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.

 Sentineil wrote:
Demonstrate what? That GW doesn't use points/rules to make new models OP to drive sales?

For every new model you think is OP to drive sales I'm certain we can point to another that came out as a pile of crap. As already pointed out, for every Wraith knight there's a venom crawler.

I do find it strange how we're talking about holding value on our little plastic toys. I have to say, I'm not buying these as an investment. Buy shares in GW if that's what you're after.

We also don't NEED anything. This is a luxury hobby that we all buy into on our own accord.

I would say with the way they do new weapons often, they probably do aim at least in part to make the new minis more desirable. They may just not be good enough at it to get it right. It could also be they aim to keep space marines just above the line to keep marine players happy and paying. And this leads to wild swings at times.
In a sense they may be aiming for new things to just be slightly better, but have no real gage on the game to get that tuned in.

BrianDavion wrote:
Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)

The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.

Walk away if you hate it, sell out if you believe you'll never come back, fight for it if you actually still love it though.

Still the absolute easiest path to not having someones negative views color your world, is just not read them, as soon as you see what they are saying scroll past. If people can't master that very easy choice of interaction or avoidance they should work on that. The easiest change is always found in the self then to try tell someone else to stop speaking their opinions, good or bad.

You can feel free to walk away at any time, you can't however tell someone else to walk away, you do you, and let them do them.

They make rules to sell models. That doesnt mean that they make new things OP by default. Having new editions and other books(codex, suplements, wd) that changes balance forces sells. Gw isnt really competent enough to directly steer it but over the years most units in the SM book has been at the top at some point due to some random change that made that unit with that version of the codex in this version of the core rules the best and so people will buy it even if its an ugly old model that is expensive. Gw doesnt really have to intentionaly write new stuff good and they probably dont. At most I think they try to make them not suck and give larger priority in CA to balance them so they arent completely useless.

New primaris is the besr example.
Primaris units have slowly become better but except for the Invictor non of them have really launched with rules that by themselves are good enough to sell models. Most of them have been buffed or have points lowered and what makes them really good now is mostly the supporting CT, doctrines and stratagems and old vehicles(predators etc) or old units(tacticals) being underwhelming despite point decreases. The invictor which is one of the most disliked, or perhaps most split in opinion, for it looks is by far the best primaris unit and something competetive players buy 3 of just because its insane rules. I have bought 3 of them myself and are waiting for some 3d printed replacement parts to finish up my conversions of them cause I love the rules but not the model.

AngryAngel80 781894 10615893 wrote:

The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.

but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)

how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.

An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.

also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?

It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.

If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.

as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.

as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.

Again, the major issue seems to be that for most of GW's customers, the quality of the model is all that matters (and, to be honest, I find their style has gone way over the top in recent years, to the point of now being almost comical in the appearance and the number of pieces), and the rules are of secondary or even less importance.

While for many people this is fine, a lot of want some more "bite" in our wargaming and dislike the clearly MtG-inspired approach of 40k (and AOS) nowadays where it's more about how you combine units than how you use them on the field. And when you couple that with GW's track record of poorly written rules and wild internal and external balance, it really makes it hard sometimes to be overly positive about the game.

I'd wager for most of the "whiners", it's less "This game sucks" and more "Imagine if this game was well designed". I know for myself it's not hatred, it's more lament and pity. GW has no excuse to not have an amazingly designed set of rules that's correctly balanced (and no, nobody means "perfect balance" as that's an unachievable goal) other than they don't feel it's worthwhile to do, and the fact most of the GW community seem to agree (or, at least, don't think it's that big a deal) makes it worse. Doubly so when you have propaganda mills like FLG and the ITC peddling the idea that the game IS well balanced because you see 8 variations of the same unit choices doing well in tournaments, and those people have their hand on the direction of the game, no matter how minor it may be.

 jeff white wrote:


If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.

as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.

as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.

I stand corrected. There's a Dell with a 1060 for $850. Now add a single game @ $60. We're already well past the cost of many armies. Considering that game isn't going to keep your attention for as long as painting and playing there's considerably more value to be had in the hobby.

But few people rarely dive head first into the hobby. They gradually collect, borrow models, and play with friends.

====

Gw has "gone so pitifully wrong"? Have you been playing the game? Or are you just gak posting?

Karol wrote:

AngryAngel80 781894 10615893 wrote:

The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.

but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)

how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?

As someone who has collected war-games and figures over twenty five years, here are the best things to do:
1. Ask yourself "Will I be satisfied if I buy this model and all it does is sit on the shelf?"
2. Ask yourself "If I buy this game, and it just turns into an experience learning that I don't like it, will I be satisfied?"
3. Ask yourself "If I buy this book, will I be satisfied just reading it, and not using it to play a game?"
4. Ask yourself "If I buy this wargame, will I be satisfied if the rules turn into a DIY/group involvement project?"

What it really amounts to is, I suppose, the movie theatre question. If you pay $X to go to a movie, and you didn't like the movie, are you going to feel like you got your $X worth? If you can say "I paid for the experience, no matter the outcome" to a movie or a wargame, then you can sleep better at night.

If you have to say "I paid to see a good movie", there's a lot of wargaming I think you'll want to avoid.

