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.

bananathug wrote:
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...).

I just want to specifically call out the bolded part - Primaris didn't EXIST prior to 8th, so that may explain why they were never seen. What next, Genestealer Cult is broken because they weren't being played in 5th?

As for the rest, yeah, that's how the meta turns. However, bikes weren't first released in the editions when they were the mainstay of SM lists (5th-7th). Cents were only seen as OP with grav, and it was only really grav-cannons that were broken. Assault Centurions? Pssh, no-one cared about them on release.

How about Stormravens and Leviathan Dreadnoughts? They weren't released in 8th. Guilliman? Hell, most of the things that have benefitted from the new SM codex and supplements are old units, not Primaris ones.
And on the subject of new SM units, how are the Hunter and Stalker for you? Broken as hell? Even upon release? Nope.

But I did find it interesting that you mentioned TWC being shot apart by TFC - which are distinctly not exclusive to 8th.

Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.

Not really. The pattern is broken by the masses of units that get released and are completely unremarkable.

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.

Two things:
1, put him on a higher base so he's the same height, that should fulfil most requirements.
2, what a third party tourny team claim is or is not count-as is not up to GW, and therefore not something GW should be criticised for. If anything, blame the TO for not being more accommodating of what is pretty reasonable "count-as". If someone wanted to use oldTiggy at my table, I wouldn't ask for any modification to the model, and at most, ask for the base to be elevated to the same level.

Not to mention that there's more to do than just tourneys.

bananathug wrote:
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...

Sorry, yes, brain fart.

Tremor shells were in the old codex. The only thing that changed is being able to do it twice. Two units for 3CP is no small cost. Were I SW these days I'd either be packing a WW, because Eliminators are dinks, or podding Long Fangs with 4 PC and a PG and Wolf's Eye (reroll wounds) /Keen Sense (not hit penalties) them and you should just about kill two TFCs since they bring their own reroll 1s (on only one TFC) -- or they could kill an entire Eliminators (and more) squad in cover. It's potentially an exceptional meta choice.

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.

There is no pattern. And you've outlined it on your own. Rhinos were "great" last edition, because they were free. Reapers were nerfed quickly and were most successful, because of Ynnari and Doom, which applied to Haywire and Disintegrators, which has all been nerfed.

So what is GW's objective then? Ynnari - an entire army went from incredible to meh in this edition. Did they want to stop selling the characters? Were they selling too much Eldar? Were Eldar suddenly noncompetitive after the Ynnari nerf ? (hint: no)

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.

Why does the profile need to be the same for a model they can't target anyway? Stick him on a plinth and tell them to get bent.

I'm all for GW trying to balance their games. My complaints probably boil down to GW not changing the game quickly enough for my liking since I'm on the receiving end of the bad changes (non-codex astartes). In 3-6 months hopefully DA/SW/BA will be brought into alignment with codex SM and most of my issues will be resolved (came to this realization as I was writing the wall of text below but I'm not going to delete it).

The pattern is the top performing units from last edition are, with very few exceptions, not the same units that performed well last edition.

The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.

GW has created a situation where they are changing what units are competitively viable with their rules. Intentionally, to get you to buy new units. Not because they look cool, not because they are new, not to complete your collection, not to pursue a new type of build that you think is cool (all of which are awesome organic reasons to expand your collection) but because rules driven churn is good for GWs bottom line. GW is intentionally toning down units that were good before (wraithknights) and buffing units which were not common (shining spears). Not all (tac marines still suck and riptides are still good) but the majority.

Making exciting rules isn't the same as making OP rules. Give units something they can do on the table that is unique is awesome, but those abilities need to be play tested and balanced rather than "this -1 to damage to all vehicles within 3" seems cool."

Old TFC was good but I could bring more than one unit of wulfen (which I was doing) and at least make my opponent make a decision, with one TFC shutting down two units that's a 100ish point unit invalidating 500ish points of my army with no counter play. Change from 3+ to 2+ BS also really helps them cut through the -1 I could have put on my guys. Along with SM generally getting better I've gone from seeing 0 TFCs in most tournaments to at least one in RTTs and more in anything with more than 3 rounds. Unintentional consequences of GWs poorly thought through changes.

