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 do love me some stats, it helps awaken my psychic powers.

If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Really interesting about how releasing cool new material is turned into a whine about how you "have to buy it".

I wonder if you can apply that logic to other areas of your life. Like if a delicious new restaurant opens up on your street are you upset because you now have to spend money eating there?

 Ishagu wrote:
If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Obviously, this doesn't absolve any criticism or points made. Same could be said about bad movies.

Darsath wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If you don't want them don't buy them.

No one has to buy anything.

Obviously, this doesn't absolve any criticism or points made. Same could be said about bad movies.

But the post wasn't whining about this campaign event being bad, which wouldn't make sense as it isn't released yet. It was whining that because it exists the OP will have to buy it.

This is the problem with lumping ruleset changes to paid content. You enter the "pay to win" realm of game design where you need the newest rule sets to have the best chance of being competitive (not only tournament but just playing to win in general). Because of that you end up with the choice of either paying for the new content, saving money but being at a disadvantage, or being a freeboota. Thus the feeling of being required to buy the ruleset to maintain (8ths low) quality of play.

I don't think some are even complaining about it, I said way way back now it is what it is. It's simply someone saying how optional it is when it's going to be full of straight buffs for the armies.

Sure, you can not buy it, very true. What's also true is those who do are going to have an edge in strength for their army over someone who maybe doesn't, makes it feel less optional if you are in a meta that is on the competitive side.

I mean, it's always an option to just not play the game and wait for the next edition overhaul.

Saying its optional though feels a bit like people saying, for instance, the updates for say Destiny 2 are optional. They are, but if you want to keep playing the game you better hand over the cash or be left behind with yesterdays power level. A similar feeling here.

You can voice you don't like it, if you don't like that someone doesn't appreciate it, just don't read the response I guess.

^ you literally don't have to buy it though. The rules will be freely available online and most people will just bring them on paper printouts or battlescribe. It's SO silly to pretend otherwise.

And then, if they are anything like Vigilus they'll come with tons of great art, lore, and campaign missions for those of us who do want them.

Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

except you DON'T need to buy it to keep playing. do you need to buy it if you want all the options and to remain on the bleeding edge of compeitiveness? Maybe so. but every hobby requires you to spend more money for that. the kind of equipment NHL players wear is considerably more expensive then what you wear to play on the frozen pond at home.
Thing is EVERY game comapny needs to churn the rules etc. is there a single, still supported game, game out there that doesn't offer new stuff to sell?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

I mean, you're just working yourself into incredible knots to justify making yourself angry about a company producing new products for a game you play.

My issue isn't them being able to stay afloat, they release plenty of models, rules etc otherwise for all of that.

Yet again, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying its not optional if you play competitive and repeating it forever won't make it any less true the millionth time over the first.

I further would rather they had a small thing to buy, with just the rules, and maybe one with all the fluff, lore, etc in it for the collectors. However I know they don't do that because people would just buy the rules mostly which is why they don't make just campaign books anymore.

I don't mind spending money on the hobby, my army lists are wide and varied I've done my part and a few other players parts. I do dislike needing all the books, when I just want the rules. I honestly doubt anyone would care if the rules base sold for like half or a third of the book as their own thing, you'd see very few complaints I'm willing to bet.

So yeah, you don't need to buy it, depending on area and game group. Some people will need to get ahold of the rules though and that is either through stealing it, info gathering it from online reviews, or battlescribe or buying it.

If it was just a campaign resource or an expansion then yes, totally optional. They stopped making those pretty much because they didn't sell.

They don't like making game expansions that really are optional as they don't sell, as people go " oh I'll never need it " and it sits on the shelf then. They designed it to not be optional or at least not feel optional while saying, of course, it's optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordoape wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Sure, you can literally stop playing the game too. However if you want to keep up with the new rules, you kind of do have to buy it.

Optional is a very broad term, and I think you're not quite picking up whats being put down for why it feels more than optional, other than of course just saying again, but it's optional.

Sure, you can pirate it but is that really the better option ? I mean thats a new talking point though, just don't buy it when you can steal it instead, I like it, very innovative. You're right, you don't have to buy it.

I mean, you're just working yourself into incredible knots to justify making yourself angry about a company producing new products for a game you play.

That would be true, but I'm not angry, well in any way but my name on here.

At the end of the day, these excuses about needing the rules just to play the game, rules we haven't even seen and may not even add much to the game, are just that: excuses. They're self justifications to buy rules unseen instead of waiting, seeing if you even want to use them, and then spending money on the rules.

It's pretty clear to me that this isn't even about rules or expansions for some, it's just another outlet to complain, to moan and generally wallow in negativity.

How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

you're welcome to voice an opinion but you damn well better be perpared to be called out when you express an opinion that is based on poor information "ohh it's my opinion!" does not sudden;y render a statement immune to criticism.

BrianDavion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

you're welcome to voice an opinion but you damn well better be perpared to be called out when you express an opinion that is based on poor information "ohh it's my opinion!" does not sudden;y render a statement immune to criticism.

Yeah, basically. I mean if you're going to make stuff up people are going to call you out for it. Backpedalling to grab for the "opinion" label when you're clearly stating things as "facts" doesn't deflect criticism.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
How dare anyone voice their opinion in a forum based on opinions. I know, it burns my burrito at both ends too.

Opinions based on faulty logic should not be given free reign. From the inflamatory title to the contortionist logic employed in this thread it is clear that the majority of the opinions shown aren't on the level of "I don't like supplements" or "Campaigns are bad" but rather attempts to paint horns onto GW's actions before the end product is even seen and call them evil and malicious.

