Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this

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.

**ewar**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Smirrors wrote:
8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.

The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.

8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.

Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.

8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.

This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.

We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.

Out of interest, are there other areas of your life where you refuse to self regulate? I'm guessing you must just walk around the office leaving doors swing shut in people's faces, making yourself tea and not asking others if they want a cup, perhaps just belching or farting at your desk. I mean, there are no actual rules preventing you from doing these things, right?

If you want to spam the most powerful stuff and not feel bad - that's cool. Just do it in a competitive environment where everyone expects to come up against the hardest possible lists.

IME 8th is the best edition of 40k since the beginning. In the real world, there are tens of thousands of gamers who are having a great time with their mates. None of them read forums full of repeated whining. It honestly doesn't improve anyone's enjoyment.

If anyone is having a hard time figuring out how to have fun with their toy soldiers, I would recommend watching a selection of winters SEO or Tabletop Tactics youtube vids. That is 40k at it's best IMO.

**PenitentJake**

I agree with a lot of OP; I feel really good about the game. One thing I really like that OP didn't mention is all of the minigames and the way they port directly into 40K.

Blackstone now has retinue character mechanics, and it has progressed to the point where players can more easily create their own scenarios- including the missions where retinue character are discovered. So pick a Blackstone character, and do retinue missions until you've recruited enough of a retinue that you can build a Kill Team.

Then switch. You already have the rules for the models you own (the original BSF character Kill Team rules are a free download). Once your Kill Team gets too big, switch to 40k.

And when your army outgrows 40k, Apocalypse is waiting. And even in your Apocalypse army, that damned Blackstone character who fought his or her way back from the far side of space is still there.

There's never been another edition where that was possible.

And I'm a campaign guy; I think I've been playing since 1989 or 90, and I don't think I've ever played a game that wasn't part of a larger story. The support we are getting to play the game that way is better than it has ever been.

I think that this thread also made the point that GW's rules are meant to be tools. There are more ways to play this game than any other game I've ever encountered. It can be hard to find a group of people who want to play the game the way you want it to be payed, and you may have to compromise; alternate play styles between your group members so that everyone gets to share their favourite version of the game at least once per rotation. It is that flexibility that gives the game its depth and complexity.

As for the whole multiple editions vs. material overload debate, both are strategies to keep GW's business alive; they have to either keep making new things or they have to release an edition- it's one or the other or the business dies.

You can argue that they should make plastics for all of the resins as a priority, or that they give the weakest factions the 2.0 treatment as a priority, and maybe you think that all of that should be done before something like a series of books and releases for a storyline campaign.

But the point is that it's all coming. You may not get it in the priority that you want; right now, I really feel for DE players who have watched all their super cool characters vanish, even if most of those characters were never given models in the first place. Many of those folks have recently expressed a lot of disappointment or even rage that this isn't what GW chose to give them in Blood of the Phoenix. On a certain level, I can understand that, but my point is that I do still think those characters are coming; if not them, then someone new to fill the void they left behind. I wouldn't be surprised if it arrives as a BSF character or a Kill Team.

What I can tell you is that if we do get a new edition, it will never happen. Nor will Tau ever get Alien Auxilia. The seven editions that came before this one are the reason we don't have them already.

I, for one, am ecstatic that GW has finally realized that edition longevity is the key to giving players the content they crave. I think that rules bloat is a fair price to pay for the possibility of getting everything I've ever wanted out of 40k. Sisters, GSC, many new Slaaneshi Daemons and multiple box sets for each? Just the beginning.

Someone posted the other day suggesting Asdrubael Vect and the Dias of Destruction updated with a new kit as a LOW choice. If the cost of that is no 9th edition (and it is), sign me up. And given the way GW has been conducted itself since 8th dropped, I'd say a they've already got substantial releases for every faction mapped out.

Many of us who want this content, and have wanted it for decades sometimes lapse into existential panic when we see people advocate for a 9th edition, because if it does, we have to go through at least the lifespan of 8th again before we can even begin to hope for better things again.

I have spent HUGE amounts of money this edition; my plan was to buy as much as I can, so that if they ever do release 9th edition, I will have everything I need from 8th to continue playing it for the rest of my life. I have 8 Codices + Urban Conquest, all the CA, all the Kill Team rules, every BSF box except the Ambull. I've also made substantial investments in GSC and Inquisition/ Sisters, and when the new sisters drop, I'm all in.

Anyway, I don't want to censor anyone, and I don't think OP does either. For my part, I like helping people be happy, so I try to point out silver linings or positive progress. It's also why I advocate that people find a group that isn't afraid to experiment with the various ways of playing the game and try it all on for size.

**fithos**

Daedalus81 wrote:

- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?

