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 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ewar wrote:

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.

There are rules, actually. Nobody for the most needs to self regulate because in healthcare we already have outlined rules and regulations that we don't need to adjust. As it turns out, I don't need to do HR's job because they're competent at their jobs overall. Can you say the same for the same company that released Super Doctrines or 7th Edition Scatterbikes or Lash Princes?

If that's really the best argument you have, you never had a leg to stand on to begin with. Come up with something better and maybe I'll reply.

Your work has a rulebook telling you to offer to make people a drink, not to fart in the office and to hold doors for colleagues?! That seems... unlikely

Anyway, my whole point was that everything in your life requires some self regulation. Just don't be TFG and apply it to toy soldiers as well, then you can't go wrong.

You're missing the grand point on purpose I imagine.

The point is, when things are laid out correctly, there aren't issues, period.

Why am I supposed to HR's or GW's job?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.

I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.

Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.

You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.

I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.

Except some casual lists are better than others. What can someone running a fluffy Imperial Guard army do against a GK player? If you're already fluffy, how are they supposed to tone down?

Considering about half the Guard book is underwhelming units, I'd point at those. That or play down on points. Those are the easiest ways to adjust things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.

I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.

Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.

You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.

I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.

And that is a problem with some games, and gamer culture. I find tournaments fun. Playing games, in any context, should be fun.

I find challenging games fun, because I enjoy the challenge. That isn't how everyone has fun, and when you make winning the only means of having fun then there are going to be a lot of negative feelings running around.

We can pretend competitive play doesn't have this problem, but it's been an issue for a long time. There is a lot of fun, fluffy games at the lower tables, but you usually get stomped by someone's "gotta win to have fun" list first.

@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

So how is this then not to be considered as arrogant?

I really can't see how what I wrote is arrogant? If you would actually care to read what I wrote in this thread, instead of trying to intepret my tone and possible intent, then you might understand my position better. You "calling me out" or basically saying "gotcha" when somebody cites my very first post of this thread on the third page of the discussion shows me that you did in fact NOT read my post carefully.

Hypocritic much?

Again, I don't see it? I never use the word "must" or something along the line. Where do I dictate others their feelings and words? That you are mainly attacking my wording instead of my topic shows me that you are not interested in having a discussion.
Please write me a private message if you want to continue on talking this part. Maybe if we switch to German we can clear this up.

Off topic: I would appreciate if a native speaker from an English speaking country could contact me via private message as well to explain to me how I can improve my wording for the topic I want to convey and not make it sound like what Not Online!!! accuses me of.

You beeing happy to what is in essence the biggest mistake GW has done and is just doing again. Further, considering that Unrefined lists of those supplements literally broke the competitive balance in a strangle hold is no issue according to you?

I stated in my first post that imho 40k is a bad tournament game. So I neither want to give any advice for the problems in the competitive scene nor do I see it as an argument against what I said.

It is also not valid to point out allready that the basic premise of csm 2.0 is not the same of C.SM 2.0 allready and on top there are now supplements furthering the imbalance in the system on top of that is not valid, because it is just "HYPERBOLE AND COMPLAINING" according to you.

You are free to state it that Chaos Marines are in a worse state than Loyalists. And guess what? I agree. Chaos has - personally speaking - never been as interesting as in their 3.5 Codex. The whole time in this thread I try to encourage that instead of just complaining about it that you do something about your negative feeling within your own capability.

Not Online!!! wrote:

a_friendly-Hero.

This dismissive form to address me together with you questioning my education has been the only personal "attack" so far in this thread. I'm not interested in discussing this topic with you anymore, as you showed no basic respect towards me. Have a good day.

 jeff white wrote:

...

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you want to say. I never complained about a slow game. Did you want to reply to a different topic maybe? If not, then please express yourself again differently. I could not follow.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ typical hero:

If tone of content is a concern of yours, you might try 40konline. Dakka has a bit of a Wild West feel to it, that I like but some people don’t.

If you prefer a more... regimented... approach to conversation, that site might work better for you.

