, after you've built enough stuff to have options for playing with, the temptation to build out just to have a impressive, complete looking army photo however.. it just happens.

 Haanz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Then I remembered my push to get a battle company complete. Is there a legitimate need for that many tactical marines? Did I already have enough bodies, but wanted to have some better ones, just to fill out the TOE and look sharp ranked up?

<checks the box>

That's the good stuff. I can't say I ever start out on any project with a 'collection' of sorts in mind - it's always how I can build a list and get it to a good point to play with, at first. Somewhere along the line, after you've built enough stuff to have options for playing with, the temptation to build out just to have a impressive, complete looking army photo however.. it just happens.

And that’s exactly what brought me to my battle company. Getting stuff here and there to play, and then take a step back and look at the big picture. Realized that if I just filled out the back bolter brothers in my dev squads, and added another tac squad and I was there. Later, when I picked up the Apoc book and looked at the formation, I had to re-jigger my assault squads. It used to be I had 10 guys with JPs, and 10 manning bikes/speeders. So I built up to 2x10 man jump squads. Do I ever need more than 10 AMs, if that? Nope! But they do look nice.

Everyone has hit the table at least once. But a lot of guys mostly collect dust and look cool. When putting lists together I do make an effort to get some of the guys from the back and give them some table time, just to keep things fresh. And I think my next list is going to have 20 assault marines in it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
All the top players in X-Wing would be lucky have a single one to crack top 8 in a stacked 40k event.

Well yes, I'd imagine that the best X-Wing players would struggle to win a completely different game against the best players in that game. Not sure what your point is though.

I suspect given a lot of the X-Wing crowd came from 40k that they'd do better than most 'casuals'. and on the flipside a game of X-Wing between a decent X-Wing player and someone who'd only ever played 40k would be the textbook negative play experience for the 40k'er (despite FFG having being infected by the GW 'random is fun' thinking)

And its not just 40k, or X-Wing. some folks are just wired to grasp the underlying systems of whatever game they play and will be at least acceptable regardless of the game

Five, actually, including reading the lore. Cause reading books is a hobby.

40k is only part of the hobby for me, So i not sure exactly where i sit in this.
But painting and building would be where i mostly enjoy it, depending on the kit more than anything more.

Gaming, i think at this point i just losing interest in it. Building a kill team but that is mostly a Build and paint project at this point.

Collecting is a weird one, since i guess i am building collections of things. But i would not go out and buy every elder or Daemon kit.
And my sisters could be complete short i think a single model for years now.
Genestealer cults, i am not getting any model i cannot use in some way for Kill team.

Gaming within the hobby is fast becoming part of other games, so i just leaving that out for the purpose of the thread

 Nevelon wrote:

 Haanz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Then I remembered my push to get a battle company complete. Is there a legitimate need for that many tactical marines? Did I already have enough bodies, but wanted to have some better ones, just to fill out the TOE and look sharp ranked up?

<checks the box>

That's the good stuff. I can't say I ever start out on any project with a 'collection' of sorts in mind - it's always how I can build a list and get it to a good point to play with, at first. Somewhere along the line, after you've built enough stuff to have options for playing with, the temptation to build out just to have a impressive, complete looking army photo however.. it just happens.

And that’s exactly what brought me to my battle company. Getting stuff here and there to play, and then take a step back and look at the big picture. Realized that if I just filled out the back bolter brothers in my dev squads, and added another tac squad and I was there. Later, when I picked up the Apoc book and looked at the formation, I had to re-jigger my assault squads. It used to be I had 10 guys with JPs, and 10 manning bikes/speeders. So I built up to 2x10 man jump squads. Do I ever need more than 10 AMs, if that? Nope! But they do look nice.

Everyone has hit the table at least once. But a lot of guys mostly collect dust and look cool. When putting lists together I do make an effort to get some of the guys from the back and give them some table time, just to keep things fresh. And I think my next list is going to have 20 assault marines in it.

Yeah, I buy models that I like, with an eye to a battlefield role,
and by role I don't mean strategic necessarily, I more cool (in my mind, anyways).

Then, I see how what I have fits together to make a theme,
then I fill in the theme.