Long fangs in a pod are a good answer, if those TFCs couldn't hide out of LOS. Pretty easy to screen out pod landings when you are only worried about landing zones w/ LOS behind a crate. Been running them to deal with eldar flyers, MVPs a lot of games but getting a bead on those tiny TFCs is tough. WW as an aggressive army are tough because they get bad-touched they are useless. Without a gunline to support they don't really synergize with an aggressive force (not to mention they are significantly better as any other color of marine).

GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.

So GW makes bad rules, mid-edition, which do not allow for on table mitigation leading to a rock, paper, scissors type game play where games can be won or lost before turn 1 and we are okay with that.

Selling models they will remove from the game mid edition is okay.

Using OP/UP rules to sell models (new OR existing) is another thing we should just be okay with.

Widely varied power levels (SW/BA/DA/GK vs SM) in a game that was supposedly the most play tested ever where pick-up games were advertised as a viable game play method is okay.

Further distortion of those power levels (for the worse) mid-edition leading to situations where the conclusion of the game is nearly a forgone conclusion between two opponents of relatively similar skill is okay (where the only solution is to literally not play certain match-ups).

Again, GW is TFG at my local who refuses to shower, "forgets" the rules of his models to fit what he wants and provides a painful gaming experience is now beyond reproach because he owns the game store? Nah.

bananathug wrote:
I'm all for GW trying to balance their games. My complaints probably boil down to GW not changing the game quickly enough for my liking since I'm on the receiving end of the bad changes (non-codex astartes). In 3-6 months hopefully DA/SW/BA will be brought into alignment with codex SM and most of my issues will be resolved (came to this realization as I was writing the wall of text below but I'm not going to delete it).

The pattern is the top performing units from last edition are, with very few exceptions, not the same units that performed well last edition.

But this isn't really that true. Guilliman, TFC, Tigurius, Dreadnoughts, Knights, and so on are still popular now. There's far more than "few exceptions".

The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.

Again, the above units disprove this, and are hardly the only ones.

GW has created a situation where they are changing what units are competitively viable with their rules. Intentionally, to get you to buy new units. Not because they look cool, not because they are new, not to complete your collection, not to pursue a new type of build that you think is cool (all of which are awesome organic reasons to expand your collection) but because rules driven churn is good for GWs bottom line. GW is intentionally toning down units that were good before (wraithknights) and buffing units which were not common (shining spears). Not all (tac marines still suck and riptides are still good) but the majority.

But the release of sub-par units disproves this massively! Seriously, look at just how much as been released for the Primaris, and how much of it is auto-include. What about Death Guard, or CSM - I'm not seeing many Venomcrawlers and Greater Possessed, are you?

GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.

You can still use Tigurius. Nothing is stopping you.

Also, I'm curious to see your source on "they were always going to replace him!!" - because without a source, you know that just sounds like a conspiracy theory, right?

Again, it's not "no model no rules", because no-one's coming round and destroying your not-Primaris models, and you Still. Have. Rules. If your TO won't allow that, then maybe you need a better TO.

Selling models they will remove from the game mid edition is okay.

Ignoring the fact that you can still use your model, are you suggesting that GW cannot remove or update models unless there's an edition change? Guess we'll need to wait longer on some poor Sisters sculpts, eh, just to suit those tastes.

Using OP/UP rules to sell models (new OR existing) is another thing we should just be okay with.

Which isn't what's happening at all. Ask Deathshroud Terminators.

If you have grievances with the game, by all means, you are entitled to them, but try and stick to facts, please.

I've actually used Greater Possessed in two games just now but for the fact they only take up one space in a Termite when I drop off the rest of the Alpha Legion in there.

But yeah they're not exactly good but I like they always strike at D2 in melee. Something I guess. Venomcrawlers were used in like three of the topping lists I thought or am I misremembering reading Venoms for Bondage Eldar?

Sorry, but you've created this idea of "changes are made solely for the benefit of GW sales" and creating post-hoc rationalizations for it.

You state:

The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.

