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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

Whilst I agree in principle that 'Most Important Rule' or whatever is no excuse for sloppy rules design, I note that Warhammer, or any other tabletop miniature game, can never be chess and will always require certain 'Gentlemen's code' by the players. No matter even if the finest, most analytic minds of Dakka developed the most logical, unambigious ruleset ever, it's still a game played with free movement and measurement (ie. no grid) and can never be 100% free of human interpretation and possible bias. Any potential TFG type will easily abuse any such system.

@OP I'm glad you are of a positive mindset about the game and the hobby in general.

Not everyone is.

I'm certainly not, for reasons that I won't repeat here.

You're not going to persuade anyone to change their mind writing a post of the reasons that you like the game.

Some of your ideas to fix the positivity of some posters are unreasonable and make sweeping assumptions, such as an unlimited budget (just buy a new/different army for example).

 Smirrors wrote:

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.

Well I hate the lore changes as well. On top of it, I also think most of the Primaris units are visually awful. IMG, Primaris never happened. Much like, I still live in the Old World and End Times never took place.

I suppose that next edition of AoS will see release of "Stormcast Superiors" - enhanced and even stronger Sigmarines who dual wield crossbows, or something to that effect.

So I'm hardly seeing any of the supposedly great things OP listed up, but that's just my point of view. I don't think people are idiots if they like 8th edition nor do I hope that GW will crash & burn. If the game in its current state works for some, good for them. But don't pretend "it's still the same old 40k, just better", I began when it was Steel Panthers and they changed it to Red Alert. Which is great if you like Red Alert but I don't.

Regarding fun in casual or competitive games:

One part that did not come up so far in the discussion (or I overread it) on the last page was that while both playstyles have their merits and can be fun for you, you need to talk with your friends or co-players to make it fun for them as well.
Casual vs casual is fun. Competitive vs competetive is fun. One against the other is most certainly not. We talk to each other to agree on a point limit and mission parameters and settling on a common playstyle should be done as well.
This goes deeper than just casual or competitive. Maybe I want a casual game without any Knight-like units. Maybe I ask specifically for the other guy to bring his air wing army to test my list against it.


Regarding adaption of the rules to make them more balanced:

Everybody who says that it is not our job as the consumers to change the rules because we can't have a balanced game out of the box (GK vs IH was given as an example) -> You are absolutely right.
It is not our job. We spend our hard earned money and precious spare time for the hobby and only because some lazy git from Nottingham can't be bothered to properly playtest their stuff I have to do the job? Give me a break!
It is valid critique. When you pay alot of money (comparatively) for something, you should be able to expect a good quality. Sadly, reality is often disappointing.

We are on the same side. Neither you nor I should have the need to make up for the game's shortcomings. But if you got a buddy who wants to play his GK against your IH or Eldar Air wing or whatever, then what does it hurt to try and make it fun for him, too?
Is the alternative curbstomping him in every game saying "It's not my job"? I don't think that is what anybody wants or does.


Regarding being positive or negative about the hobby:

The goal of this thread was not to tell people "Only be happy, there is nothing bad about the game. Be positive or shut up.". I wanted to highlight where the hobby improved for us gamers and what each of us could do if we find ourselves not having fun anymore for different reasons.
Stating your frustration in a blunt or hyperbolic way and then stopping there will not improve things, but it will make some things worse. Like the overall community feeling on this forum.

Sending emails directly to Games Workshop when you think some rules are bonkers is actually one of the best things you could do and I did not have it in mind when I originally posted.
There are only humans working at GW as well, so I'm sure your feedback would be received more positive if you could formulate it in a proper way instead of the doomsaying of some of the more recent threads here.

Some recent posts are excellent examples how you can like some stuff, dislike other things and state your opinion in a civilised way

Honestly I'm so disappointed in the direction GW and the competative part of the community has taken the game since 6th edition that I would not mind seeing some negativity. I want to see the community rip appart gw's new concepts like a pack of hungry wolves. It makes me feel less insane for sticking to my plastic models seeing others in similar oppinions doing it too.