Wayniac wrote:
Again, the major issue seems to be that for most of GW's customers, the quality of the model is all that matters (and, to be honest, I find their style has gone way over the top in recent years, to the point of now being almost comical in the appearance and the number of pieces), and the rules are of secondary or even less importance.

While for many people this is fine, a lot of want some more "bite" in our wargaming and dislike the clearly MtG-inspired approach of 40k (and AOS) nowadays where it's more about how you combine units than how you use them on the field. And when you couple that with GW's track record of poorly written rules and wild internal and external balance, it really makes it hard sometimes to be overly positive about the game.

You're one of the few people that can express these thoughts without being ridiculous and I actually really appreciate that.

The MtG line has been parroted over and over again and I find it quite lacking. What do we think 7th was? This whole premise is a recently inspired meme that has caught on and gets wielded like a club. Were leaf-blower lists somehow NOT a MtG style where "it was more how you used them on the field"?

Should characters do nothing but shoot or fight?

And, still, despite these combinations I find no lack of decisions to make on the table -- beyond target priority. I really get the sense that some people don't play missions well and it shows.

I'd wager for most of the "whiners", it's less "This game sucks" and more "Imagine if this game was well designed". I know for myself it's not hatred, it's more lament and pity. GW has no excuse to not have an amazingly designed set of rules that's correctly balanced (and no, nobody means "perfect balance" as that's an unachievable goal) other than they don't feel it's worthwhile to do, and the fact most of the GW community seem to agree (or, at least, don't think it's that big a deal) makes it worse. Doubly so when you have propaganda mills like FLG and the ITC peddling the idea that the game IS well balanced because you see 8 variations of the same unit choices doing well in tournaments, and those people have their hand on the direction of the game, no matter how minor it may be.

It's all in how you want to view the world. "White knights" like myself recognize the flaws in the system. Its why I've spent over 100 hours coding and doing data entry to soften the edges of parts I don't like. The changes I see from GW are progressive. You could hardly say that anything that came out between the Castellan and marines was as oppressive as the Castellan. And we already have GW on the hook to deal with marines.

Now, our "job" is to play against the marines and figure out if they're still to strong or if they can be beaten. Clearly T'au has no problem doing so.

Either we work to make the system better or we piss and moan and everyone is unhappy. Would GW listen more to a unified community or a fractured one with a handful of people sending them really gakky emails?

Also, there is no propaganda from ITC or FLG -- at least not that I consume as I rarely catch their stream. Reece gave a heads up about IH and IF. The sentiment you see expressed is each individuals expression of ITC, because they've played both sides and they truly appreciate what ITC offers for competitive play.

jeff white wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.

An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.

also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?

It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.

If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.

as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.

as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.

How do you explain the popularity of the game if GW has gone 'so pitifully' wrong? In my local area there has been an explosion of 30-40 somethings coming back to the hobby and buying into 40k. We all have a blast, which always makes it difficult for me to reconcile the doom mongering and rage online.

solkan wrote:

Karol wrote:

AngryAngel80 781894 10615893 wrote:

The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.

but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)

how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?

As someone who has collected war-games and figures over twenty five years, here are the best things to do:
1. Ask yourself "Will I be satisfied if I buy this model and all it does is sit on the shelf?"
2. Ask yourself "If I buy this game, and it just turns into an experience learning that I don't like it, will I be satisfied?"
3. Ask yourself "If I buy this book, will I be satisfied just reading it, and not using it to play a game?"
4. Ask yourself "If I buy this wargame, will I be satisfied if the rules turn into a DIY/group involvement project?"

What it really amounts to is, I suppose, the movie theatre question. If you pay $X to go to a movie, and you didn't like the movie, are you going to feel like you got your $X worth? If you can say "I paid for the experience, no matter the outcome" to a movie or a wargame, then you can sleep better at night.

If you have to say "I paid to see a good movie", there's a lot of wargaming I think you'll want to avoid.

I salute you sir, this is the best bit of hobby advice I've seen on this board.

Taking part in the hobby requires customers to acknowledge that the models they buy won't always have the same rules, power or even outright legitimacy they had when they were purchased. I have close to 20k points of square based fantasy armies in my cabinet, and I occasionally get to put them on the table and play some 9th age or old WFB.

I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.

I feel quite positive about the hobby itself. The models are better than ever IMO (a bit over the top, but I like that), and the pace of new releases is incredible. I remember the days where you had to play with old codices for years and years when a new edition came out. That sucked. And were lucky to get a few new models a year, and many of them were metal, which were a pain in the neck to convert and fell to pieces of you dropped them off the table. Now everything's a nice multi-part plastic kit. The pace and quality of output is really amazing.

I also quite like the new contrast paints. They make painting those fiddly bandages on my Ork boyz a breeze, and I like the result better than using shades or ink washes. Blood for the Blood God paint is also just amazing IMO! I haven't used other technical paints but I suspect they too are very good.