Then, I think about tactical flexibility -
what does this ragtag set of space wanderers need to make them not fall over in a fart storm?

Collecting runs the whole loop, in different ways.

 Peregrine wrote:

you have legitimate professional players who play this game for a living

Lolwut. That is a joke, right? There is no way anyone is even breaking even playing 40k "professionally". Winning enough to offset some of the costs of attending the events, sure, but even poverty-level wages are higher than 40k tournament prizes. Unless by "professional players" you mean professional media creators/game store owners/etc who happen to use 40k as part of their content but do not derive any meaningful percentage of their income directly from playing the game?

No, I definitely meant playing the game.

Nick Nanavati does literally nothing other than play the game, make the occasional blog post, stream games, upload content of his games, and articulate his tactics that he uses to play the game, all the while practicing against some of the best players in the world. Oh, and he competes and wins/places in a gak load of tournaments during. People subscribe to his content, and his current workload is literally "making money off playing 40k". There are others approaching a similar level as him.

That doesn't exist for X-Wing. There simply isn't a big enough scene or competitive playerbase. And just like we see in competitive eSports, the teams and players that are able to dedicate time to this sort of competitive environment, where they are being paid to play and practice against the best competition out there daily, they reach way higher levels of competitiveness. It's why there is things like team houses and the like.

If you are sincerely trying to say you think X-Wing has a higher level of competition than 40k, then you've reached new levels of reality bending.

 Peregrine wrote:
But I'm sure that, like your bizarre claim that I don't play 40k

MY bizarre claim? The only reason I ever said that, is because YOU said it. Are you genuinely going to lie now? Or were you lying back then to try win an argument or something? I guess nobody would be surprised by either answer here.

 Peregrine wrote:


I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. I've been told directly by major 40k event organizers that most of the players in their events are not there to seriously compete. They want to spend a weekend playing 40k, bring their normal (and not very well optimized lists), and generally treat it as 40k night at their local store but with more games to play.

Well I asked them all and they said that's not the case. They said every single entrant is a hyper competitive, highly optimized death machine. You're guaranteed the wooden spoon if you even slip up on a single inch of deployment.

However, I've been told by every single major X-Wing event organizer that most people attending are just casual star wars fans who love the models! There's some competitors near the top, but eh this scene is only so large so they haven't been spit out the grindstone yet themselves either!





This anecdotal nonsense is garbage. I don't care what line a T.O. fed you to convince you to spend money on attending their event - we don't need to take each others words for it. Go through the BAO lists and tell me how many are fun or fluffy. Then tally up the rest. Let's pretend for a second that garbage or casual players don't exist in the X-Wing scene (and lol. I mean really, just... lol. You BEEN to an XWing event before?). Because of the size of the 40k scene, remove all the casual players from the event and there is STILL more skilled players that you are competing against for a win than even the larger XWing tournaments with removing ANYBODY. You are flat out in denial.

 Peregrine wrote:
A typical major 40k event has a handful of people taking it seriously, and those people end up competing at the top tables while the rest of the players have their casual semi-competitive games on the lower tables.

LOL

"How to broadcast the fact that you've never attended a 40k major while still dictating to other people who have, how they play out: 101"




I'm sorry but every statement you make about the 40k competitive scene highlights your lack of knowledge further, but please do keep digging.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nick Nanavati does literally nothing other than play the game, make the occasional blog post, stream games, upload content of his games, and articulate his tactics that he uses to play the game, all the while practicing against some of the best players in the world. Oh, and he competes and wins/places in a gak load of tournaments during. People subscribe to his content, and his current workload is literally "making money off playing 40k". There are others approaching a similar level as him.

And just how much money is he making? Aside from the fact that the majority of his money is coming from his online subscribers and not from winning tournaments (contrasted with, say, professional MTG players who can make a living directly from tournament prizes) I am extremely skeptical that he's making anything resembling a decent living from doing this. Just how much do you think he makes per year? Are we talking $50k/year? $100k/year?

That doesn't exist for X-Wing. There simply isn't a big enough scene or competitive playerbase. And just like we see in competitive eSports, the teams and players that are able to dedicate time to this sort of competitive environment, where they are being paid to play and practice against the best competition out there daily, they reach way higher levels of competitiveness. It's why there is things like team houses and the like.