I feel like this quote actually illustrates nicely the difference in opinion that I at least feel between 7th and 8th edition. There were a lot of mechanics in 7th edition (and prior but I am going to shorthand as 7th) that are like the deep strike rules where the risk is almost never worth the reward or rarely came into play or just caused arguments at some peoples tables. Why do some people miss them so much? I can't speak for everyone but for myself it's because I very much enjoyed all the crazy stuff that could happen in the game because that's what lead to the stories that I remember. I mean, obviously I tried to win but I was just as happy coming away with a loss with a great story about how a bad last ditch scatter caused my own basilisk to blow up my infantry squad or the lucky side armor shot immobilized my transport carrying my last obsec unit so they had to get out and try to wade through the fire to get to the objective.

Now for the record, I play 8th edition and I think it is actually a pretty good game. But that's all it is to me is a game. A lot of the things that actually made me want to put down models and play in prior editions are gone because the streamlining of the game has made it so that for the most part everything is easily calculable. I don't mean that I can predict who will win just by looking at the lists and I am not saying that terrain and movement don't matter and that there aren't meaningful decisions to be made on the battlefield but it just feels like there is so much more player control of outcomes that it becomes less worth actually going through the motions. Since everything is on a d6 it's trivial to know what my odds of success are in every situation and as the game scales the offensive power creep to 11 it becomes more reliable than ever because I am rolling buckets of dice that are likely to average out (either because I have buckets of attacks or rerolls on everything). I am pretty sure this is by design. GW seems to want to have a tournament game and I think in some degree they have accomplished that but what I think makes it a good tournament game is what I think makes it a bad narrative game because what GW have done is effectively removed anything that would require judgement calls at the table and replaced them with the hard objective d6.

So to answer the question, I would deep strike because I thought it was cool and thematic and I thought I could make it work and if it did work it was glorious and made for a good story and if it went horribly wrong it could also make for a good story. I can completely understand why people like the current system and hated the old system. If you were looking for a competitive game then it definitely wasn't for you because some of the time it felt like you were playing against the game as well as the opposing player but those are the sorts of things that drew me to 40K and kept me around when better games started coming up.

**dotcomee**

I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.

It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.

Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.

The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.

It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?

Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.

**Daedalus81**

fithos wrote:

So to answer the question, I would deep strike because I thought it was cool and thematic and I thought I could make it work and if it did work it was glorious and made for a good story and if it went horribly wrong it could also make for a good story. I can completely understand why people like the current system and hated the old system. If you were looking for a competitive game then it definitely wasn't for you because some of the time it felt like you were playing against the game as well as the opposing player but those are the sorts of things that drew me to 40K and kept me around when better games started coming up.

Totally valid, but I feel like there are tons of ways to create memorable moments if people step outside the strict matched play arena.

**Vankraken**

Daedalus81 wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?

- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.

- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.

- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.

- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.

- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?

- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?

- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?

-Blast weapons made the battlefield as a whole matter more as to how close units where to each other. A lot of times when firing blast weapons, it was important to account for where misses could go so firing close to friendlies was risky while firing in congested areas meant that your misses could still hit other enemy units. It gave the feeling of artillery/bombs/etc blowing up stuff and also made the weapon far more reliant on battlefield conditions (unit concentrations, spacing, etc) than just the theorycraft numbers of how much damage on average this weapon does. 8th edition "blast" weapons shoot like machine guns with Ork RNG shots.

-The pulse weapon example is because of stacking + to wound modifiers that made spamming pulse rifle fire an effective anti Knight weapon. This ties into both the weaknesses of toughness only (anything can wound anything which is stupid) and 8th tendency to have stratagems and other bonuses result in weird situations. In general the feeling that you needed proper AT weapons to deal with an AV13 or AV14 vehicle (or flank around to the side or rear armor) was a compelling gameplay experience instead of throwing a lot of dice at a meatbox on treads (or these days mostly hovering on air).

-Directional casualties again made positioning matter more and factored into target priority and such outside of just number crunching damage outputs. Tying back into the battlefield conditions mattering more.

-Whats the point of using deepstrikes now? The point of them is to get into a position that you couldn't effectively get into while starting on the board and had that whole risk/reward aspect of making risky drops (and using your models to force more risky drops from your opponent). Once again the battlefield mattered and tied in strongly to AV firing arcs in addition to being a counter to hiding behind LOS or putting important characters in the back of unit blobs. Now the 9" bubble means your really not dropping behind the enemy unless they are really incompetent. No AV or directional casualties means getting a flank has little to no effect. (also terrain is basically being in area terrain or no bonus to your save so getting around cover isn't a factor really).

-Stratagems feel too much like a gimmick and again reminds me more of something from Magic (tap a CP and play *insert 40k equivalent to wild growth* to wound on 3s instead of 4s). In general 8th is barren on core gameplay mechanics and unit profiles (especially on older units) and instead relies on stacking bonuses from your subfaction and stratagems to do something "interesting". Stacking bonuses and modifiers feels artificial and clunky. I like my units being able to do their function based on the core and codex rules they have been given without needing to conjure some super power ability from Gork or sending in the logistical drone to give a Fire Warrior the only EMP grenade the army has.