The 40K game itself I'm a bit less positive about. I commend GW for doing something risky and bold by rebooting the rules, because let's face facts, it was needed. I'm not totally satisfied with the result, because 8th removed, nerfed, or Index'd a lot of the things I liked most about my old Ork army (such as Looted wagons, large blast and flamer template weapons, Skorcha buggies, Mega-armored warboss, KFF Big Mek on foot, Trukks being a viable way to get Boyz from point A to point B, Lobbas, and hiding behind area terrain). I've kind of of needed to start over on my Ork army, which I guess is what marine players who like the new Primaris stuff are experiencing, so I can understand those salty feelings.

But if we're honest, is 8th really any worse than 3rd edition was? 3rd was a mess at launch, let us not forget. I remember so many 2nd-edition die-hards bemoaning the loss of depth and specificity, but ultimately 3rd edition ushered in a renaissance for the company and the game. I suspect 9th edition will be much better in the way that 4th fixed most of the problems with 3rd. It won't be perfect, and it will be annoyingly expensive, but hey, that's what we live with.

At least that's what I'm hoping for.

I will say that Popularity does not equal good. GW has a lot of weight, and a lot of places where for years it was the only game in town, the one that everyone played because the alternative was playing by yourself. Don't discount that. In an area where it's basically 40k or bust, of course it's going to be popular because anything else dies on the vine.

Also @Daedalus81, the mtG comparison comes fro the trying to stack psychic powers and buffs to make the "killer combo". I only played like two games of 7th edition but it didn't seem to have that problem (it had its own big issues, of course). Having played Warmahordes for a bit, the MtG style is also (way more) prevalent there so it at least feels like a similar goal. Reward trying to figure out "If I take X with Y and Z, and then I apply A, I can do 50 wounds in a turn" rather than "If I maneuver this unit here and if this other unit can hold its ground for a turn, I can get an advantage" sort of tactics which were traditionally what you saw in wargaming.

In regard of MtG, for me it was ruined at about 5th Edition when they began to push competive play and cynically enforce power creep and expansion spam. But the result was that the game became much less fun. After that, it was just "the Gathering": magic was lost.

But of course, in terms of sales and popularity, the changes were wildly successful for WotC so maybe I'm just a cantankerous old dinosaur who should retire to National Museum.

Also a difference in how you do the MTG style. Warmachine is built around it with smaller armies, sideboard/second list, and very well written rules to make it all possible.

In 40k its just an extra mechanic put on top of everything to cover for the lackluster basic rules. And the lack of standard for rules writing make it a mess.

Didnt feel as bad if the game was over turn 1/2 30 min in to the game there in Warmachine compared to doing it in 40k. Spending 30 min deploying and getting the game decided in your opponents turn 1 shooting phase feels way worse I feel. I dont even have to make a mistake, besides not playing the best list, in 40k to lose the game before I have even moved a single model. I had a lot of turn 1 wins as cryx in warmachine in which my opponent mostly blamed themselves for losing since they did a mistake, very rarely they blamed the game or the dice. Had they played correctly, and they knew it, I wouldnt have been able to do that combo for either a caster kill or scenario victory.

But showing up to a tournament and having a bad table for your matchup and going second you can just lose right there if not winning the roll off in 40k. In my last 3 tournaments game 1 I have killed about 115pts of enemy units while loosing over 5000pts. Worst matchup of the lists on worst board rolling of the worst deployment and going second. There wasnt a single thing I could do. Never happened in warmachine for me.

Having a third of the model count as 40k and half the time to play it makes tcg style combos much more bearable. You werent deploying 100+ models and expecting a 3h game in warmachine after all.

Wayniac wrote:

Also @Daedalus81, the mtG comparison comes fro the trying to stack psychic powers and buffs to make the "killer combo". I only played like two games of 7th edition but it didn't seem to have that problem (it had its own big issues, of course). Having played Warmahordes for a bit, the MtG style is also (way more) prevalent there so it at least feels like a similar goal. Reward trying to figure out "If I take X with Y and Z, and then I apply A, I can do 50 wounds in a turn" rather than "If I maneuver this unit here and if this other unit can hold its ground for a turn, I can get an advantage" sort of tactics which were traditionally what you saw in wargaming.

One of those things happens at list building. "Theoretically my army can do X." You won't be wondering whether or not your units will maneuver to deal with a situation at that time.

When I'm playing there are choices to make. People with reductive reasoning boil it down to target priority and perhaps its true for those who simply play little of the mission and shot gunline all game. For me, however, (this is in ITC) I've found it important that I can exploit non-combat objectives when I come up against a list designed to limit my ability to score secondaries or is otherwise hard to kill. I might find myself shooting a non-optimal unit to open a hole big enough to sneak scarabs into a backfield objective or their DZ. I have to be hyper cognizant of their flyers, their ability to pull off my spreaders, and sneak a flyer in to assassinate a character.

There is a lot to mentally do other than X shoots Y and as effectively as possible and I win.

And you can see units like what you speak of in the Incursors and Haywire Mines, but that unit isn't always going to shape the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:
Also a difference in how you do the MTG style. Warmachine is built around it with smaller armies, sideboard/second list, and very well written rules to make it all possible.

In 40k its just an extra mechanic put on top of everything to cover for the lackluster basic rules. And the lack of standard for rules writing make it a mess.