It's like pointing to a Lascannon in 7th and remaking how effective it can be and then looking at it in 8th and wondering why it isn't the tank destroyer of yore. The system changed. The models and equipment that work best within the system changed. GW had no direct foresight into which of those models would be best when the indexes launched. Its patently absurd.

But you're never going to provide a list that can be contextually reviewed, because you're making a loose assertion about some mental connection you made that you haven't really spent the time to think about deeply. Shining spears didn't get used last edition, because Wraithknights were far too good via Destroyer weapons as were a number of other Destroyer weapon based platforms available to Eldar. Rhinos were free. Bikes weren't good last edition, because they were bikes. Bikes were good, because they were the best way to deliver a bunch of characters under invulnerable saves and FNP very quickly without needing to be in a transport - and narrowly for only one subset. No one else used bikes. To claim bikes used to be good is, again, such a poor revision of history.

And we come to the over-arching dynamic - the suvivorship bias of Warhammer:

"If a unit isn't on top tables it isn't good."

As if the preferences of competitive players have automatically deemed units 5% weaker than what they've chosen to be unmitigated garbage. Bikes are not bad this edition. It's just been hard to convince people to use them "because disintegrators exist". And yet Primaris are now running around like crazy. Bikes always double tap for 4 shots, have T5, M14. Compare to an Intercessor at 4 points less who has 1 extra attack, fires only 1 shot on the move most of the time, but 2 shots max with 1 extra AP. 4 points increases toughness, nearly doubles the damage output and they can pick up a 4++ (or 3++) not to mention what WS can do with bikes. Are they going to get used outside WS? Probably not, because its easier to sit in cover with Intercessors matching the best doctrine available.

with one TFC shutting down two units that's a 100ish point unit invalidating 500ish points of my army with no counter play.

You do have counterplay, but your expectation of counterplay is essentially they shouldn't be able to do that. And that's kind of not good for the game. Yes, sometimes you're going to need to clear a landing zone. Sometimes you're going to need Stormfangs. A WW left on its own that gets tagged on turn 3 already did its job. Though I doubt they're going to sacrifice any meaningful unit on that when wolves are in their face.

GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.

And the new CSM models? Those are what? I didn't have to buy them just like you don't have to buy Tiggy to play him as primaris -- guess what -- my old Havocs are using new Havoc rules. Can GW never update models for fear of offending our sensibilities? Should GW be required to announce all their model releases years ahead of schedule and let their current inventory rot? If you like a model, buy it. If you don't then proxy something else.

And you'll note that GW didn't update old Tiggy rules enticing people to buy the old model more and then bait and switch to Primaris. He got new rules and a new model at the same time.

where games can be won or lost before turn 1 and we are okay with that

Games aren't being lost on turn 1 unless you have a really bad matchup on a really bad table. I know it's popular to say, but its not what happens most games. You didn't suddenly lose, because wulfen were half move.

Games aren't being lost on turn 1 unless you have a really bad matchup on a really bad table. I know it's popular to say, but its not what happens most games. You didn't suddenly lose, because wulfen were half move.

I lost a lot of games turn one. Specially now with the new marines, if they go first. small count armies can't really do much about getting targeted by drop pods and charges turn 1 . Specially if this is supported by long range support, the fact that it sometimes ignores LoS is just a bonus.

It's less actually "losing on turn 1" and more "having such an incredibly small chance of winning that playing the rest of the game is an exercise in futility". Most folks, when they say they "lost on turn 1", are refering to this.

So like full tabling on turn1 ? yeah, that did not happen to me yet. I was once reducuded to 5 models though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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?

Uhhhh. K.
I was so excited to see this edition come out and, yeah, GW did an Ao$ on 40k.
So we got Stormcaste equivalents in 40k.
Yeah, nice models, but why not make all marines 2 wounds,
celebrate the correction,
and leave the story going?

Why dump the gothic feel for grav tanks in the Imperium?
Simply, you tell us.
Why?

This is marketing driven, not hobby driven.

We love the hobby.

That is why it hurts to have something we love
try to manipulate us with online shill posters taking heat for what?

We have seen corporations run this way for a couple generations and it never looks good.
New business ethics focuses more on the long term interests of all stakeholders, e.g. people who complain a lot.