-I don't think d6s are well suited for +1 and -1 modifiers they way 40k does it and i especially don't like modifiers when unit profiles vary as much as 40k's does unlike a game like bolt action where units generally hit on the same value but modifiers are designed around how movement and terrain. You don't have the Germans as an army hitting on 3+ base while the Italians are all hitting on 5+ base then trying to stack on flat modifiers for cover, terrain, etc. Seems like GW might of learned a bit from the stupidity of Eldar getting army wide minus to hit (and stacking it with other - to hit bonuses) but in general I dislike how the math of this stuff plays out.

The crux of the problem of 8th is that it lacks the feel of being a tactical game (as in movement, terrain, spacing, placement, directional shooting, area of effect, risk taking, etc) and its much more along the lines of throwing dice at the enemy and watching things poof out of existence. Even the morale system before was good (when stuff wasn't all fearless) where units would fall back and may rally. Multiple games i've had units that had fallen back return to play an impactful part of the game or made the conscious decision to inflict moderate casualties to multiple units in a turn to force as many morale checks as possible to better neutralize some of their army instead of just focus firing down each unit one by one. That also leads to the general lack of ways to diminish an enemy's ability to fight beyond removing models when before there was things like pinning, forcing jinks, blind, morale causing falling back, fear (again the rare Ork or CSM opponents lol), etc. The game now is much more "roll dice, remove units until one side has nothing else to remove" which is closer to the game Risk than I would like 40k to be.

GW so far hasn't done anything to help shore up any of these weaknesses and instead seems hell bent on pushing power creep and going the whole "layer bonus on top of bonus" route instead of fleshing out the core rules to have some more depth of mechanics. Then again from a design point of view they built themselves in a corner by having such a small base set of rules to work from that it would be difficult to build out the foundation of the game without making it complete unstable or requiring a complete redo of most units in the game.

Last game of 8th for me was probably a year ago but again I find myself enjoying playing 7th (which I've done since then to much enjoyment whenever the opportunity presents itself). Nothing in the past year has made me care to try 8th again as it still lacks what i crave from 40k.

**Waaaghbert**

dotcomee wrote:
I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.

It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.

Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.

The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.

It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?

Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.

I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.

GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

**AngryAngel80**

You do realize you still can love the game and the hobby yet be critical of GW and it's offerings ? Those aren't mutually exclusive ways to feel. It's the flawed view of society these days that only agreement and positive thoughts are good, and any criticism, no matter where it comes from is bad.

If people want an echo chamber of positive feelings I'd suggest, never go online, people with contrary opinions do exist. If you don't like bad feelings, just stick away from those topics.

I appreciate the view of positive things GW does. The quality of models however can sometimes be a matter of debate. The individual models can look better however they do lack ease of ability to set them up in unique fashion making some units and choices feel very samey. I don't like the ever rising price creep that keeps going up and up faster than ever before in some cases.

Some aspects and fluff kind of feels cheap and rushed sort of snooze. Though I'll say the game play balance is better than 6th-7th but that isn't hard to do and comparing it to those editions would make many of our past editions come out smelling like roses.

There is a lot to be happy for, but I'd say there is just about as much to dislike.

For me, I'm middle of the road. It's not great, it doesn't suck its about same o same o currently. With the bloat and glut of rules and releases rapidly making me feel this is going to end up just like 7th. For now though, there is still hope.

Find the pleasure and happy in the hobby but keep a critical eye as you do neither the game, your community or yourself favors by ignoring when things suck and not holding the company accountable.

To be honest, yes some always support, and some always hate, the truth, is somewhere in the middle. I just wish actual critical thinking of good and bad wasn't just labeled as toxic as all too easily happens.

**BrianDavion**

Waaaghbert wrote:
dotcomee wrote:
I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.

It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.

Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.

The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.

It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?

Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.

I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.

GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

I stopped taking that post when the poster actually tried to argue that GW was somehow getting away with a "legal bait and switch"

**Karol**

- Every main faction got a Codex from the same edition (for the first time since 3rd edition!)
GW sits at 9 Codex releases per year with 8th edition. Compare this to the ~2 releases per year in 4th and 5th edition, where it wasn't even guaranteed that your faction would get up to date rules within the edition's life time.

that is true, although am not sure about the codex quality. In case of my army there is very little difference between playing with the index and the codex.

- The model range is fantastic!
Back in the day we always hoped for but never dreamed of certain factions/models coming to life. Custodes, Genestealer, Nurglekin, Primarchs, AdMech, Deathwatch, Tzeentch, 30k, ...

From what I understand the GK plastic line existed for a few edition. Now my models are mostly metal and I like how they look. I don't think we got more stuff to use this edition then voldus. And it is just a plastic termintor with a thunder hammer. Easy to build out of the terminator box.

- Social Media
Painting tutorials from fans and GW on Youtube, weekly streams on Twitch, high quality battle reports, Warhammer Community, GW themselves spreading rumours HOLY COW.
Listening to their Twitch stream while cracking open a fresh pot of paint and working on my models with people having a chat feels like I'm part of a community. It gives me a good feeling, because even though I have no nearby living friends who play the game, I do feel connected.