Didnt feel as bad if the game was over turn 1/2 30 min in to the game there in Warmachine compared to doing it in 40k. Spending 30 min deploying and getting the game decided in your opponents turn 1 shooting phase feels way worse I feel. I dont even have to make a mistake, besides not playing the best list, in 40k to lose the game before I have even moved a single model. I had a lot of turn 1 wins as cryx in warmachine in which my opponent mostly blamed themselves for losing since they did a mistake, very rarely they blamed the game or the dice. Had they played correctly, and they knew it, I wouldnt have been able to do that combo for either a caster kill or scenario victory.

But showing up to a tournament and having a bad table for your matchup and going second you can just lose right there if not winning the roll off in 40k. In my last 3 tournaments game 1 I have killed about 115pts of enemy units while loosing over 5000pts. Worst matchup of the lists on worst board rolling of the worst deployment and going second. There wasnt a single thing I could do. Never happened in warmachine for me.

Having a third of the model count as 40k and half the time to play it makes tcg style combos much more bearable. You werent deploying 100+ models and expecting a 3h game in warmachine after all.

I think something is quite wrong if you're getting tabled every single game and can't kill more than what amounts to 3 squads of IS. Seems...off...

When I play dice are never a topic as to why the game was lost. I review with my opponent what they think I could have done differently and I do the same for them.

And there are no 'bad tables' in ITC. Everything is standardized as are other formats.

In Sweden we have very varied terrain in tournaments ITC or non ITC. Very rarely are the tables mirrored. Usually more terrain on most tables than what I have seen from tournaments in the US. Makes each game more interesting most of the time but sometimes a table slips through and is quite bad for certain matchups but if its one out of 10-20+ tables it isnt so bad.

Three tournaments in a row I got the most open table in my opening game. Had deployment been quarters or short side it would have been ok but long side each time. Of course I didnt get to choose side either so there it got slightly worse but wouldnt have changed who won but only by how much. And then I got to go second with my Blood Angels against 3 shooty armies. Twice against guard and once against freebootas. The terrain on the table against the ork player would block line of sight well if he only had infantry but he had 3 fliers and 2 gork/morkanoughts that just saw over everything so only 5 scouts on the table were completely out of los.

I could of course have killed 5-10x more pts in each of those games if we played during the times when killpoints or victorypoints were all that mattered to not lose as much but I tried to go for the unlikely comeback in each game and gambled since my chance of winning if not gambling was 0 at that point. And wins are much much more important than a few VPs during a loss. I was really unlucky those 3 times and I kmow if it had been any other table it could have been a very different results. Despite smash captains getting the charges in all games I didnt kill a single thing. I even had extra attacks from "unleash rage" power but my opponents made a ton of 5++ or 6+ saves so my BA smash captain with all buffs failed to kill a single vehicle. Same with captain nr 2 and my Librarian dreadnought or my DC...
The other games I played during those tournaments were all close with some wins, some losses and a few draws as well.

But I feel like you have not played many games if dice have never decided a game for you. I have had games in fantasy in which the first spell turn 1 miscasts and half the army flees. Assassination attemps in warmachine in I needed to not roll like 4+ones in a row with a single reroll for back up. Or in 40k having units like terminators getting 0 hits after a charge despite being mastercrafted or having a large blast miss, scatter and hit even better than the original target and then having a few important units flee of the table turn 1. Or something people at my club still talk about from a team tournament when my friends opponent scattered 10-12 inches into the same terrain piece 6 or 7 times in a row. 9" would have been fine.

Sometimes dice just decide it for you. The guard player I met in the 2 tournaments is a former ETC player who is working his way back on the national rankings and the team again. We discussed the games and we both came to the same conclusion. On that table all I could do was deploy rather aggressively and hope for turn 1 or hope he rolls bad and I roll good. But on some of the city tables he could have been toast.

 Vankraken wrote:
I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?

I also don't find 8th very fun.

Kill Team and Apocalypse are both great though. There are lots of ways of playing 40K now.

Klickor wrote:
They make rules to sell models. That doesnt mean that they make new things OP by default. Having new editions and other books(codex, suplements, wd) that changes balance forces sells. Gw isnt really competent enough to directly steer it but over the years most units in the SM book has been at the top at some point due to some random change that made that unit with that version of the codex in this version of the core rules the best and so people will buy it even if its an ugly old model that is expensive. Gw doesnt really have to intentionaly write new stuff good and they probably dont. At most I think they try to make them not suck and give larger priority in CA to balance them so they arent completely useless.

Games Workshop did not grow into what it is by accident. It's safe to assume there's intent behind rules, design, and marketing strategy, and that the company makes conscious decisions about how to organize its activities to achieve a profit.

Nothing sinister about that, by the way. There wouldn't be a 40k if they didn't.

What bothers me is the release cycle, GW keeps players buying new models through power leveling. There are consequences to this marketing strategy that are not good for wargamers.

Aside from what anyone does with plastic soliders on a table, 40k is a game between Games Workshop and individual tabletop wargamers. Each has a goal they seek to achieve within a set of constraints. For wargamers, the goal is to collect, build, and entertain themselves with a collection of models. For Games Workshop, the goal is to maximize their profits by supplying the tools necessary to do so, and part of that is selling new models. This is the real game, the rules for the tabletop are a means to encourage sales.