There you go again assuming that popularity of the game means better competition. Having a ton of players willing to subscribe to your youtube channel is not the same as having high-level competition. A massive subscriber base is a sign of internet popularity as a content creator, it says very little about the game itself.

MY bizarre claim? The only reason I ever said that, is because YOU said it. Are you genuinely going to lie now? Or were you lying back then to try win an argument or something? I guess nobody would be surprised by either answer here.

I have no idea why you think I said I don't play 40k at all. I don't play as much as I play other games and there have been times when I haven't played for a while, but I do play the game.

I don't care what line a T.O. fed you to convince you to spend money on attending their event - we don't need to take each others words for it.

You seem to be misunderstanding the context here. This was in the context of discussing tournament rules, specifically FW bans, and they sure weren't doing a good job of selling me on it. The explicit comment was "it may be fine for the top tables, but I have to worry about the majority of players who are not seriously competing". Now, if you want to say that was a lie told in justification of a policy they didn't want to admit defeat on, that's fine. But I'm not seeing any proof of player attitude from you on this, just your word that you must be right.

Go through the BAO lists and tell me how many are fun or fluffy.

Could you provide those lists? I can only find the top 8, and a comment that all of the lists are only available through a paid subscription to a tournament app.

Where are you finding your data for how many people play Tournaments for 40k and X-Wing Shuppet? Would be interested to know the numbers for that.

To the topic I would say I am more a collector of 40k than anything else, I have lots but rarely game nor paint, assemble stuff on occasion but read a lot of the lore.

 ingtaer wrote:

Where are you finding your data for how many people play Tournaments for 40k and X-Wing Shuppet? Would be interested to know the numbers for that.

To the topic I would say I am more a collector of 40k than anything else, I have lots but rarely game nor paint, assemble stuff on occasion but read a lot of the lore.

Presumably the 562 that attended the UK System Open or the 150-200 people that regularly attend other System Opens across the US and Europe aren't sufficiently competitive to count, according to SHUPPET. I'm really not sure where the idea that X-Wing is less competitive than 40k comes from. I think the quality of the game/rules and the number of people involved are both indicators of competitiveness but I think after a certain point the numbers stop mattering quite so much and it comes down to the game itself. I also don't think the existence of a single (or small number of) professional "player" is evidence that one game is more competitive than the other, or that one game is more suited to competitive play than the other. That's especially true when said "professional" makes most of his money from the ancillary things around playing in tournaments and not from the tournaments themselves. I don't even know how you measure competitiveness anyway, so this idea that one game is more competitive than another seems like a futile argument in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nick Nanavati does literally nothing other than play the game, make the occasional blog post, stream games, upload content of his games, and articulate his tactics that he uses to play the game, all the while practicing against some of the best players in the world. Oh, and he competes and wins/places in a gak load of tournaments during. People subscribe to his content, and his current workload is literally "making money off playing 40k". There are others approaching a similar level as him.

And just how much money is he making? Aside from the fact that the majority of his money is coming from his online subscribers and not from winning tournaments (contrasted with, say, professional MTG players who can make a living directly from tournament prizes) I am extremely skeptical that he's making anything resembling a decent living from doing this. Just how much do you think he makes per year? Are we talking $50k/year? $100k/year?

I just wanted to point out here that MTG actually supports Shuppet's points. There are only a handful of MTG pros - maybe half a dozen at the most - who can actually support themselves entirely with tournament winnings. The vast majority of MTG pros make their living by... playing the game, streaming, writing blog posts / articles explaining a deck, the nuances of a matchup, discussing a format, or high-level strategic concepts, and capitalising on sponsorship deals. In other words, exactly what Shuppet describes for Nick Nanavati.

 ingtaer wrote:

Where are you finding your data for how many people play Tournaments for 40k and X-Wing Shuppet? Would be interested to know the numbers for that.

To the topic I would say I am more a collector of 40k than anything else, I have lots but rarely game nor paint, assemble stuff on occasion but read a lot of the lore.

I feel that, based on the context, he was using anecdotal evidence for X-Wing, and just making it up for 40K, to show why Peregrine's use of anecdotal evidence is valueless.