Now I don't watch twich, because it slows down too much to be enjoyable here. It is cool they engange players though, though the only time they did talk about my factions, they lied before first CA that it is somehow going to fix them. So I am biased. Good to hear it works for other people though.

- Contrast and Texture paints, along with the design of model kits make the hobby super accessable. Personally, Contrast was the seller for me to return to the hobby.

My stuff was already painted, but I guess if someone likes to paint, more paints would be a good thing.

- I know very well that GW is really hit or miss with their balancing, but the situation is better than it ever was before. The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.

Maybe, although my problem is that I do play grey knight, so I can not not compare them to other stuff GW puts out.

Guys, come on! We get a very flavourful army back after more than a decade of neglecting them. Thank you GW for giving an army that must be at the bottom of sales a chance to come back.

I feel my army was very much neglected this edition. And from what was told me much later then I started, it seemed to be the case for some time now. So it doesn't look as if, at least in case of GK, anything changed much over other editions

But despite all that, I would like everyone to take a more relaxed approach to the hobby. Some things are good, some are bad. Maybe for you personally more things are bad than they are good. I can totally understand that Grey Knight players are left in the dust since 5th edition. No release apart from that one Gathering Storm guy and mediocre to bad rules.
Trust me, we all would want it to be a better situation. But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop. What we can change, however, is how we are.

I don't think many people would expect other players to change the game rules when playing vs or with GK. though not sure how this is suppose to change the fact that GK are unfun to play. specially if you bought them with money or can't switch to another army.

- If your army is having weak rules, ask your fellow players to not bring three immortal Leviathan Dreadnoughts. After all you both want to have fun.

Won't work. people here have 2000pts most of the time, few people have a few more points. If they drop 400-500pts, then we no longer are able to play a 2000pts game.

Spoiler:

good advice if you have to money for it. If you don't have the money for it, being silent only causes two things. A GW things everything is okey, because no one is saying that something is bad. B because no one is buying the bad stuff, GW can decide to never update it, as there clearly are no players playing the army.

- Obviously, my advice does little for you if you are a die hard tournament player. I'm sorry to say this, but Warhammer 40k is a poor tournament game and always has been. Could it be a good one? Of course, but we are not there at the moment. So there is no use in complaining about poor playtesting or calling armies "trash tier" because they are not as broken as the current thing that is very broken.

I don't think tournament players have problems with the game. All of them seem to be general happy. But then again, I have never met a tournament player that could switch his army or could afford investing in to a new one. Maybe somewhere out there there is some necron tournament player, pulling his hair out right now. Who knows.

At the end of the day we all want to have fun with our toy soldiers. And I feel we could improve the community if everybody would be a little bit less doom and gloom and drastic in their choice of words.

Well that sounds a lot like healthy people not liking to hear, how sick one person is. I mean, I get why they don't want to hear it. It for sure ain't fun for them. But for the sick person nothing is fun. Same with w40k. If your stuck with a bad army, and GW is clearly ignoring your faction, what else is there to do?

I, for one, look forward to grow my new collection in a time where Warhammer - with all it's flaws - is in a better state than it ever was before.

good for you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghbert 781894 10613830 wrote:

I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.

GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

being deliberate about making some rules more powerful still sounds better, then GW saying they don't know how their own game is played and just slapping rules on models at random. The first one maybe isn't nice, but company life isn't nice to begin with, and it explains at least some stuff. Plus it gives hope that maybe in the future, when it is lucrative for GW to update the bad stuff they will do so. If they are just incompetent you could waste 5 years waiting for a new good rule set and never get it.

**Gir Spirit Bane**

ITT - NO FUN ALLOWED!

Jokes aside I enjoy 8th, my local group has both the competitive meta and a equally big casual group so I'm spoilt for choice.

That being said 8th has allowed for the most fun in 40k for over a decade simply by being easier than ever for us to house rule certain units and things in a narrative setting and allow some fantastic narrative missions.

People here saying "We're not game designers, don't do GW's job!"... Surely the desire is to have fun and if you see an issue and have a remedy your opponent is okay with, you do something about it? Hell modding a computer game makes an otherwise alright game into something you can sink hundreds more hours into (I'm looking at you Skyrim!)

40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.

TL;DR - Its okay to change rules and play in a way you and your opponent agree will be more fun, its just as okay to hate on GW as it is to defend them, Lighten up Dakka its a game focused on plastic men in the future.

Edit - Some pre-coffee spelling errors.

**Karol**

40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.

I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.

That would be good, I think.

**BrianDavion**

Karol wrote:
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.

I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.

That would be good, I think.

.. honest to god question.... why do you feel obligated to play if you're not having fun?is there something stopping you from taking a break for a few months?

**AngryAngel80**

I have no idea, I've never felt I couldn't ever win a game of war hammer though I have had really one sided fights for life spans of editions. Like Tau vs Nids in 4th edition. That rolling consolidation into fresh combats, I can still feel them now. Talk about wishing you'd invested in transports, those were the days.