And if the same old mods are there, tell’em GBT sends his best. And then yell “psych!” While you dance about, all prickish-like. They’ll appreciate it.

I did not know this forum before, but if I ever happen to drop by, I'll send your regards

---

On a more serious note though: Language does carry weight. More than some might think or care to admit. If you join a group of people, over time you will pick up their slang and eventually mindset as well.
Transfer this to our belovedhated hobby where a newcomer discovers a forum where he signs up to engage in the latest discussion about new releases or to tinker his army list or share pictures from the latest conversion project.
What he finds is a vocal minority(?) telling him the army he picked is "trash" and "bottom tier". Supported by bitter statements of people who can't be happy for fellow hobbyists if another faction got something nice.

What do you think how he will feel about his choice? Does anybody believe the passion of the newcomer will rise? That he goes to the next fantasy store and buys more figures (which enables GW to keep producing this game for all of us, mind you...)? That he will try to get other people into the hobby because the online experience was so great?

On the other side how would he feel if he could find a guideline for his army against which factions he can play without a problem? Including advice for him and his co-player how to make it a fun game (point adjustments, unit recommendation, ...) for both of them.

I think you get my point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except some casual lists are better than others. What can someone running a fluffy Imperial Guard army do against a GK player? If you're already fluffy, how are they supposed to tone down?

Depends on how far you are willing to compromise. Give the Grey Knight player more points for example. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! But it is something that might work for some until Grey Knights get their next rules update.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Depends on how far you are willing to compromise. Give the Grey Knight player more points for example. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! But it is something that might work for some until Grey Knights get their next rules update.

Why do we have to provide a handicap to Grey Knights? Shouldn't we be able to have a fun game without modifying the rules?

If the rules were free, then you could say "You get what you pay for." But they're not free. Not even close.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.

Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it.
This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.

Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.

Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

Thank you for this. I play to win as well. I find games the most enjoyable when all players involved are trying their hardest to win.

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.

Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it.
This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.

Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.

Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.

Quit re-framing my argument into a casual versus competitive one. That's dishonest and frankly a load of bull. I've stated multiple times that the issue isn't competetive play, it's a vocal minority of players who choose to play the game in the least fun manner they can who also complain about how the game isn't fun. We hear it on competetive podcasts and see it from sites like Spikey Bits who push for people to play the game for the sake of winning over everything else, but then in the same breath will complain that the game isn't as fun as it should be.

This is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, not swept under a rug and ignored. Our hobby is being dragged down by people who make a big stink for the sake of views and clicks with little to no regard for the actual health of the game, the health of the hobby, or how the narrative they're pushing of "this is the best way to play, and you should always play this way" hurts the game as a whole.

I am all for a proper tournament scene that tests skill and even possibly becomes a professional gaming avenue. I'm not for this push to make the game only about pasting each other as hard as we can and then complaining that the game lacks balance when you intentionally try to make it unbalanced.

If there is a venn diagram of the competitive players playing un-fun lists and complaining about the game not being fun then I would imagine the cross-section is pretty small.

I rarely find that it's un-fun to play any sort of list. I think, perhaps, where it becomes less fun is when your strong list totally rolls over your opponent's weak list. There is no challenge and as such it is boring.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If there is a venn diagram of the competitive players playing un-fun lists and complaining about the game not being fun then I would imagine the cross-section is pretty small.

I rarely find that it's un-fun to play any sort of list. I think, perhaps, where it becomes less fun is when your strong list totally rolls over your opponent's weak list. There is no challenge and as such it is boring.

I called them a vocal minority for a reason. The problem is said minority tend to be the loudest voices since they're among the more prominent members of the community (Spikey Bits and the crew of FLG being common offenders).

I personally find certain lists boring to play with, but I enjoy challenge enough to make even an unfair game interesting (usually by playing the mission and trying to kill their most important models).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.

And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)

I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.

And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.

I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.

Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it.
This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.

Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.

Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.