We are the consumers here, we are not at gws side. If we like what they do we should say that, and if we hate it then i dont see why we should sugarcoat it. It's a forum for christ sake, a place to voice oppinions for grown ups. Not a damned mine field.

It's just very hard for me to understand why someone else would suffer from anothers opinion of the game. Is it that strange to imagine people might make up their own decisions and not be swayed by the negative thoughts of another ?

If I believed in my heart of hearts this game was the best thing ever, all the negative views online wouldn't change or detract from my personal love of it. Seems like an awful lot of concern when anyone who goes online should always go there with a "buyer beware " attitude.

Community feeling will never totally happy, because people will never totally agree. I appreciate feeling good about the hobby, but you're not the community leader to tell others how to make lemonade out of the lemons they feel GW gives them.

Just enjoy the hobby for yourself, let others do the same. Regardless of how right or wrong their think may be. Anything other is just a waste of time at best, and a bit arrogant to feel you have the answers that everyone else just never understood at worst.

The biggest issue I have with the negativity is when a new or returning players posts a thread asking about 40k and you get posts that say something along the lines of "40k is the literal worst, don't waste your money". Half the time, the poster doesn't even explain *why* they have this opinion, but it just kinda galls me to see new and old players taking in interest in the hobby being pushed away from it. You're always welcome to have your opinion about the game, but I feel like it could be phrased in a way that doesn't immediately come off as trying to push people away from the hobby. Such as "I'm not a fan of the direction GW took with 8th edition, for reasons X, Y, and Z."

AngryAngel80 wrote:
It's just very hard for me to understand why someone else would suffer from anothers opinion of the game. Is it that strange to imagine people might make up their own decisions and not be swayed by the negative thoughts of another ?

I wrote something about that in my post at the end https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/781894.page#10614706

Not addressing you personally, but in general the vibe I get from some replies is "I simply want to complain and I don't care about the other half of your argument where you talk about what would be helpful to do after complaining". At least the latter part is never/seldomly questioned.



For the last time : Complain all you want, just don't stop there and wait for GW to make it better. Try to make it better yourself.

Good: I'm not a fan of the direction GW took with 8th edition, for reasons X, Y, and Z. (Stolen from the last reply, thank you )

Bad: Army xy is the most broken thing ever. Why would anybody ever play sub-faction xyz again (Paraphrased from one of the threads about blue Iron Hands...)

---

On a very interesting note, while I was looking for the biggest Warhammer forum online, I stumbled upon this thread on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/4l0nnf/biggest_warhammer_forums/

No need to read all of it, but just the first few comments mentioning DakkaDakka and how those people perceived it at that time is very interesting, to say the least.
Is this really how we as a community want to present ourselves?

I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules". Trying to say "fix it yourself" or "house rule it" is a cop-out and an excuse, because mot gaming groups want to play the rules as they are, not put the time in to fix what the designers are incapable of. It's along the same lines, although I don't mind this personally, of the fact the "gentleman's agreement" and "social contract" shouldn't be an excuse for bad design. "Just talk to your opponent about what sort of game you want" isn't a bad thing by itself, but when it's meant to be used to fix the fact GW can't or won't balance things, it becomes an unfeasible option for people who want to play a universal game in a universal way, which incidentally is what 40k attempts to be.

I've dropped my absolute vitriol of GW, but I don't pretend that the game is in a good place at all, because it's not. It remains fun (sometimes) in spite of the rules, not because of them, and I still lament what it could have been with good rules.

One day I'll give 40k another shot, and finish building the Tyranid army I had started before deciding it wasn't worth it. Until then, being critical of poorly-written rules that keep getting excused for being bad is never a bad thing. There is some threshold where it can turn into just bitching and negativity, but in most cases, the people being so negative were made that way, they didn't immediately become bitter and twisted.

There's a reason why another name for wargamers is 'grognards'...

There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'

Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'

Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.

There is also this. Sometimes you play because you have no other viable option unless you want to play solo because nobody else wants to play a different game.

Wayniac wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'

Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.

There is also this. Sometimes you play because you have no other viable option unless you want to play solo because nobody else wants to play a different game.

Not to mention that whole armies can fall to what is deemed office politics.