I will say, in his defense, if crap sucks you don't want to just sit there and be silent. If people don't want to read about it, just gloss over the posts. Sitting there suffering in silence when you may love the game just feel awful for your one factions place in it really sucks and honestly as repeated as it is he's got every right to complain about it. It may be a downer to read over and over but at least it isn't your burden to feel.

**Gir Spirit Bane**

Karol wrote:
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.

I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.

That would be good, I think.

I'm afraid Karol going somewhere for 8 hours repeatedly where you know you're not having fun and actively feeling bad, I am sorry but you need to cut that out! that sounds like a massive negative impact on your wellbeing.

Unfortunately there is quite often disconnect with how GW has made an army work in the rules and how players 'Want' them to work, but that'll change eventually. Please don't feel Im ignoring your feelings, I respect that yes, if your army is weak it can feel awful to play 40k. I also think narrative and narrative campaigns are truly how the game was designed in mind with you crafting your own stories, characters and adding veteran rules and anyone who feels burnt out in matched play, try and write up some things with other people and the hobby juices will be flowing better than ever!

The hobby is what you make of it, just please don't punish yourself if you're having that little fun! It's not good for you or your opponents.

**a_typical_hero**

Not Online!!! wrote:
That is if GW ever decides to make a 9th and fix the system in the first place, sofar we got nothing.

I think we can all agree that there will be updated rules in the future that affect all factions, outside of single Codexes. Might be 9th edition, might be addons similar to Cities of Death or Apocalypse. So there is a chance for people who dislike the current ruleset.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In other words, only be positive or leave?

No. There are bad core mechanics (IGOUGO, morale being pointless, etc.) and there are core issues with internal and external balance. To say "no don't use your models so I can play fairly" is purely the same as "don't use your Tactical Marines because I don't like them" and we should not be doing the game designer's job.

This is not what I wanted to say and sorry if you took it like that.

What I would like people to change is their way of communicating and playing with each other:

Change "why should anybody ever play anything apart from Iron Hands, Ultramarines and White Scars are trash tier." to "I don't believe White Scar rules will cut it in a tournament environment." or "Even in casual play people will need to adapt their lists to Grey Knight players for them to have fun."

I see the first statement as hurtful for the hobby. You don't help the issue at hand and question all Space Marine players who do not play with the currently strongest ruleset for their choice. You can do that, but it is unnecessary. If your co-player wants to play Salamanders or Grey Knights or Tyranids or whatever, then it is their choice. If everybody would only play Iron Hands, games would be pretty dull, wouldn't they? Encouraging army diversity is good for the hobby.

You can stand there on the opposite side of the table and ponder "It is not my fault the rules are unbalanced. Your choice to play a sub-par faction," while you put down your Aeldari air force to a random pick up game. Chances are it won't be a very enjoyable game for the other guy and he won't play you again.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop ... You can only change yourself, not GW.

Virtually all of the high points that you've talked about in 8th are things that have been steady, major complaints from players for years. I seriously doubt we, as a group, wouldn't be where we are today if players took the approach you want. Telling people to just be quiet cheerleaders and buy more models is absurd.

I never said that you should buy models and be quiet about the flaws of the hobby. My very first advice even is/was to talk to your co-player about what you bring to the table.
If it comes to a point where your general feeling about the hobby is negative, you should take a step back (sometimes to the point where you look for other miniature games).

I wholeheartedly agree/wish for that Games Workshop would/should listen to the community and change the game to the way we like. More balanced rules, equal support for factions and models, cheaper prices and so on.
The problem with this is that you can't force them. They might do it right now because the CEO got a different view at it than the last one, but it is not guaranteed. People are already stating that the current 8th edition is different from the start and that GW is going back to be "bad".
This is why I want to appeal to your personal view on the game. You can criticise it, but don't let the bad feeling get to you. Change yourself so you can enjoy your spare time, regardless of what a company in Nottingham does.

Backfire wrote:

I heard this pep talk first time when 6th edition Tau codex came out and I hated the changes. "But it has so much new stuff, read the rules, try it out and maybe you'll like it". Well, I read the rules, played it few times and hated it. And still do and haven't played Tau since, and probably never will again...

Oh well, I still have Space Hulk and BFG.

I'm sorry to hear that the army changed so much that it is not enjoyable anymore for you. That sucks and in a perfect world that would not happen. It's good that you still have (or found) other parts of the hobby that you like to play!

---

I want to quote more and reply more specific to some people, but the answer is already getting very long, so I want to address a few things in general:

- Over time I did collect several armies and know how it feels if the army is not getting any support and the rules are weak. It sucks and made me stop playing / collecting for 4-5 years.
- GW is not consistent with their rules. Some new models have great rules, some have weak rules. I would not attest that there is a malice system behind it.
- I'm not telling anybody to shut up or only phrase positive statements. I'm with all of you who want better rules, cheaper prices, refreshed and new models for every faction and so on.