If people didn't care, then yeah, no complaints.

Gak post?
Gak rules bro.

I have a large colelction of paints, still unopened,
(that i tend to collect when I go into the shop,
cuz I want to buy something from the shop,
because I appreciate it being there,
and I have been buying gift certificates for myself
anticipating the SoB box... so, unopened newly purchased GW paints)
wishing for the urge to play-
but, I hang out at the local GW and watch.
I have been in this hobby since 14, into GW games since 24 thereabouts.
I am 50.

Gak post?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

====

Outside of maybe some older titles or inde games or minecraft, an $800 laptop or PC wont really be relevant in about 3-4 years after purchase. and good luck getting the full "value" out of the games graphics or online play. even a 2k PC in 5 years will struggle to run a lot of triple A games at the best quality.

not a jab at ether side. just pointing out that PC gaming has a different type of problem.

Same sort of problem with console gaming as well.

 jeff white wrote:
Uhhhh. K.
I was so excited to see this edition come out and, yeah, GW did an Ao$ on 40k.

In what way? Define "doing an AoS" for us, because what my definition of "doing an AoS" clearly can't be the same as yours.

For me, doing an AoS would be making all prior lore nearly irrelevant (I say nearly, it's not like there aren't still some story hooks", and changing the actual setting and geography of the wider universe (yes, 40k splits the galaxy in two, but it's still all *there* - it would be more like the Storm of Magic or End Times of WHFB, not AoS), as well as causing fundamental shifts in aesthetic and gameplay. 40k hasn't had this either.

So we got Stormcaste equivalents in 40k.

Not really? AoS got SM equivalents, but 40k didn't really pick anything from AoS. Primaris don't have anything in common with Stormcast that regular Marines didn't already have.

Yeah, nice models, but why not make all marines 2 wounds,
celebrate the correction,
and leave the story going?

Because they didn't want to make regular Marines 2 Wounds, because they wanted to tell a story about two different kinds of Space Marine coming in to the fold, which was their choice to do as a narrative team.

You can dislike that, but it's their lore. However, just on that, it sounds like you're complaining just because they decided they wanted to introduce something else.

Why dump the gothic feel for grav tanks in the Imperium?
Simply, you tell us.
Why?

Firstly, grav-tanks have always been a thing in the Imperium. Grav tanks have belonged to the Custodes and SoS for time immemorial, the Admech have it, and Land Speeders are hardly "gothic" looking, yet are iconic Space Marine vehicles.

As I see it, the Repulsor-class vehicles feel more "Space Marine" to me than Bikes and Land Speeders - their boxy aesthetic, the flavour text of how they actually hover (they literally punch the ground to stay afloat!) and the angles and geometry of them all feel quintessentially "Space Marine" to me.

So, whilst I'm not saying that you aren't justified in disliking them, it's not as simple as "they've abandoned the gothic feel!", because that's still very much real for many of us.

This is marketing driven, not hobby driven.

We love the hobby.

That is why it hurts to have something we love
try to manipulate us with online shill posters taking heat for what?

Ah yes. The good old "if you like Primaris, you're a GW shill and not part of the *real hobby lovers* crowd". Maybe, just maybe, people love GW for different things.

But hey, if you still believe that anyone who thinks positively about GW much be a corporate shill for them, what's to stop someone suspecting those who dislike GW's practices of being paid to have those opinions? After all, it's just as ridiculous.

TL;DR Don't be so quick to assume that people who hold a different opinion to you are being paid off or otherwise incentivised to hold that opinion - it works just as well the other way around.

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?

well D&D is a bit of a differant story as my group could continue playing third edition (pathfinder made this easier then ever) but it's not the first hobby I've walked away from so I can answer this. It didn't bother me because I'd gotten my money's worth. A movie costs about 15-20 bucks for 3 hours entertainment. thus you've proably more then made up the cost of your hobby as it stands already Karol. Also, keep in mind you don't have to sell your stuff, walk away for a bit and occasionally keep tabs, maybe you'll suddenly hear grey knights are now nearly OP in 9th edition etc.

Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?

BrianDavion wrote:

Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?