New models are expensive. Games Workshop is very good at getting people to buy them, it's their main line of business. Assuming anything about their marketing strategy is unintentional is naive, market success for companies selling tabletop games is exceptionally rare.

Happy to agree new releases are not always OP, but that's also not the only tool GW uses to put wargamers at a disadvantage. GW constantly modifies rules in ways that manipulate the value of the models players already own. Think about it. FAQs and Chapter Approved have made Forgeworld all but unusuable. New Codexes mean wargamers are constantly adjusting their lists to adapt to the new meta. New Editions fundamentally alter the meta, I can't think of a list that survives one edition to the next. Campaigns like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening don't seem to do much but buff a few units that don't have a place in most lists.

If you think this is just a way to achieve balance in the game, how come that never happens? More precisely, why does that only happen for some factions? How come factions like Grey Knights languish at the bottom of a competitive stack while NuMarines just got a ruleset that's the envy of all other factions? Or Necrons, or Renegades and Heretics, or Old Marines. Is that some unfortunate oversight that happens because an overworked rules team who just can't get around to reexamining balance in the game, or is that the result of a marketing plan skewed toward the constant sale of new models?

You start to see the consequences of the real game when you consider 40k isn't cheap. Let's say someone spent $2,000 on an army, buying it direct from Games Workshop. Immediately, those models lost 10% - 25% of their worth because they can be bought for that price off eBay new in the box. Once you assemble them, they have lost about 50% of their worth, because that's what someone pays for assembled models. If you paint them, you've lost about 70% of the worth and have a much smaller pool of people to buy them because different folks have different tastes.

Now take that out a year. Chapter Approved changed the cost of your infantry, either you need more or less of it. There was a campaign book that added some special rules for your elite troops, now you need a copy to benefit from the rule. There's a new tank that has twice the range of the one you currently own for less points, now you need that. You buy all this new stuff, the real cost of your army has increased to $2,500.

Now take all that to the competitive scene. A new Codex just came out, the other faction that was bad a year ago is now dominating competitions. That's not so bad, but GW just released a beta rule that makes it illegal to use a strategy your army relied on. You don't want to get shot off the table, so you switch your list to a different playstyle entirely. It works, kind of, but you can see how it could be a lot better. So you go back to the well and get a bunch more models to add to your army. The real cost for that army just went up to $3,380. Had you bought the models a month earlier, you could have avoided the annual price increase.

Now take that out a couple years. There's a new edition, you need to buy a bunch of rulebooks. Despite some encouraging blog posts, you find it's impossible to run the list you used before. You have mixed feelings about the army now, some other faction does a lot better in the new meta. But you love those models you painted, all those little freehand details mean so much to you. You invest in a shelf to place them on, then start the cycle again with a new army. The real cost stands at $3,380 for what is now a decoration you keep in the closet, plus the cost of a new army should you decide to continue playing. Many people don't. If you decide to sell it, great, but your faction is unpopular now so there's only so much you can expect in return.

Putting aside the cost in dollars, what is the intrinsic worth of that army at each of the different points in that story? Is that wargamer ever satisfied with what they have, or are they constantly reaching for that next branch? What other things do you spend thousands of dollars on annually that leaves you without a feeling of satisfaction?

40k is not cheap. It's priced at a level that makes it an army a luxury purchase. GW's marketing tactics wouldn't matter so much if it was less expensive, we could say it's a disposable commodity that isn't supposed to last forever.

Games Workshop could be employing other marketing strategies to sell new models and be just as successful. It's possible to imagine a tabletop game where rules / points / new releases are not so extreme, where the game can continue to evolve without making armies obsolete every few years. But they are in a game with wargamers, and their incentives are to extract every dollar possible at the lowest cost necessary to deliver something people will buy. They've fine tuned their model to do that to a level allowing them to become a very valuable company.

As players, we are in a game with GW. Instead of speaking up about how the real game works, our attention is focused on the tabletop. That's just the way Games Workshop wants it, they give you lots of convoluted rules to argue about endlessly on the Internet. If you stopped to think about the money you spend on models, it gets harder to make the case for why someone would want to do this. In a very real sense, it doesn't matter if you are positive or negative about the tabletop, as long as you are still thinking about the tabletop. Wargamers come and go from this hobby everyday, your opinion won't be missed should you choose to quit.

But they don't want to think about what the real game. If you did, you wouldn't stand for things like making entire factions obsolete, treating Xenos as an oversight, going decades without a new sculpt, and the like. Even if these issues didn't affect you personally, you'd know it's not healthy for the tabletop when Games Workshop fails to use its resources to avoid them.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

I get what you are saying but you can only do so much to make it better on your own. You give pie in the sky answers to problems. " Well, if your army sucks, get a new one " Not always is that even a real choice for time and money spent. " Well, get people to not take the armies they like " Yet again, not everyone that plays has every unit in an army, some only get the armies they want and can't really switch out whole lists on the fly to " make it fair " this is an expensive and time consuming hobby. " The price is too high " no real answer to this but to stop buying anything from GW.

Well, I never said my possible solutions are the end all be all or applicable in every situation. Doesn't hurt to bring them up though and maybe brainstorm with others who are in the same boat how they deal with it, does it?