Warhammer 40k is (Vanilla) Space Marine centric and if you want to have regular new models and rules, then you should pick them up. Factions are unbalanced between each other and certain pairings will need work from both players to make the match enjoyable.
It sucks that you have to buy 6 supplements to have access to all the latest SM rules. For a lot of people the first Psychic Awakening was a let down rules wise. After the initial teasing we simply expected more. Still, Jain Zar is pretty cool and another Aspect finally got an updated kit.

I'm not blind to the things that are bad. I simply wanted to highlight what good things there are because they are easily taken as granted and for people to reflect on how they state their criticism and what they can do to make it better for themselves, without the need for GW to step in.

**Crispy78**

Karol wrote:

I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.

That would be good, I think.

Karol, if this is genuinely how you feel then stop. Put your army up on eBay for what you paid for it, with international postage, and get rid of it. I'm sure someone will take it off your hands.

**BrianDavion**

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I have no idea, I've never felt I couldn't ever win a game of war hammer though I have had really one sided fights for life spans of editions. Like Tau vs Nids in 4th edition. That rolling consolidation into fresh combats, I can still feel them now. Talk about wishing you'd invested in transports, those were the days.

I will say, in his defense, if crap sucks you don't want to just sit there and be silent. If people don't want to read about it, just gloss over the posts. Sitting there suffering in silence when you may love the game just feel awful for your one factions place in it really sucks and honestly as repeated as it is he's got every right to complain about it. It may be a downer to read over and over but at least it isn't your burden to feel.

keep in mind I'm not going after him for feeling that way, just the way he says it, it sounds like he at least feels OBLIGATED I'm not even saying he should sell his army, but taking a break for a few months (maybe during which time Grey Knights will get some improvements) seems like a good idea.

I've always belived that if your hobby, be it 40k, a MMO, sports or stamp collecting, starts to feel like an obligation you HAVE to do, it's time to take a break.

**a_typical_hero**

@Karol
Please change something. Most here won't know you personally, but I'm confident that nobody wants you to drag yourself to an event every Saturday just to feel miserable.

**AngryAngel80**

I'm as annoyed by it as anyone honestly, it is much repetition of the same lamentations and if it was me, I'd probably have stepped away, sold out or just tried my best to make it good.

I can understand in part the obligation if he generally does like the game just feels his force sucks and can't win vs who all he plays against. That puts you in a pickle that you may not want to opt out but staying in sucks too. We can often be conflicted especially if we spent a good deal or time and/or money on the army. It isn't exactly the same cost as a video game that is a lemon.

Many of us however have many armies if one sucks we can bring out another one to get our fix or in the cases of some armies things aren't ever really that bad. Though even if he does that, does that mean he can't vent here about how he's been done wrong by GW ? I can't say I'd just sit there and say nothing about it, even if I kept trying to win as hard as that may be.

I think he can even see GW does positive things, just he's not feeling it for himself. If GW wasn't so amazingly lazy, they could figure out a way to make GK at least feel good to use which is really the minimum you should expect when they have sucked from index through codex to now and I don't think that'll even change this year at this rate.

It's hard for someone to be upbeat when you're being ignored and brushed under the rug to be forgotten of. I mean other than GW saying " Yeah, GW aren't that good " they don't seem to care and over look the fact not everyone can spend hundreds of dollars to get multiple armies as a safety net to enjoy the game.

**Not Online!!!**

This is not what I wanted to say and sorry if you took it like that.

What I would like people to change is their way of communicating and playing with each other:

Change "why should anybody ever play anything apart from Iron Hands, Ultramarines and White Scars are trash tier." to "I don't believe White Scar rules will cut it in a tournament environment." or "Even in casual play people will need to adapt their lists to Grey Knight players for them to have fun."

I see the first statement as hurtful for the hobby. You don't help the issue at hand and question all Space Marine players who do not play with the currently strongest ruleset for their choice. You can do that, but it is unnecessary. If your co-player wants to play Salamanders or Grey Knights or Tyranids or whatever, then it is their choice. If everybody would only play Iron Hands, games would be pretty dull, wouldn't they? Encouraging army diversity is good for the hobby.

You can stand there on the opposite side of the table and ponder "It is not my fault the rules are unbalanced. Your choice to play a sub-par faction," while you put down your Aeldari air force to a random pick up game. Chances are it won't be a very enjoyable game for the other guy and he won't play you again.

Yes and no.
You see, if GW games would be somewhat imbalanced only, then yes the attitude would indeed be an issue.

However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex and we are at version 2.0 for others with questionable rules design to the point that these literally unrefined lists stomped all over their competition.

What you do here, is , excuse me, strawmanning, because the statement, the rules of X are trash, can just as much be a blunt formulated fact as it can be hyperbole.

Secondly, Suguarcoting does nothing, GW from 7th shows that perfectly well, GW in 8th attempted to balance (actually the PR team attempted to regain fans of the series which were finally fed up enough to break ) and many of the veterans bought into that.

So, no, i don't feel like you got a point there, period. And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate to the point that there will be no more debating and therefore no issue will get resolved and instead people will use pitchforks.