Quit re-framing my argument into a casual versus competitive one. That's dishonest and frankly a load of bull. I've stated multiple times that the issue isn't competetive play, it's a vocal minority of players who choose to play the game in the least fun manner they can who also complain about how the game isn't fun. We hear it on competetive podcasts and see it from sites like Spikey Bits who push for people to play the game for the sake of winning over everything else, but then in the same breath will complain that the game isn't as fun as it should be.

This is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, not swept under a rug and ignored. Our hobby is being dragged down by people who make a big stink for the sake of views and clicks with little to no regard for the actual health of the game, the health of the hobby, or how the narrative they're pushing of "this is the best way to play, and you should always play this way" hurts the game as a whole.

I am all for a proper tournament scene that tests skill and even possibly becomes a professional gaming avenue. I'm not for this push to make the game
only about pasting each other as hard as we can and then complaining that the game lacks balance when you intentionally try to make it unbalanced.

I am not re-framing your argument. Complaining about a "vocal minority" of players who play the game "wrong," and may or may not complain about the fun of the game, is only fanning the flames of the casual vs. competitive nonsense that permeates Dakka. Not one of us has any solid data to know what the majority or minority of 40k players thinks, or how they behave. What we do know is that profits for GW have increased massively, as has tournament attendance.

BrianDavion wrote:

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.

dude, Rule Zero predates warhammer 40k. You HAVE heard of it yes?

Its been a lazy excuse for not doing the job of rules development regardless of where it appears.

Let’s imagine we’re in a boxing match. Should I go easy on my opponent so that he can have more fun? Throw the match? Tie my feet together?

What if I enjoy a good brawl? A tight rule set lets me and my competitive opponent bash it out. This does not stop “casual” boxers from throwing a few punches at each other and giggling about the outcome.

But when you want to be a better boxer, you don’t try to learn from “casual” boxers laughing while they flail gently at each other. You go to the guys sweating it out, pounding the hell out of each other.

Nothing wrong with being a casual boxer. But that doesn’t draw the crowds. It’s not edge of your seat entertainment. Nothing wrong with it. But if you want to draw a crowd, if you want to make a living at it, you aren’t pulling your punches.

Now replace punching each other with outwitting your opponent, learning the best strategies, knowing your opponent’s moves. Compare that to “my friends and I like to make pew-pew sounds while we build a story, and that way nobody loses” and I know which way I’d spend my half-hour.

People aren’t bad for wanting to win. People aren’t bad for wanting a soft game, to pass time with friends. But the competitive players don’t get much from a soft-rules game, while casual players can enjoy a hard-rules game that they tone down.

Aaannyhow. Being crunchy about your crunch being soft, or unequal to the crunch of other players is entirely justified if you enjoy 40k as a mental joust. Charge, smash, try to knock the other guy off his barstool.

Have a good night.

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.

In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.

Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.

@Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.

And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.

The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.

Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.

And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.

The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.

Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.

People have complained about stuff, and GW continues to randomly throw darts at a board to fix the problems. Remember how the main issue with the Iron Hands is the super doctrine and non-Dreads getting a crap ton of benefits, and instead they hit two Stratagems that weren't even close to issues?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:

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.

In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.

Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.

I love the whole anecdotal "casual Grey Knights can do well against other casual lists" and sweeping it all under the rug.

No they don't. It's that pathetic of a release that anyone that paid money for it should have every right to complain and get their money back.

Until today, I never knew there was a Rule "0" in any game system... if anything I thought "Don't be a Jerk" was universal and the basics of good manners.

In regards to hobby positivity... overall I am positive about the hobby, but what I am positive about, others may not be. Right now I am going through a renaissance of sorts playing Battletech with a solid group of fun-loving guys that want to play within the rule structure and blow stuff up. Yes there are some minor blips, and yes there are some personality issues. I would dare say that there are no games out there that do not have some sort of issues. The issue is whether or not those issues are mitigated within the rule structure or mitigated when the rule set is revised due to edition change.

However when I look at the current state of 40k, I can't bring myself to say many things positive about it. Don't get me wrong, its great to see content being pushed out and that we're seeing a resurgence in the specialist games. blah blah blah... but this has made me stop playing the game. The stratagems, the command point system, the oversimplification of the rules to such an extent its water, the higher cost of entry, and a few other issues I have with the current state of the game has made me sit the last edition and this edition out. I can't bring myself to play the game in its current state and have already begun to sell off parts of my 40K collection.