AngryAngel80 wrote:

As for what a post on reddit says about this forum, I really could not care any less what anyone on Reddit feels about anything really. You can't control how anyone chooses to want to view you, all you can control is how you view yourself and I think we're just fine. There, that's positive don't you think ? If you're so concerned about it, best not let on you come here, with all us evil fiends. Blood thirsty we are..and...Happy Halloween all you ghouls out there.

Not caring about what other people think about yourself is imo a good and healthy attitude in general, I agree. But (of course there is a but ) in this case you are not the only one who has to live with the feedback of your actions. People on Reddit did not say "Dakka is a big forum, but beware of AngryAngel80, he is annoying" (not saying that you are, just using your name as an example). They say "Dakka is a big forum, but the discussion culture in general there is gak". People are actively warning about engaging in a discussion here. We are keeping people who share the same hobby away from our community.

Personally speaking, I would gladly exchange hyperbole and "Wild West" attitudes for more people joining the community. I don't expect you to agree with me, but maybe it gets some of the readers thinking.

 jeff white wrote:

GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things)

I feel this is directed at me, as I interchange "Buying, building, painting, playing with Games Workshop products and engaging fellow players" freely with the word "hobby" for practical reasons. I thought within the scope and environment of this discussion it is clear what "the hobby" stands for.

 jeff white wrote:

but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.

That you ignore all the areas where the hobby ( ) improved over time and is in a better place than ever is you being ignorant or a troll.

There, I can do that, too. And if I click on "Submit" now without writing anything further the only thing I achieve is you likely getting annoyed at my post.


In my opening post, most of my points are objectively better than when I started playing in 3rd edition. Saying that I (and people who agree with it) are either romantically idealizing or shills is honestly very weak.

Some problems from 3rd edition are still around, but other areas got better and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging it and maybe even be a tiny little bit happy about it.

Klickor wrote:
In Sweden we have very varied terrain in tournaments ITC or non ITC. Very rarely are the tables mirrored. Usually more terrain on most tables than what I have seen from tournaments in the US. Makes each game more interesting most of the time but sometimes a table slips through and is quite bad for certain matchups but if its one out of 10-20+ tables it isnt so bad.

Three tournaments in a row I got the most open table in my opening game. Had deployment been quarters or short side it would have been ok but long side each time. Of course I didnt get to choose side either so there it got slightly worse but wouldnt have changed who won but only by how much. And then I got to go second with my Blood Angels against 3 shooty armies. Twice against guard and once against freebootas. The terrain on the table against the ork player would block line of sight well if he only had infantry but he had 3 fliers and 2 gork/morkanoughts that just saw over everything so only 5 scouts on the table were completely out of los.

I could of course have killed 5-10x more pts in each of those games if we played during the times when killpoints or victorypoints were all that mattered to not lose as much but I tried to go for the unlikely comeback in each game and gambled since my chance of winning if not gambling was 0 at that point. And wins are much much more important than a few VPs during a loss. I was really unlucky those 3 times and I kmow if it had been any other table it could have been a very different results. The other games I played during those tournaments were all close with some wins, some losses and a few draws as well.

But I feel like you have not played many games if dice have never decided a game for you. I have had games in fantasy in which the first spell turn 1 miscasts and half the army flees. Assassination attemps in warmachine in I needed to not roll like 4+ones in a row with a single reroll for back up. Or in 40k having units like terminators getting 0 hits after a charge despite being mastercrafted or having a large blast miss, scatter and hit even better than the original target and then having a few important units flee of the table turn 1. Or something people at my club still talk about from a team tournament when my friends opponent scattered 10-12 inches into the same terrain piece 6 or 7 times in a row. 9" would have been fine.

Sometimes dice just decide it for you. The guard player I met in the 2 tournaments is a former ETC player who is working his way back on the national rankings and the team again. We discussed the games and we both came to the same conclusion. On that table all I could do was deploy rather aggressively and hope for turn 1 or hope he rolls bad and I roll good. But on some of the city tables he could have been toast.

Your experience doesn't seem like an impeachment of 40K, but rather that of bad table design coupled with unfavorable matchups coupled with worst case deployment zones. Given the chance for that I would be designing my lists to take advantage of drop pods and use other means to hide units or pressure my opponent.

Dice are a factor, because its a dice game, but it doesn't help me to focus on whatever wild swings might pop up, because I can't change them. Plan for the worst - hope for the best.

There are totally bad tables in ITC. I played a tau list (guy that won nova) at BAO on a terrible table. His riptides on top of a couple crates could see the entire board (their height + true LOS = I can see his sword tip so the unit is dead) + dawn of war deployment meant I got to eat an entire round of re-roll everything tau shooting which removed 1/4+ of my army before I could even act. The disparity in fire-power after that was too much to come back from.

VS my marine soup that game was over before the dice were rolled. No LOS blocking (ruins in the middle was a hangar that you could see through) he went first, game over.

Another poster hit it on the head. It has become painfully apparent that GW is all about the churn. Models that were good in 7th are no where near the top in 8th. At this point it is clear that GW is pushing model sales with rules and that feels slimy.