There is a difference between growing tied of something vs outside forces disrupting your ability to enjoy something. That said unlike most children's toys, your not sinking additional hours (in the tens to hundreds of hours) working on assembling and painting them to "properly" use them. Return on investment for something like that is going to be different than something that may take two or three hours worth of wage to afford.

BrianDavion 781894 10616849 wrote:

well D&D is a bit of a differant story as my group could continue playing third edition (pathfinder made this easier then ever) but it's not the first hobby I've walked away from so I can answer this. It didn't bother me because I'd gotten my money's worth. A movie costs about 15-20 bucks for 3 hours entertainment. thus you've proably more then made up the cost of your hobby as it stands already Karol. Also, keep in mind you don't have to sell your stuff, walk away for a bit and occasionally keep tabs, maybe you'll suddenly hear grey knights are now nearly OP in 9th edition etc.

Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?

no, I don't my mom gave my toys to church, when she send me off to sports school. I don't go to movies, because they cost too much, but seems like the only way to enjoy stuff is to pump more and more money in to it, and have milions of friends to help you with stuff. Maybe if I didn't spend all my confirmation money on the army it would be better, or didn't have to look every weekend what my siblings did with their money. thinking about that stuff only makes unable to sleep and not fun to be around at home.

Sometimes I wish I never listed to people at school, but my mom told me I have to make friends.

There is a difference between growing tied of something vs outside forces disrupting your ability to enjoy something. That said unlike most children's toys, your not sinking additional hours (in the tens to hundreds of hours) working on assembling and painting them to "properly" use them. Return on investment for something like that is going to be different than something that may take two or three hours worth of wage to afford.

I really liked my toys though. Am not sure how much my legos cost, I doubt it costs more then the w40k army, but I had years of fun with them. I was really sad when my mom gave them to church, when I was at school. In fact I think that If I rebought some of the legos, I would have had more fun. Or at least bought something good like a tablet or a phone.

The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.

Quite honestly, anyone who looked into 40k hobby communities online would probably not want to go anywhere near this game.

Fortunately, most of the most irritating people online probably don't play, and I'm pretty sure if they do they 'play' by having models and wishing someone would do a game with them.

Overall, there's a lot you can do with 40k and you don't even need GW's authority to find a way to have fun. Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.

Quite honestly, anyone who looked into 40k hobby communities online would probably not want to go anywhere near this game.

Fortunately, most of the most irritating people online probably don't play, and I'm pretty sure if they do they 'play' by having models and wishing someone would do a game with them.

Overall, there's a lot you can do with 40k and you don't even need GW's authority to find a way to have fun. Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.

sorry i kinda had to : )

But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.

When looking into 40k online it could be that players choose not to bother with GW as the game is not for them after researching, Maybe they think the game is kinda bad like a lot of others, Or just that the community is not something they want to join. Only one of those is really Negative, but i would also starting to think that its not even much of a worry since that could be just up to opinion.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

Just as a side note. Planning the models, making the molds and then making the model is hardly a process they do without a plan. I say this because someone requested proof they knew they would invalidate old Tigurius for awhile. Of course GW knew they were replacing him, the model molding process isn't a you wake up in the morning and just do it process. It had to be planned out, set into the schedule, and then acted upon.

The fact they left that model out there knowing they'd make him useless is scummy practice on their end. I mean I get it, they don't want to be stuck with unsold models.

Now, I'm not sure here but is the old model still supported rules wise ? As if not, thats pretty poop. If it is, it's just not as good as the Primaris version then I withdraw my complaint.

However, that said, they had to know for quite a long time they were replacing that model, it would have been at least a few months but I believe the time frame to be much longer than that from planning, to putting out a new model to replace an old one.

I get defending GW, but saying they won't use predatory and underhanded practices to sell product, that isn't a hill I'd choose to die on.

I point out, the new small 8th edition codex, no erratas added, no updates, high price tag and they tried to brush it under the rug it was a total waste of your money and outdated on hitting the shelves. Then when it came to lite, they tried to hide all the spin for it of how amazing it was. They are not our friends.

bananathug wrote:
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.

I like your style.

This discussion is with Jedi deflection trainees..