If I stay away from playing 40K, I'm much happier. When I consider playing 40K and look at the current state of the game, I find I am happier in the modeling/painting side of the hobby then the playing side of the hobby.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Off topic: I would appreciate if a native speaker from an English speaking country could contact me via private message as well to explain to me how I can improve my wording for the topic I want to convey and not make it sound like what Not Online!!! accuses me of.

You're doing a fine job of expressing yourself, it's him being a disingenuous article.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.

And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.

The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.

Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.

People have complained about stuff, and GW continues to randomly throw darts at a board to fix the problems. Remember how the main issue with the Iron Hands is the super doctrine and non-Dreads getting a crap ton of benefits, and instead they hit two Stratagems that weren't even close to issues?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:

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.

In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.

Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.

I love the whole anecdotal "casual Grey Knights can do well against other casual lists" and sweeping it all under the rug.

No they don't. It's that pathetic of a release that anyone that paid money for it should have every right to complain and get their money back.

See thats your opinion and probably the more vocal one. I and a lot of people think the IH nerf was a perfect step.

I am not here to defend the GK release. But these days theres more than enough info available for people to make good decisions on what codex to get or not.

But naturally you missed the point to.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seawolf wrote:


However when I look at the current state of 40k, I can't bring myself to say many things positive about it. Don't get me wrong, its great to see content being pushed out and that we're seeing a resurgence in the specialist games. blah blah blah... but this has made me stop playing the game. The stratagems, the command point system, the oversimplification of the rules to such an extent its water, the higher cost of entry, and a few other issues I have with the current state of the game has made me sit the last edition and this edition out. I can't bring myself to play the game in its current state and have already begun to sell off parts of my 40K collection.

If I stay away from playing 40K, I'm much happier. When I consider playing 40K and look at the current state of the game, I find I am happier in the modeling/painting side of the hobby then the playing side of the hobby.

And theres nothing wrong with not playing the game. Its not going to be for everybody. Just as there are many reasons I dont play other games.

First and foremost I am connected to the lore/background of 40K, everything is secondary. Play to have fun, even competitively. The worse aspects of 40K tend to occur due to bad sportsmanship. Find a good friend/group of people and that bad parts of 40k arent as consequential.

Hey Hero,

No matter what you post, someone on the great wide web will disagree with you.

And the more broad your assertion, the more individuals will disagree, at least in part. Positivity is good for the community. Kudos on that. Perhaps, in the future, focussing on a less broad topic might make it easier to find common ground. On line in the sand, rather than fighting on all sides?

You like the breadth of factions. I find that frustrating, as a gamer, because it gets too loose. Too many things overlap so they need ever more special rules to make them unique.

You like the increase in hobby outreach by GW. I love that. Ready tutorials that teach the basics, the intermediate and advanced techniques appeals to a wider audience and I for one am on board with the war on grey. I’m not a great painter, but painted armies are more exciting to play with. No shade thrown at those that don’t paint, just that I enjoy seeing the effort put forth by fellow hobbyists.

In terms of increased rate of rules, I again find it frustrating. Mostly because of the price tags. A subscription system that allows me access to ongoing material would be perfect in my view, but it isn’t that way for me. And the free rules (points wise) bother me. I’d rather see units that work well by themselves, without Chapter Tactics. Then, your army’s paint colour really doesn’t matter. You add flavour to your list by running units / upgrades that fit the flavour of your desire, instead of min/maxing stacked upgrades.

So we have some common ground, but we have some battleground too. That’s fine, we all have different opinions. So if these three topics were each separate threads, we’d have at least one thread where we were in agreement.

Look at Dakka as having features, not bugs. You can walk tall and carry a big stick. Just know when to use it. Some people have their pet grudges. Some people only operate on “attack mode”. You can’t fix people. Best you can do is provide a reason to follow your lead.

Next time, try a smaller scope.


PS: Can we stop the fething quote walls?