On the note of evidence:
@Peregrine, I've seen at least one post from you, possibly more, where you SAIDyou don't play 40K, but rather play 'good' games, like X-Wing.

Calling it four hobbies in one comes from a very rudamentery language that is not well define. If you use the MDA aproach to game desing you can look at what aesthetics people get out of it. And ask uourself if dominating players and exspresive players like to be in the same section of the pool.

www.cs.northwestern.edu › ~hunickePDF
MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research - Northwestern ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi-6cPP1t7iAhWrxIsKHcrLCzEQFjABegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2etfhAVO5siwjt_9Iij_Zh&cshid=1560161565531

Collecting, building, gaming. Painting is just a necessary evil for me.

I disagree with the premise though. I think miniature wargaming (of which Warhammer is but a single contender) is a single hobby with several aspects. That's why it's so commonly referred to by the simple moniker, "the hobby." That said, there's nothing to say you have to partake in all four aspects to be a "proper" hobbyist. It's your hobby, you're free to enjoy it as you please.

But more importantly, if there are only four parts to Warhammer, then which aspect of Chaos represents each part?

Collecting - Nurgle: He's known to collect plagues and covet them lovingly in his well tended garden.
Building - Tzeentch: Surely building, and in particular conversions are the domain of the Lord of Change.
Painting - Slaanesh: What better way to reach sensory excess than to cover everything in brightly coloured layers of paint?
Gaming - Khorne: Miniature wargaming is an abstract representation of the violence and bloodshed of war. Who else than the Blood God could be the patron of such an undertaking?

 ingtaer wrote:

Where are you finding your data for how many people play Tournaments for 40k and X-Wing Shuppet? Would be interested to know the numbers for that.

To the topic I would say I am more a collector of 40k than anything else, I have lots but rarely game nor paint, assemble stuff on occasion but read a lot of the lore.

I use BCP, and soft knowledge of the scene, for both.

 Mmmpi wrote:

@Peregrine, I've seen at least one post from you, possibly more, where you SAIDyou don't play 40K, but rather play 'good' games, like X-Wing.

Yeah, glad it's not just me. I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth, if I misspoke I apologise, but I'm entirely certain Peregrine has declared quite openly and on multiple occassions that he does not play 40k.

Gaming, Building, Painting and Collecting, in that order. In fact, I don't really care about collecting at all - I buy only the minis from the armies I play and that I have use for.

 Niiai wrote:
Calling it four hobbies in one comes from a very rudamentery language that is not well define. If you use the MDA aproach to game desing you can look at what aesthetics people get out of it. And ask uourself if dominating players and exspresive players like to be in the same section of the pool.

www.cs.northwestern.edu › ~hunickePDF
MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research - Northwestern ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek wrote:In this paper we present the MDA framework (standing for Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics), developed and taught as part of the Game Design and Tuning Workshop at the Game Developers Conference, San Jose 2001-2004. MDA is a formal approach to understanding games - one which attempts to bridge the gap between game design and development, game criticism, and technical game research. We believe this methodology will clarify and strengthen the iterative processes of developers, scholars and researchers alike, making it easier for all parties to decompose, study and design a broad class of game designs and game artifacts

That doesn't really address the hobby of painting miniatures - as a hobby of itself - though. Or of reading the stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For me, I'd like to think it's gaming and painting, but practically, it's reading, collecting, building, painting and gaming, in that order.

1) Build the freaking model(s) so you can...
2) Paint the freaking model(s) so you can...
3) Organize / Collect / Army build list the models so you can...
4) Play with your toys... er... models so you can...
5) Enact stuff read in the "fluff" the framework or "trenchcoat" of the hobby so you can...
6) Look at a beautiful spectacle that seems to make it all worthwhile, even the uninitiated is impressed by the look of it.

It is exactly why people play historical, to see it all come to life and play all kinds of "what if" scenarios.

Many people may stop somewhere in between, what gets a bit troublesome is when people skip #2 in order to play.
That appears to be the choice of those who approach wargaming like chess: to be able to identify the unit is "sufficient" but seems to miss the point many look at this type of game as "armies on parade".
It is like a crucial piece of advertising / glitter / appeal that is completely missed.