There are tens of threads on this forum in which people "complain" about GW practices.
Invalidating models.
Bending the universe around marketing, rather than the other way around.

Laughable 'fluff'. No myth, no polarity! Just, soup...
Not that soup is bad, but. When Dark eldar and Craftworld eldar start sleeping togther,
you know something has gone wrong.

Pitifully wrong, imho... but this is my opinion.

You can call it negative, but this is the point about all of this,

People like myself care.
This caring is the most valuable asset GW will ever have.

Apple fox wrote:
But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.

Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?

Well, this thread is not exactly receptive to complaints, more of a 'if you have something negative to say then you aren't paying attention and should save your money for a better gaming laptop' or some other deflection.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.

Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?

Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.

Apple fox wrote:
But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
...
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

It's a bit more complex.

There's no pro-GW and anti-GW side, 2 factions aren't warring with each other. There are a few people intent on being correct who don't take the time to understand what others are saying, there are those who wonder if it's worth putting the time into respond, and there are those who see these conversations as nonsense. That doesn't really speak to disposition so much as the dynamics of conversation.

Positivity - this word means very little. Does it mean only discussing parts of the game you like and ignoring concerns you may have? Does it mean only saying things about Games Workshop that present a happy picture (and, if so, why)? Hobbies aren't made better through self-censorship and corporate propaganda, they're made worse. Likewise, overwhelming negativity and criticism don't really mean anything. Who wants to spend all this money on a game just to trash it?

Not sure what anyone gets from these conversations beyond a chance to type. The only thing they're good for is keeping people's attention is focused on Games Workshop by arguing about 40k. Which is good for Games Workshop, it means you are not arguing about money, relationships, politics, or alternate forms of entertainment that could disrupt their revenue streams and cause you to buy fewer new models.

When you start to think about it, the only thing 'positive' about Games Workshop is that they are experts at keeping people's attention. Complex / opaque game systems, constant releases of new models, endless balance shifts in the meta-economy of the game, keeping people buying new models as they make old ones obsolete. Everything else changes, the marketing strategy is the only constant. We can observe the strategy over time, it is intentional and rarely changes, and the benefits to the company are extraordinary in relation to the value provided to customers.

That's the real game. If you want more value, stop arguing about 40k. This means they have to work harder to get your attention, maybe instead of constant power levelling they stabilize prices / rules. The way they've treated Grey Knights is a travesty, people shouldn't be buying new rules until they clean up the mess they made with that faction.

Apple fox wrote:
But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.

I don't support pushing people out of a hobby. Pushing them out of your community, sure- that's called gatekeeping and every community needs some degree of gatekeeping... otherwise you get scumbags of various flavors.

Apple fox wrote:
When looking into 40k online it could be that players choose not to bother with GW as the game is not for them after researching, Maybe they think the game is kinda bad like a lot of others, Or just that the community is not something they want to join.

Most people just look at the price point and take a pass on it. The cheapest buy-in is Necromunda, and that'll still cost you near $70.00.

Apple fox wrote:
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

To be quite honest, it's hard for a few individuals here to be an overall negative to the hobby. This hobby can't even keep people working for one of its biggest hype-sites from routinely cheating at tournaments, and IMHO cheating is the one big insufferable sin just under stuff that's actually illegal. If anything, the way people act online is pretty amusing sometimes. I find some extreme reactions to little plastic toy soldiers to be downright hilarious.

You guys can have at it. I said my peace and you responded with platitudes, conspiracies, and manufactured and disingenuous info.

I'll go collect my check from GW while you wallow in your childish views of the world.

 Grimtuff wrote:


Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.

An example of this would be great.

I think, that pointing out flaws in people's arguments and laughing at the wildly inconsistent arguments is being chalked up as white knighting.

I'm just gonna say it and throw this whole thing into a mess.

GW has made a lot of decisions that I think are mind-blowing levels of stupid. And quite a few scummy ones over the years.

Until recently, it seems like using the phrase "feedback from the community" at GW headquarters was akin to telling a dead baby joke at the maternity ward.