SeanDrake wrote:
"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.

If you think there are no critics on TGA you'd be mistaken. Its just that people there are better at expressing their ideas without being...gakky...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
"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.

If you think there are no critics on TGA you'd be mistaken. Its just that people there are better at expressing their ideas without being...gakky...

Or they've gotten banned because TGA is essentially the unofficial GW forum. They've lightened up on some of their circlejerk though lately.

Thing is, after a while of criticism being dismissed, you start to get more negativity as people get frustrated that being nice isn't working.

Wayniac wrote:
I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".

There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".

There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.

7th came pretty close.
Atleast here, to fully develop own rulesets and or houseroule the matches fully.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".

There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.

I can see that, and to an extent I'm the same way. But ultimately I want a good game, not a poor game that looks good because it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Honestly, at this point I want ITC to step up and do it. It's clear they have their own agenda for 40k and have some unknown amount of influence. So if GW isn't going to step up and do more balancing, I'd prefer ITC to do it as they did in 7th with their own set of adjustments to make the game better balanced. Whether that's banning some units, FAQing some things, or what, GW isn't going to do it so someone should, as much as I despise ITC and everything they've done to 40k.

Wayniac wrote:

Or they've gotten banned because TGA is essentially the unofficial GW forum. They've lightened up on some of their circlejerk though lately.

Thing is, after a while of criticism being dismissed, you start to get more negativity as people get frustrated that being nice isn't working.

If they got banned it was probably for a valid reason, but I don't think we have a means to determine that. You can peruse this thread about balance and see people disagree or criticize the system:

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/23994-speculation-will-aos-ever-be-balanced-or-is-this-as-good-as-it-gets/

Its all in the presentation of arguments.

 Smirrors wrote:

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.

Nobody should think the Iron Hands "nerfs" were good, because they weren't. The issues are:
1. Their Super Doctrine, which should NEVER have made it through the "what if" stage of game design, which can be said for Super Doctrines in general
2. Vehicles like Repulsors and Executioners gaining too much with absolutely no drawback
What do they nerf?
1. The Dread character Strat
2. Deny the Witch Strat
3. Healing the same vehicle (because nobody focus fires on a vehicle to kill it, especially since it isn't like knocking a vehicle down to a lower damage bracket doesn't do much against Iron Hands, yep)

Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!

OP, looks like you started the 40k hobby close to when I did.
Yes, I agree for variety and publications this is the best it has ever been.
What is a happy thing now is that GW has found again it's hobbyist enthusiasm that we somewhat took for granted back around 3rd edition.

Remember when GW had a website forum much like this one and we all could talk about what could be better or what was good?
There were a ton of tutorials and guides all posted for use.
At some point they were all taken away.

It has taken till now for GW to get to the same level of customer engagement and useful materials as 3rd edition (possibly 4th).

I find people view "complaints" as anger or hatred, really, it is usually voice of customer asking for improvements.
When you have many of your wants met, it sets your mind to thinking of how it can be made even better: you want "moar!".
We usually enjoy our hobby and absolutely want it to be the best it can be.

We are a difficult group to please, we are made of modellers, artists, competitive players, beer and pretzel gamers with friends, collectors and they need to appeal to us all.
Guaranteed, not all of us will be happy with any decision made.

I feel that a lack of positivity on the right topic is also necessary in order to be critical of business decisions that for profit companies make at the expense of their customer's satisfaction.

 Tamwulf wrote:


Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!

The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!

The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.

I suspect also some questioning of why at our historically "best" time for the hobby why we are dissatisfied?
I think it really is our expectations are greater, there should be lessons learned and not repeat past mistakes.
We as gamers are experiencing "Groundhog Day" where we daily, yearly, experience the same day, same mistakes, same loose rules wording that one would think should be "perfect" by now.
GW is no longer a small studio, connectivity and collaboration are easier than ever: why does the hive mind of GW keep missing these things?

One idea is what I see at my work: not enough of the old experienced folk stick around to work with the new millennials and history and best practices are lost.
The new designers are doomed to repeat the errors of those who came before them.