GW is sloppy in their rule writing. They don't take the time to think how changes will effect a lot of units. For example, my wulfen are a non-starter vs TFCs + tremor shells. There is no counter play for me, halving my move/advance/charge turns my 200 point unit into battlefield decoration. (I guess I could outflank them but finding a spot to come in w/in 6" of a board edge to make a 9" charge with about a 50/50 chance isn't viable). With one wave of their hand 100+ bucks of units I bought and spent 20-30+ hours painting to play the game are on the shelf.

The new primaris Tigurius unit is the same. I literally bought a "new" Tigurius model 6 months before the primaris one came out and now have a model that I cannot "legally" use in a game of 40k that I bought in this edition, only a few months ago with no warning that it may be invalidated and just finished painting in time for it to go on my shelf forever. There is nothing to be positive about in this situation.

GWs push for churn combined with their half-butt'd balance changes (eldar flyers, shield drones, DA/BA/SW/DW/GK) has taken a hobby that I was excited to return to and turned it into something I'm not enjoying anymore. They are causing me to step away from something that I enjoy which I am justifiably salty about. How is it any different than complaining about TFG at your local game store that makes games unbearable just because the culprit is the company selling me the game?

I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.

Klickor wrote:
I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?

That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?

That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.

I think that was the 5th ed brb. I don't recall 4th ed having randomized terrain.
3rd ed apparently had a system where you determine what sort of climate you're fighting it, but I'm not sure.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Klickor wrote:
I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?

That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.

I think that was the 5th ed brb. I don't recall 4th ed having randomized terrain.
3rd ed apparently had a system where you determine what sort of climate you're fighting it, but I'm not sure.

I want to say the 4th edition had that climate thing too, but my memory is foggy.

I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.

good thing that no where in the rules those it say that, and if you ask at a store or forum, you either get no response or get the whole play what you want story, which the most bs thing I have ever been told in my life, since my mom told me I could visit my dad when ever I want.

Plus what would someone playing a bad army spend the money on? More bad stuff,?

 techsoldaten wrote:
Happy to agree new releases are not always OP, but that's also not the only tool GW uses to put wargamers at a disadvantage.

Here we go - the classic arguing both sides of the coin.

GW constantly modifies rules in ways that manipulate the value of the models players already own. Think about it. FAQs and Chapter Approved have made Forgeworld all but unusuable. New Codexes mean wargamers are constantly adjusting their lists to adapt to the new meta. New Editions fundamentally alter the meta, I can't think of a list that survives one edition to the next. Campaigns like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening don't seem to do much but buff a few units that don't have a place in most lists.

Ok guys we can tell GW to stop trying to balance the game. Its all a ploy. Absolutely none of the units that got point drops in CA needed them, right? Those sneaky GW bastards making the bad units cheaper.

Plenty of FW models are strong. It's just the giant-ass models that have no purpose being in 40K competitive.

If you think this is just a way to achieve balance in the game, how come that never happens? More precisely, why does that only happen for some factions? How come factions like Grey Knights languish at the bottom of a competitive stack while NuMarines just got a ruleset that's the envy of all other factions? Or Necrons, or Renegades and Heretics, or Old Marines. Is that some unfortunate oversight that happens because an overworked rules team who just can't get around to reexamining balance in the game, or is that the result of a marketing plan skewed toward the constant sale of new models?

It has happened and continues to happen. When new unit types become available to armies it changes up a lot of how the game works. Having snipers become a regular appearance when they were practically unheard of 6 months ago changes a lot about the game. The Castellan was a complex combination of a too strong unit and soup. NO ONE on this board could agree on the right fix to that problem and ignoring the procedural steps GW took to nerf it is ignoring history to make a specious point.

Old marines are doing great with the new book. People just like Primaris more, because new models are cool (and consequently less expensive to field). Necrons are competitive. It also seems quite possible that R&H is being shaped up for a release under GW proper given the models popping up in Blackstone Fortress. GK is the odd man out, because their army is focused around a unique aspect that hampers their points cost. The +1A was a bigger buff for them than any marine army - it just isn't enough to tip the balance for them yet.

If it's some marketing ploy then why did old marines get more new direct buffs than Primaris in the new book?

You start to see the consequences of the real game when you consider 40k isn't cheap. Let's say someone spent $2,000 on an army, buying it direct from Games Workshop. Immediately, those models lost 10% - 25% of their worth because they can be bought for that price off eBay new in the box. Once you assemble them, they have lost about 50% of their worth, because that's what someone pays for assembled models. If you paint them, you've lost about 70% of the worth and have a much smaller pool of people to buy them because different folks have different tastes.

You sure? These 5 Deathshroud $100 MSRP sold for $75 assembled, which is $10 below the typical discount level of 15%.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Chaos-Space-Marines-Death-Guard-Deathshroud-Terminators-FW-/163786021071?hash=item26226858cf%3Ag%3A6%7EcAAOSw0NNdNMWj&LH_ItemCondition=3000&nma=true&si=SiZ%252BoTRoQ4pZjR4tf0jmGrTw08s%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

This fully painted Defiler went for $50.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-40k-Chaos-Defiler-/174082411918?hash=item28881ecd8e%3Ag%3AJssAAOSwePhduxcf&LH_ItemCondition=3000&nma=true&si=SiZ%252BoTRoQ4pZjR4tf0jmGrTw08s%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Are metal models replaced by superior plastics going to drop in price? You bet.