However, let's be honest- it's not like a ton of that feedback was mature, thought-out, and polite... I mean, I'm still baffled at the way people shriek about their war toys being no good, and their only feedback is "FIX IT!"... and they wonder why GW just throws a mediocre solution onto a problem.

I mean, I like Reivers and I think they need a boost. Maybe some kind of strength or AP bonus to their combat blades? Or perhaps make that -1 to combat rolls apply on the turn they charge, rather than being tied to the grenade?

See, that's a complaint and a proposed solution. Maybe not the best of either, but it's better than 90% of the shrieking I see about [insert army] any time literally anything 40k is posted online. FFS, they could announce Duncan's wedding and congratulations and you'd still have someone howling about how Aeldari units are terrible and GW hates Xenos players.

But, again on the other hand- I understand complaints. GW spent a long time cranking out a model and having absolutely no contact with the people who played the game and it's a miracle the game lasted this long. When you've just started paying attention to your customers and communicating with them in 2017... there's going to be a significant buildup of negativity and complaints. I'll say the fault there rests on GW.

But also, let's not forget the rule of balance in 40k: My army is underperforming and needs a buff, the one that beat me last time is OP, and the one that I beat all the time is just fine and doesn't need anything.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll go collect my check from GW while you wallow in your childish views of the world.

Admits to being a schill.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll go collect my check from GW while you wallow in your childish views of the world.

Admits to being a schill.

Your grasp on reality is sad, honestly.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.

This is probably the best advice given, for anyone in how to actually enjoy the hobby. Can't stand people enjoying the hobby online? Don't interact with that. Can't stand the barrage of people venting about it? Don't interact with that.

The majority of people online doesn't reflect the majority of people in the real world, and really what matters is who you have around you in the real world. For me, those folks are positive, enjoy the hobby, and I think it's a more productive environment than ones that purely complain. But that's just my opinion.

Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.

Depends what you want to get out of it, but I will absolutely agree that HoR is a very good ruleset.

Apple fox wrote:But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.

See, this is a very strange viewpoint in my opinion.
I don't think anyone's claiming that GW is the sole part of the hobby, but when all the people seem to do it talk about how much they hate GW, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot. If you don't like GW, as you say, there's more to do without them, so why bother thinking about them? I also struggle to see how someone encouraging people to enjoy the game, to think about the positives, and maybe switch up how they think about interacting with the hobby is "promoting pushing people out of the hobby".

On a wider note, if all you can say about something is negative, why would you want to be part of that anyway? That's not a "get out of my town, you negative nancy!", it's a "if you hate so much about it, why are you just exposing yourself to more hatred?" On the same vein, your comment right here does exactly what you accuse the people who promote positivity of - it reeks of "stop being happy about things, get off this forum!"

Again, as you say - for every "wild accusation", the same is true on the other side. You can't really claim that either side is faultless.

Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.

Again, this baffles me. I don't understand how being positive and happy about things is considered negative. What's wrong with being happy? Why can't there be a thread saying "hey, I'm pretty happy about the hobby right now" without it being filled with the same venting and complaints that are rife in the dozens on threads dedicated for those opinions?

What happens if GW manage to somehow appease everyone - they perfectly balance things, they release models that everyone somehow likes, the lore is somehow agreeable to everyone - would it be negative to enjoy that too?

I just fail to see how constant complaining about how GW is the worst ever and 40k is terrible and so on is considered to be more productive than someone saying "hey, I like this, and I think GW are doing well for me right now". That's not to mean that criticism is always negative, and accepting GW's stuff mindlessly is positive, but with how many threads there are complaining about the hobby, don't you think it's just a bit repetitive?

AngryAngel80 wrote:Just as a side note. Planning the models, making the molds and then making the model is hardly a process they do without a plan. I say this because someone requested proof they knew they would invalidate old Tigurius for awhile. Of course GW knew they were replacing him, the model molding process isn't a you wake up in the morning and just do it process. It had to be planned out, set into the schedule, and then acted upon.

The fact they left that model out there knowing they'd make him useless is scummy practice on their end. I mean I get it, they don't want to be stuck with unsold models.