**a_typical_hero**

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yes and no.
You see, if GW games would be somewhat imbalanced only, then yes the attitude would indeed be an issue.

However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex and we are at version 2.0 for others with questionable rules design to the point that these literally unrefined lists stomped all over their competition.

What you do here, is , excuse me, strawmanning, because the statement, the rules of X are trash, can just as much be a blunt formulated fact as it can be hyperbole.

Secondly, Suguarcoting does nothing, GW from 7th shows that perfectly well, GW in 8th attempted to balance (actually the PR team attempted to regain fans of the series which were finally fed up enough to break ) and many of the veterans bought into that.

So, no, i don't feel like you got a point there, period. And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate to the point that there will be no more debating and therefore no issue will get resolved and instead people will use pitchforks.

The thing is you do not need to formulate your opinion about something so blunt or in a hyperbolic way. I know the internet loves it and it feels if you do not express your opinion stark enough, you won't be heard.
Grey Knight rules are trash at the moment. Ok, we stated our unhappiness now lets look for ways to make it better. Games Workshop sure won't release a better ruleset for them next week, no matter how extreme I state my opinion or how many threads I open on Dakka or how often I bring it up randomly in every discussion on the board.
What we can do is engange with the people we are actually playing with and work it out. You played your Grey Knights against your friends new Iron Hands. Some units stand out as being overwhelming for you to handle. That's not great and there are two things you can do:

1. Open a thread on Dakka complaining about Iron Hands. How could GW let that slip through playtesting? Playtesters are a joke! Grey Knights are utterly trash!

2. Open a thread on Dakka saying you played against IH and it wasn't enjoyable at all. You state the problematic units and engage in a fruitful discusscion with others. What units should an IH player not bring or limit in a casual play against GK? What could you improve in your GK list when facing Iron Hands?

In both cases your statement is: Iron Hands are very powerful. Grey Knights are very weak. One will help the community, the other won't.

I don't agree with you that not using hyperbole or extreme statements is the same as sugarcoating criticism. You can respectfully disagree with things and people.
And I do not say we should ignore criticism. On the contrary. I advocate to state your critic in a constructive manner. For example by opening a thread like my second example.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Karol wrote:
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.

I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.

That would be good, I think.

As echoed above, seriously, if you're not enjoying it, stop doing it. Is there anything forcing you into staying in the hobby? Do you "have" to go to the store every weekend, if it's such a strain on you?

There's nothing wrong about taking a break, and there's no shame in it either. Mental health is an important thing to manage, and if your post topics are anything to go by, the hobby is doing nothing but negative things for you. Therefore, even if just for a few months or years, step away from it. Sell your models, or keep them on a shelf somewhere until you feel ready to jump back in. Maybe paint some of them, maybe play some video games, or read some books, or just do anything non-GW related.

Basically, is it worth being involved in the hobby if you don't enjoy it? If all you (general) can talk about are negative things, is it not worth considering taking a break from 40k as a whole for a bit?

**Insectum7**

Not Online!!! wrote:
And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate . . .

That's not how conversation works. Points can be made without hyperbole, rudeness, etc.

If someone is going to be a constant ***hole, they should be prepared to not be engaged with. Not engaging ***holes does not automatically stifle debate.

**Apple fox**

I been thinking a bit, one of the reasons i have lost a lot of positivity is not GW but the way players have treat them at times.

When we had other games going, we had players that refused to even try them. No worry.

But then they bring these new GW games, Get people interested, even buying minis. Then 2 months latter they are done, Complaining again no one plays 40k with them. This is sorta 3 guys :( And its no fun.
They also recruit people into 40k all the time to never play with them.
I think the entire attitude surrounding GW is bad, they have done well to make themselves a Hobby of there own.

I think its fine, and this is more annoyance at attitudes i have encounter in the hobby.
GW Could be doing a lot better, but it may just be that they know that a avg product is all they need. and that makes me very sad :(

**Sgt_Smudge**

a_typical_hero wrote:
What we can do is engange with the people we are actually playing with and work it out. You played your Grey Knights against your friends new Iron Hands. Some units stand out as being overwhelming for you to handle. That's not great and there are two things you can do:

1. Open a thread on Dakka complaining about Iron Hands. How could GW let that slip through playtesting? Playtesters are a joke! Grey Knights are utterly trash!

2. Open a thread on Dakka saying you played against IH and it wasn't enjoyable at all. You state the problematic units and engage in a fruitful discusscion with others. What units should an IH player not bring or limit in a casual play against GK? What could you improve in your GK list when facing Iron Hands?

In both cases your statement is: Iron Hands are very powerful. Grey Knights are very weak. One will help the community, the other won't.

I don't agree with you that not using hyperbole or extreme statements is the same as sugarcoating criticism. You can respectfully disagree with things and people.
And I do not say we should ignore criticism. On the contrary. I advocate to state your critic in a constructive manner. For example by opening a thread like my second example.