Music industry dusts off really old hits decades before most people forgot about and get new bands to play them and funny how old is new again and what was good then is good now (once properly updated/modernized).
Rules can work the same.

I really like innovation and something completely new is awesome to see, we just need to be able to look back and see what worked, what did not.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nobody should think the Iron Hands "nerfs" were good, because they weren't. The issues are:
1. Their Super Doctrine, which should NEVER have made it through the "what if" stage of game design, which can be said for Super Doctrines in general
2. Vehicles like Repulsors and Executioners gaining too much with absolutely no drawback
What do they nerf?
1. The Dread character Strat
2. Deny the Witch Strat
3. Healing the same vehicle (because nobody focus fires on a vehicle to kill it, especially since it isn't like knocking a vehicle down to a lower damage bracket doesn't do much against Iron Hands, yep)

You missed a bit in that analysis.

Namely the Ironstone, which in tandem with invulns (you missed that, too) and healing made for super durable tanks. People were running techmarines on bikes, to repair flyers. Despite popular opinion it isn't always simple to off a tough vehicle in one turn. Scratching off 15 wounds and seeing 6 to 9 come back immediately is quite something.

They also increased the cost of the 4+ overwatch strat.

In fact as SoCal there wasn't a single Repulsor among the top 10. 12th place had one.

Nick Nanavanti (5th) ran IH successors with Master Artisan, which according to the forums is trash as well as Stealthy -- 25 Stalker Intercessors, 5 Scouts, Redemptor, Contemptor, Ven Dread, 3x3 Suppressors, Devs w/ Grav cannons w/ Pod, 2 TFCs.

So, is move and shoot plus reroll 1s busting the game wide open with this unit selection? I don't think so. Before the new books you would have looked at this list and laughed. The really rough part is trying to kill those Intercessors being 2+/6+++ with really strong guns.

It's not like they've had 35 years to get this right or anything *coughs*

 Talizvar wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!

The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.

I suspect also some questioning of why at our historically "best" time for the hobby why we are dissatisfied?
I think it really is our expectations are greater, there should be lessons learned and not repeat past mistakes.
We as gamers are experiencing "Groundhog Day" where we daily, yearly, experience the same day, same mistakes, same loose rules wording that one would think should be "perfect" by now.
GW is no longer a small studio, connectivity and collaboration are easier than ever: why does the hive mind of GW keep missing these things?

One idea is what I see at my work: not enough of the old experienced folk stick around to work with the new millennials and history and best practices are lost.
The new designers are doomed to repeat the errors of those who came before them.

Music industry dusts off really old hits decades before most people forgot about and get new bands to play them and funny how old is new again and what was good then is good now (once properly updated/modernized).
Rules can work the same.

I really like innovation and something completely new is awesome to see, we just need to be able to look back and see what worked, what did not.

Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zerosignal wrote:
It's not like they've had 35 years to get this right or anything *coughs*

(looks at Dungeons and Dragons)

My core problem with 8th edition at the moment is that after paying quite a lot of money for the rulebooks and then printing/noting/downloading another half-book of FAQs, the game still needs loads of Rule 0. That's insane.
"But it used to be worse!"
"How is that relevant now?"
I also want to echo the point about GW having 30+ years to get this right - if after three-digit pages of FAQ the game still looks like the way it looks, something is going horribly, horribly wrong in the rules-writing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.

If this is really what you took from me explaining my argument over 5 pages of discussion, then you did not read it very well or I'm worse at explaining things than I thought

If you want to do me a favour, please read my postings again. Your assessment is not in the spirit of what I wrote and had in mind.


---

Credit where credit is due: Not Online!!! did reach out to me in a private message and we are having a normal discussion there without any hard feelings. Kudos to him, most people on the net would not do that after getting in a little bit of a heated argument with someone.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
My core problem with 8th edition at the moment is that after paying quite a lot of money for the rulebooks and then printing/noting/downloading another half-book of FAQs, the game still needs loads of Rule 0. That's insane.
"But it used to be worse!"
"How is that relevant now?"

You mean rule 1? I haven't seen that at all. In fact I haven't seen an argument like that of any other edition so far in 8th.