However, you can still use old Tigurius. It's not been made irrelevant, it's not going to be removed or invalidated or made illegal (unless your TO makes it illegal, which is more a fault of the TO than anything else). Yes, obviously they didn't just wheel out the model from thin air, but claiming that they were always going to do this or whatever the comment was just feels so much like a tinfoil hat theory. Yes, it's a shame if you bought him and now he's been updated, but that's been happening for decades with not just GW's kits, but virtually any consumer product. You could buy a new phone, only for the next day the company to announce they're making a brand new model.

Now, I'm not sure here but is the old model still supported rules wise ? As if not, thats pretty poop. If it is, it's just not as good as the Primaris version then I withdraw my complaint.

Yes. There is a datasheet for Tigurius in both the Index/prior Codex (still legal by my eyes), or you could just use the one which happens to have the Primaris keyword. Frankly, I don't care for any difference, and I see no reason why you can't use the most recent datasheet for Tigurius (which happens to have the Primaris keyword) with your old model, much in the same way that I would have no issue with Calgar's old model being used with the newest rules for him, or Abaddon.

The only thing I'd consider implementing as a TO would be trying to make them as close to the new height as possible, but that's a minor concern, and not required by rules.

I get defending GW, but saying they won't use predatory and underhanded practices to sell product, that isn't a hill I'd choose to die on.

Yeah, absolutely, but of all things GW to complain about, them updating a model so it now happens to be taller than the old one isn't exactly massive. You can still use the old model.

I point out, the new small 8th edition codex, no erratas added, no updates, high price tag and they tried to brush it under the rug it was a total waste of your money and outdated on hitting the shelves. Then when it came to lite, they tried to hide all the spin for it of how amazing it was. They are not our friends.

Yeah, agreed, and I'm not excusing that. I'm absolutely not excusing everything, but some things are not like the others.

jeff white wrote:There are tens of threads on this forum in which people "complain" about GW practices.
Invalidating models.
Bending the universe around marketing, rather than the other way around.

How can you prove that this wasn't a case of "yeah, we want to change the setting, now let's do some models for it!"?

I don't believe you were in any meetings?

Laughable 'fluff'. No myth, no polarity! Just, soup...
Not that soup is bad, but. When Dark eldar and Craftworld eldar start sleeping togther,
you know something has gone wrong.

But they've been allying in desperate alliances for decades now. Like, I'm pretty sure that I've read of Eldar/Dark Eldar alliances before Ynnari were a thing. The Imperium, the soupiest faction, has always been described as such in the lore, and they've been known to ally with Eldar and Tau and even Orks where necessary.

There's still plenty of myth - the lost primarchs, the rest of the Tyranids, who created the Tau, who/what is the Emperor, the sealed box the GK own, the void dragon, all of it - it's still there.
You're cool to dislike the new stuff, but claiming that there's "no myth, no polarity, only soup" just isn't accurate.

Pitifully wrong, imho... but this is my opinion.

You can call it negative, but this is the point about all of this,

People like myself care.

And I care too. It's not just people "like yourself" - it's anyone invested in the hobby. However, unlike you, I am happy with them, not because of some kind of monetary incentive or loyalty or simply being a "shill", but because I'm enjoying current 40k more than I was before. That is just as much "care" as yours.

This caring is the most valuable asset GW will ever have.

The most valuable asset they will have is money. Not rage. Not positivity. If we dislike GW's stuff, just don't feed them money.

jeff white wrote:Well, this thread is not exactly receptive to complaints, more of a 'if you have something negative to say then you aren't paying attention and should save your money for a better gaming laptop' or some other deflection.

Just like how most Dakka threads are poorly receptive of positivity, more of a "if you have anything positive to say you're a GW shill and you're making the hobby worse for all of us", or some other retort.

Difference is, there's several dozen complaint threads, and a handful of positive ones.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll go collect my check from GW while you wallow in your childish views of the world.

Admits to being a schill.

I wish I was being paid by GW for liking their stuff. Preferably in Primaris models.

Unfortunately, I'm just a guy with an opinion.

This whole shill thing isn't really a good argument - after all, how do I know that the people saying GW are trash aren't just shills for other companies?

It's almost like people don't need to be paid to have an opinion.