That crosses from being an "opinion" into straight up lying about the facts of the matter.

Careful now, going to fall on off from the lofty height of your moral high ground and hurt yourself. First off, it's an opinion, so it can't be right or wrong, just mine or yours. Second you can believe logic is as faulty as you want, but you don't get to act like your " right good " opinion is better than mine or anyones when truth be told not one of us know the absolute facts. All we can do is make judgement calls based on our best guess from what we take in and/or believe to be truth.

The very fact this theads gone on so far shows we can all have wildly different views on the situation. You sir, have no right to try and wrangle in my opinion or anyones just because you think it's too dangerous to be aired or unworthy of your consideration. We all just voice our words as we feel them to be true and in the end, only time will tell. Some will agree and disagree and we'll move on to the other topics to rage at each other about.

GW has a whole PR team to go around and paint them halos on top of their head, maybe taking some time to see the horns is good too eh ?

I don't actually hate GW but I can speak my annoyances in products they put out or things they make or rulings they hand down. We don't always need to agree, but we are all in it together so relax with the whole " bad opinion on faulty logic talk " we're all friends here in a niche hobby.

The claim that anyone "must" buy any product has been proven fase several times. It's not an opinion, it's BS.

You can state an opinion like "I don't like supplements because it means that I have to buy the supplement to use the rules" and I have no qualms over that opinion. But when.it's stated that you need the books so others can use the rule it's not an opinion, it's a lie.

We don't even know the shape these rules will take. For all we know they're going to be mission packs or Vigilus style formations (which were competetively seen as more "meh"), nothing of which are things you need to have to play competetively.

You know what you do need to buy? Your codex (and your codex supplement if you're a Vanilla Marine who wants to play Special Characters). That's it. If you play tournaments the mission pack means you don't need more than the free core rules, FAQ and current points costs (which you can easilly borrow from a friend or Google). Anything else is optional. This crying about books we haven't even see previews for js jumping to.conclusions with no evidence. Complaining about a product you haven't seen is just sad.

And yeah, calling it sad is an opinion.

If you actually read any of my posts, you'd see I agreed, by the exact nature of the word, yes it's optional, and no you don't need it. However in the broader sense, they put it out because while that is said, the vast majority view it as a must have, because of the rules inside which add to the game. That while they won't implode the army if you don't have them, add a great deal of worth to the factions they are in there for.

Like the long ago mentioned vigilus detachments for Guard with the relic battle cannon that is pretty much a mainstay in most any guard list using LRBTs.

The vigilus formations some of them were meh, a good amount were considered must takes if you were using those units in those armies they were made for. I can't speak for all of them, but a few were very tasty.

I never said I hated supplements. where did I write that ?

I also never said I needed it so other people can use the rules, where are you getting that from ?

I'm not even saying its bad, all I have said is, and I'll be clear here, It is optional but for some people it really won't be optional as to keep up with the johnsons they'll need to pick it up. As it will add competitive edge to the armies in question. Yes that is a guess I have but I'm pretty sure they won't make the books weak, they want to sell them. We will see however, if I'm wrong I'll give you a personally written out apology. However, I'm not even trashing it, so lets be clear on that.

sure but you can use that argument for ANYTHING new, GW introduces a new guard tank, and what if it's a "must have"? and that could put you out a lot more money then a 40 dollar supplement. (given a new heavy tank'd proably sell for roughly 100 bucks and if it was a OMG must have unit you'd likely buy several) new things get added to the game, that's honestly just part of the nature of a game system. complaining about it is well.. silly I mean "how dare this gaming company sell me new things!" is when you step back kinda silly.

Well there is difference, I think, between GW making a new tank and it having good rules, so people buy 3 of them, and GW making a shrine of past good codex model, which makes you crappy units suddenly okey, because then such a book or model you can not skip. In first example skipping means losing power, in second skipping means losing playability.

The two seem kind of a different to me.

Ok, so you agree with me, thanks for letting me know and no I don't think its silly, as really that is all the OP was saying, and all that others who agreed with him have basically said this whole time.

I also have never cared about a new model dropping that is a must have. Models to me have more extended worth than a rules supplement, personal opinion.

I play admech did I rage about the new transport/tanks dropping ? Some consider them must haves, nope, no rage. Not even any rage here, and if people are actually agreeing to my point I don't see why anyone keeps fighting on it.

Clearly, it's optional, but not really if you want the most bang for your buck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well there is difference, I think, between GW making a new tank and it having good rules, so people buy 3 of them, and GW making a shrine of past good codex model, which makes you crappy units suddenly okey, because then such a book or model you can not skip. In first example skipping means losing power, in second skipping means losing playability.

The two seem kind of a different to me.

You do seem to get my point. Thank you.

I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

I was going to say GW can be really hit or miss with new models but usually less so with rules supplements. I just didn't want to belabor the point.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have 4 buggies sitting on my shelf right now that should prove to you all that the latest models aren't always the best. One is so bad it is basically throwing away 140pts.

I was going to say GW can be really hit or miss with new models but usually less so with rules supplements. I just didn't want to belabor the point.

How many Marine players who running Siegebreakers to win tournaments again?

Heck, let's not forget the new character they screwed up.

It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

He says, while ironically attacking all members of the thread.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

My criticisms of GW have largely been answered by GW and their increased transparency on how the game is developed.

My issues with the community is that a portion of them still think it's 7th edition and that Kirby still has a deathgrip on the studio.

Gone are the days of waiting three to ten years to see a codex update, and while GW is still trying to find their footing to update armies more frequently the fact remains they are actually trying to meet player demands in a more timely manner.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a new business model, especially when you have to balance customer and shareholder demands.