"Everything is happy everything is cool"

Look if you want the happy clappy cult version of a forum where there are no issues or mistakes by the company because they are infallible you could ask The Grand Alliance to open a 40k board.

Otherwise you got to take the rough with the smooth remember given GW's own stance and backed up by the pricing scheme, GW consider themselves to be the Armani or Tiffany's of war gaming and as such they should be expected to back that up with quality and not just what they charge.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.

And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.

The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.

Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.

I "ignored" your feelings about competitive play because I didn't think they were relevant. I'm not accusing you of disliking tournament play, it is you who have misunderstood me and gotten riled up and defensive. You have made complaints that here are some tournament players who use so-called "unfun" lists and complain about the game not being fun, meaning that there are people "somewhere" who are making the game unenjoyable by combining units in "wrong" ways, and can not see, or will not see, that they are the "problem." Judging some ways of playing the game as "bad," and that players who choose "bad" or "unfun" lists must be deliberately attempting to make their opponents miserable, is a problem in gamer culture. People get upset when other folks enjoy a game differently than they do, instead of accepting that different people enjoy different things, and an opponent playing a list one would label "unfun" is not necessarily malicious- regardless of how small this alleged group is, or your opinion of competitive play in general.

 Seawolf wrote:
Until today, I never knew there was a Rule "0" in any game system... if anything I thought "Don't be a Jerk" was universal and the basics of good manners..

that's pretty much what rule zero IS. don't be a jerk and remember the point of a game is to have fun, the rules are ultimately a guideline to that, and if the rules get in the way of having fun feel free to edit as nesscary. As you said that's pretty universal if you're playing Tag with the kids on the street. Soccer on the school yard, D&D with your mates, or warhammer 40k in the local store.

I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.

 flandarz wrote:
I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.

I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.

I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.

And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.

Catulle wrote:

And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.

One? There's been a spate of these 'lecture threads' lately, most of them not actually positive, just telling people off for not liking things they like, or how they should play a game.

Waaaghbert 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.

Because I've watched them do exactly that for almost 30 years. And they're still doing it. Oh sure, not every new release is, or has been, OP. But more than enough examples exist to make the claim.

ccs wrote:

Waaaghbert 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.

Because I've watched them do exactly that for almost 30 years. And they're still doing it. Oh sure, not every new release is, or has been, OP. But more than enough examples exist to make the claim.

But if they did it on purpose, why wouldn't they do it with every new release? Of course you can claim that they do it, but it is far more reasonable to just accept that they suck at consistent writing. It's all conspirancy theory otherwise, sure I can't prove you wrong that for some reason they choose to make some releases OP to sell those releases especially well, but there are more or at least more clear evidences for the contrary

Catulle wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.

I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.

And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.

See, this is where you and I differ. You see a slew of negative threads, I see many mostly positive threads placed by people with genuine passion for the game. Enough passion to come here and voice their opinions, those who really despise things tend to just walk away and not look back. Even the most negative hater was once an ardent supporter of that I am pretty sure. No one just wants to hate something they put so much time into, this isn't a video game or a movie, it's something we put our heart into. The fact that you see just negative threads everywhere really says more on how you view those who don't just speak great of GW than it does over the content and character of the posters who place to light their issues with GW as a company and what they do.

As well, I'm sorry but anyone preaching to tell everyone else they have to be happy because they just don't want to read their " negative " thoughts, well in my opinion those people need to just think happy happy thoughts and not mire into those negative threads. Telling someone else how to feel, is in itself a bit negative to me. Plenty of folk I here I don't always agree with but I still value their opinions even if its way different than mine. Good or bad.

So no, I don't see a whole bunch of negative threads, I see some critical threads, and a whole bunch of people who love or loved the game talking to each other. As one poster put it, this place can be like the wild west. I assume he meant that in the way of things can be a little spicy and wild but also free to speak your mind within reason. I love that, even if its super positive, or super down but mostly it's in the middle. Anyone trying to enforce positive or negative feelings is doing it wrong. Everyone however can feel positive or negative, and voice it. Here, it's High Noon.