Agreed. Hyperbole and shouting "GW are trash!!" is simply not going to get any results. GW won't change. People won't take you seriously if you want to encourage people to leave the hobby and support other causes you might prefer. By actually discussing and coming to constructive conclusions, you can at least persuade other people with respectful discussion.

**Darian Aarush**

a_typical_hero wrote:
Hello everybody,

after playing the game from the release of the 3rd edition starter box until the start of 7th, I came finally back to the hobby and to this forum (always a watcher in the dark, never posting myself).
My memories are most likely tinted by time and nostalgia, but I can't remember to notice so much negativity back in the day just about everything.

When I take a look around, we - as a community - are better off than ever before:

- Every main faction got a Codex from the same edition (for the first time since 3rd edition!)
GW sits at 9 Codex releases per year with 8th edition. Compare this to the ~2 releases per year in 4th and 5th edition, where it wasn't even guaranteed that your faction would get up to date rules within the edition's life time.

- The model range is fantastic!
Back in the day we always hoped for but never dreamed of certain factions/models coming to life. Custodes, Genestealer, Nurglekin, Primarchs, AdMech, Deathwatch, Tzeentch, 30k, ...

- Social Media
Painting tutorials from fans and GW on Youtube, weekly streams on Twitch, high quality battle reports, Warhammer Community, GW themselves spreading rumours HOLY COW.
Listening to their Twitch stream while cracking open a fresh pot of paint and working on my models with people having a chat feels like I'm part of a community. It gives me a good feeling, because even though I have no nearby living friends who play the game, I do feel connected.

- Contrast and Texture paints, along with the design of model kits make the hobby super accessable. Personally, Contrast was the seller for me to return to the hobby.

- I know very well that GW is really hit or miss with their balancing, but the situation is better than it ever was before. The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.

- Iron Hands have been regulated within WEEKS of their release. In recent editions you had to live with a broken codex until the next edition would alter the basic rules enough to neuter it or until the army would get a new codex. That's great.

- Sister of Battles are getting a complete relaunch. I can't believe it. The miniatures so far look great and even though I've never been fan enough to pick them up because metal, I really consider buying the Christmas box.
The army has been on life support since 3rd edition and it never really was a good time to start them. Metal, expensive, harder to convert and customise. Yet, people are stating their disappointment that the new range won't be available until next year.
Guys, come on! We get a very flavourful army back after more than a decade of neglecting them. Thank you GW for giving an army that must be at the bottom of sales a chance to come back.

Does the game have problems? Absolutely.
- Some models are legally allowed to drink alcohol in the US by now.
- Not all factions are equally powerful or have multiple, interesting builds available.
- Prices are only getting higher, for models and rules likewise.
- We lost Warseer along the way.
- Some models are only available in starter boxes.
- If you are not a loyalist Space Marine, you are lucky to get a new model every few years.

But despite all that, I would like everyone to take a more relaxed approach to the hobby. Some things are good, some are bad. Maybe for you personally more things are bad than they are good. I can totally understand that Grey Knight players are left in the dust since 5th edition. No release apart from that one Gathering Storm guy and mediocre to bad rules.
Trust me, we all would want it to be a better situation. But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop. What we can change, however, is how we are.

- If your army is having weak rules, ask your fellow players to not bring three immortal Leviathan Dreadnoughts. After all you both want to have fun.
- If your army is not getting much model support, consider picking up another army or another miniature game to keep things fresh. "What a great advice, pick up another army" I hear you say, but again: You can only change yourself, not GW. Nobody is happier at the end of the day if you stick with your Sisters of Battle since 3rd and start a complain thread everyday. You won't be happier doing that, so let it go and look for what would make you happier.
- Obviously, my advice does little for you if you are a die hard tournament player. I'm sorry to say this, but Warhammer 40k is a poor tournament game and always has been. Could it be a good one? Of course, but we are not there at the moment. So there is no use in complaining about poor playtesting or calling armies "trash tier" because they are not as broken as the current thing that is very broken.

At the end of the day we all want to have fun with our toy soldiers. And I feel we could improve the community if everybody would be a little bit less doom and gloom and drastic in their choice of words.

I, for one, look forward to grow my new collection in a time where Warhammer - with all it's flaws - is in a better state than it ever was before.

Thank you for reading the wall of text, I needed to get this off my chest

I've come back to the Hobby recently - and I think this is a great post! Thanks

**BrianDavion**

However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex

outside of sisters, whom are coming in november I can't think of a single army thats not gotten a codex.

**Not Online!!!**

BrianDavion wrote:
However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex

outside of sisters, whom are coming in november I can't think of a single army thats not gotten a codex.

All fw index factions.
Infact some even haven't seen an index?

**Nazrak**

flandarz wrote:
I think there's a big difference between having legitimate criticisms about a product and being negative for the sake of negativity. And I've seen both on this site. You don't have to love everything about the game, or even most of the things. But you can frame your complaints in a way that doesn't come across as a toddler throwing a tantrum.

Oof, yes, 100x this.