I find most games are not as pure high-brow due to all the randomization so fielding bare models to get to the game seems to be missing the point.
Your opinions and results may vary.

I got side-tracked with falconing, and never said my piece on the main topic.

I said all four.

I like building, primarily conversions.
I like gaming, when I can.
I like painting, but I'm slow at it, and can't always get myself to start up on any given day. In part because I get frustrated at my own slow progress.
I enjoy the fluff, which for me, includes the novels and other media.

 Talizvar wrote:
1) Build the freaking model(s) so you can...
2) Paint the freaking model(s) so you can...
3) Organize / Collect / Army build list the models so you can...
4) Play with your toys... er... models so you can...
5) Enact stuff read in the "fluff" the framework or "trenchcoat" of the hobby so you can...
6) Look at a beautiful spectacle that seems to make it all worthwhile, even the uninitiated is impressed by the look of it.

It is exactly why people play historical, to see it all come to life and play all kinds of "what if" scenarios.

Many people may stop somewhere in between, what gets a bit troublesome is when people skip #2 in order to play.
That appears to be the choice of those who approach wargaming like chess: to be able to identify the unit is "sufficient" but seems to miss the point many look at this type of game as "armies on parade".
It is like a crucial piece of advertising / glitter / appeal that is completely missed.

I find most games are not as pure high-brow due to all the randomization so fielding bare models to get to the game seems to be missing the point.
Your opinions and results may vary.

Eh, people have been playing with green army men for generations and it’s done perfectly well. And if you want painted, there’s G.I. Joe.

(Strangely enough, my youngest son’s playing with his “action figures” has encouraged me to go grab a set of my own, and start recollecting the old G.I. Joe figures and vehicles - and pull them out for my enjoyment - I.e., play - and even consider drafting up a GI Joe tabletop war Game).

I checked all 4 as well, but I really can't separate a few of them.

Collecting/Building/Painting for me are all far too connected. You can't paint until the model is built and my collection is of my painted models. Sometimes I enjoy building/converting a particular model, but other models I rather enjoy painting. At the end of the day, the finished product is part of my proud collection.

Gaming is the only part of the 4 that I consider separate, because you don't have to really have anything painted to play, and while you certainly need the models built and have a large enough collection (army), there are so many "easy build/ out of the box" kits and prebuilt stuff from second-hand sources, you could indeed foster the Gaming aspect with very minimal building yourself.

Gaming is also the aspect that changes the most. My "All Chapters Marines" (link in my sig) don't have to update or change at all with edition/rules changes as they are purely a building/painting collection. My Eldar, otoh, do change from edition to edition as the meta changes and different units get a boost or nerf. They are my "Gaming" army for the most part.

Gaming has always been the driving force for 40K up until 7E, but with 8E it's ironically the opposite. I say ironically, because 8E is thus far my favorite edition, but due to having less time now (family obligations and such), I play far less. But I have more collecting/building/painting time.
So for now, the Collecting/Building/Painting part of the hobby has taken front and center

-

Technically you dont actually need the models to play the game.

Cardboard cutouts or vassel has always been an option for those that dont want to or cant afford to pay.

Building and collecting im pretty sure can be combined as i dont think anyone on this planet just collects uncut sprue. (looks at all the new on spure boxes in my storage.. oh)

Painting can be separate as its own thing because its technically not required to have a functional game

 Desubot wrote:
Technically you dont actually need the models to play the game.
...
Painting can be separate as its own thing because its technically not required to have a functional game

Yes, I have played many a complex game with printed cardboard "tokens", it is very hard to go back to that... it is very... meh.
I know a guy who printed out his entire army and put them on wood bases.
Printed in colour with a front and back, very well done.
I typically see this done for an over the top formation that would cost a fortune.
Many of our insane ambitions are reined in by our budgets.

My response was, wait a minute, I will print my Titan on the plotter.
When I was a little boy punch-out cardboard dollies were a thing.
I really do not want to go back to those times.
I think even Battletech put out something like that one edition.

It really is preference but we seem to be missing the prettier part of the game, there is not much to advertise to new players pushing around grey plastic or pieces of cardboard.
I would go back to my computer games and never look back.

Warhammer 40000 is a proper hobby, which does wargaming transactions at the wargaming factory.