Now take that out a year. Chapter Approved changed the cost of your infantry, either you need more or less of it. There was a campaign book that added some special rules for your elite troops, now you need a copy to benefit from the rule. There's a new tank that has twice the range of the one you currently own for less points, now you need that. You buy all this new stuff, the real cost of your army has increased to $2,500.

It doesn't help to just make up numbers along side ridiculous assumptions.

Now take all that to the competitive scene. A new Codex just came out, the other faction that was bad a year ago is now dominating competitions. That's not so bad, but GW just released a beta rule that makes it illegal to use a strategy your army relied on. You don't want to get shot off the table, so you switch your list to a different playstyle entirely. It works, kind of, but you can see how it could be a lot better. So you go back to the well and get a bunch more models to add to your army. The real cost for that army just went up to $3,380. Had you bought the models a month earlier, you could have avoided the annual price increase.

Oh, I see, we're still in Make-gak-up-istan. Good day.

jeff white wrote:you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.

Let's be logical here. Do you really think that positive opinions of GW are because they're paying people to support them? Doubtful.
I bloody love Primaris, should I be getting paid for that? Preferably in Intercessor Squads, or Repulsors.

that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.

Or simply personal preference? I think 40k is the best it's been since I started, and I've only been playing for just over a decade. I'm not being paid for that belief, and I'm certainly not supportive of all GW policies. However, do I have positive feelings about this edition than previous ones? Overwhelmingly yes. But that's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

I just find it amusing when a post encouraging and celebrating positivity is drowned out by more of the negative feelings that are seemingly everywhere else. That fine, express yourself and vent, but does it need to be *everywhere*?

ewar wrote:Taking part in the hobby requires customers to acknowledge that the models they buy won't always have the same rules, power or even outright legitimacy they had when they were purchased. I have close to 20k points of square based fantasy armies in my cabinet, and I occasionally get to put them on the table and play some 9th age or old WFB.

Accurate. That doesn't mean that you can't get satisfaction and enjoyment from it with what you have already. There's no need for continual purchases if you don't want to, which I think is the important part.

I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.

Don't agree with that. This only applies if you want to keep expanding or staying "on top" of the meta. But for the person with their full company/Chapter of Marines, or the one who has a lovingly built and grown army that they think is now at an organic "end" point? What financial investment do they need? They can still keep playing with their models, the core rules are free, datasheets are freely handed out with the kits they come in (and, as a result, in my eyes are free), and once you have models, terrain, dice, and other apparatus, unless they are lost/damaged, you don't need to buy more.

So, to play 40k long term, I don't agree that you need continual investment. If by 40k, you only mean tournament/matched play, then by my books, that's only part of 40k, not all of it.

bananathug wrote:

Another poster hit it on the head. It has become painfully apparent that GW is all about the churn. Models that were good in 7th are no where near the top in 8th. At this point it is clear that GW is pushing model sales with rules and that feels slimy.

How many of these do you see on top tables regularly?

Master of Possession
Dark Apostle
CSM
Greater Possessed
VC
Armigers
Reivers
Honor Guard
Helblasters
Custodians
Wardens
Metamorphs
Locus
Biophagus
Ridgerunners
Jackals
Rockgrinder
Goliath
Plague Marines
The new Skitarii transport (I don't even know its friggin' name that's how common it is)
Any terrain piece

How many of these did you see before the marine books?

Eliminators
Suppressors
Executioners
Intercessors
Redemptors
Aggressors


And how many of these old units do you now see?

Land Speeders
Devs
Drop Pods
Centurions
Whirlwinds
TFCs
Librarians

GW is sloppy in their rule writing. They don't take the time to think how changes will effect a lot of units. For example, my wulfen are a non-starter vs TFCs + tremor shells. There is no counter play for me, halving my move/advance/charge turns my 200 point unit into battlefield decoration. (I guess I could outflank them but finding a spot to come in w/in 6" of a board edge to make a 9" charge with about a 50/50 chance isn't viable). With one wave of their hand 100+ bucks of units I bought and spent 20-30+ hours painting to play the game are on the shelf.

So, you expect GW to never have a rule that limits movement, because it might affect a unit that wouldn't like that? Seems more like you just like giving up especially with a unit that rerolls its charge has a much better than 50/50 shot. I'm not really feeling bad for the unit swinging 5 times with a power fist axe with no modifier, 2s to hit, run and charge, 5+++, 2 wounds, and death throes.

The new primaris Tigurius unit is the same. I literally bought a "new" Tigurius model 6 months before the primaris one came out and now have a model that I cannot "legally" use in a game of 40k that I bought in this edition, only a few months ago with no warning that it may be invalidated and just finished painting in time for it to go on my shelf forever. There is nothing to be positive about in this situation.

....just use your old model as Primaris...there is nothing that states this is illegal....

Re-roll 9" charge is about a 47% chance, using a cp or re-roll all bumps it up to about 52%...

It's not just a rule that lowers movement but one that has no counter play. Can reduce the movement on 2 units, no one cares about LOS, range is the whole table, no ability to interact with the strat. GW doubling down on rock, paper, scissors which leads to matches decided before models hit the table...

I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...). Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.

Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.