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.

Right - radical opinion time!

For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.

When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.

Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.

Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*

*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.

Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.

Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.

Peace.

ohh I agree, the community by and large is pretty positive, . sometimes people get bummed about rules X but that's useally temporary. There are however a half dozen to a dozen people here who basicly hate everything and won't shut up about it. these people also think they don't need to be polite etc.

 posermcbogus wrote:
Right - radical opinion time!

For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.

Spoiler:

When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.

Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.

Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*

*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.

Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.

Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.

Peace.

 posermcbogus wrote:
Right - radical opinion time!

For all the pearl clutching that's been going on lately on Dakka about how we're all meanie neckbeards with nothing nice to say, I actually believe that not only Dakkadakka, but the 40k community in general IS exceptionally positive.

Spoiler:

When someone paints something - especially a newbie - and posts it, we nearly always pat them on the back. The P&M sections are FULL of this, and it's great. When people want feedback or tips, we mostly scramble to do our darndest to give 'em what they're asking for. There are quite a lot of older members of the community who are really good at handing out their wisdom, rather than sequestering it away and never letting anyone have a piece of the smartypants pie. I think we'd all accept that, even for all the 'thin your paints' memes, actively smack talking someone's paintjob is really really frowned upon. That in and of itself is really something that we seem to have an unspoken rule about, and personally, I think it's something to be proud of. All of you, pat yourselves on the back.
Additionally, when it comes to our local scenes, from what I've seen, people care about fostering good relations with the players they play. I always check out threads about rookie players having a bad time, or dealing with 'TFG-ish' behavior - rarely are the answers about just excluding or cutting the person out, rather people always suggest ways of talking to and explaining the problem to the member of the group who is causing upset, in a way which is kind, not confrontational.

Yeah, people get heated about rules, and new stuff GW puts out. But I think that's broadly because we're so invested in the hobby, not only in a financial way *looks at the horde of unfinished minis and weeps* (oh god, such a financial way), but emotionally, too. People who critique left right and center, are, in my opinion, usually doing so because they really really want GW to be better. You'd be daft to say GW are perfect. They goof all the time. Some people are prepared to forgive this, others, hold GW to a higher standard. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong, but of like the two tribes are clashing more, and it's not hard to see why. A lot of GW's lines have made unusual aesthetic changes, and rulesets they said they would keep simple and unbloated, with a fixation on balance have rapidly wound up bloated and unbalanced. However, they aren't doing everything wrong - they have an ambitious release schedule, their community outreach is at the very least there, and they've been resurrecting old fan favorites.

Not everyone is always going to be perfectly happy. But like, everyone toeing the same exact line? Creepy. Gross. I don't want it. Dissent is the sign of a healthy society.
That's not to say we don't get bonkers threads from time to time (that one guy who thought he could use telepathy to influence his dice rolls, anyone?) at the end of the day, we're all grown men who play with little toy soldiers, I think it's safe to say we weren't the captain of the football team, telling Stacy "sorry babe, can't come over tonight, gotta defend Ultramar", and probably get a bit more out of our prams than is necessary, but I think there's a lot of disingenuous mischaracterization of the-side-you-don't-agree-with being either 'ravening basement troglodyte angry at everything' or 'actual GW employee paid to lie about how great their products are anonymously'*

*I do find it funny to accuse people of working for GW, sue me.

Conversely, let's look at some other hobbies/communities.

Before I was a wargaming nerd, I was a punk rock nerd. While 99% of people in punk are lovely and kind, there are also some insufferable gak heads. Youth Crew kids (when I was a wee lad, I actually like quite a bit of Youth Crew) literally mobbing people from being out of town or liking the wrong band, straight edge and its reputation for violence and hypocrisy (again, for a drinker, I love straight edge to bits, and actually agree with a lot of it) there are a whole host of radical peripheries "Oh, you eat meat? I guess you hate women and minorities and want a nuclear war", "Oh, you support bands from london, get out of here you thatcherite nazi" "I love screwdriver and never learned to read" and other self-righteous silliness, who are not only insufferable, but actively confrontational. Tribalism runs rife, and while there's a lot of positive (that in my eyes outweighs the negative mindset of a minority who embrace the above), there isn't that same positivity we have in this hobby, where certain boundaries are, by some unwritten rule, inviolable.
Similarly, I have a friend out here who is into Japanese Lolita fashion (no real relation to the Nabokov novel), where toxicity is really a mainstay. Fights break out constantly as most people don't really seem to agree on standards (and get really poisonous about what bodytype, race etc should be allowed to wear lolita clothing) leaving individuals to gatekeep to their own standards. Positivity is often thinly-masked bitchiness, people are reluctant to help others and on whole, the community seems exists to the detriment of the hobby.

Peace.

Dude. I love this post to bits.

I'll readily admit that sometimes I get a little heated talking about toy soldiers. But I have to say, this is still one of the most welcoming and generally positive hobbies I've participated in. I play airsoft, and it's incredibly toxic by comparison- there's a lot of animosity between different playstyles that makes Warhammer's casual vs competitive look downright benign. Sometimes players will circumvent the safety limits on their equipment so that they can 'make sure' the other team is acknowledging their hits. I've seen players literally come to blows on the field.

I also do competitive shooting, and while I've never seen a physical altercation (for... obvious reasons), the degree of condescension and vitriol there is huge. There's tribalism over brands, over particular competitive venues, over calibers, over techniques, over what people use. Personally I collect vintage and exotic firearms, and I regularly get negative comments about how impractical or out of date some of it is. Post about looking for affordable equipment on a Facebook group, because we're not all made of money, and you're virtually guaranteed to get a reply along the lines of 'looks like the poors are at it again'.

I personally might not like Space Marines and I might have a lot of issues with 40K as a game system, but I'm never going to talk gak about someone's army or call someone an idiot for liking the game. I have never seen a fight break out over 40K, nor do I see people regularly telling others that their paintjobs suck. When someone is asking about proxy conversions for a model that is prohibitively expensive, I've never seen 'stop being poor' as a response.

Ultimately this is a fairly tame hobby. And I appreciate that.

catbarf wrote:

 oni wrote:
We have the clearest terrain rules we've ever had. Read the rule book! Read CA:2018! Apply the same abstractions we've always needed to for every edition and calm down!

Also, in my experience the people I've met face-to-face who complain about terrain always fall into one or both of the following categories.
1. They never bothered to read the terrain rules in the BRB or CA:2018.
2. They do not own the BRB and do not own CA:2018.

Does CA18's terrain rules change that, per the BRB, a unit standing in a forest gets cover, but a unit completely on the other side of the forest with just a foot exposed can be shot at full effectiveness and receives no benefit from cover? Genuine question, haven't checked in a while, I know Cities of Death adds an obscuring penalty but most people don't play CoD-suitable boards.

Don't forget that the biggest tournament network straight up had to houserule the game's line of sight rules in order to make it playable.

And getting into arguments over whether a vehicle is half obscured or not isn't terribly user-friendly.

I mean, you're not wrong, the rules are clear. They're clear by virtue of being simplistic and inadequate. Better terrain and cover rules are my #1 wishlist for this game.

A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).

Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.

 oni wrote:
[A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).

Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.

My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.

Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.

The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.

Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.

Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.

 catbarf wrote:

 oni wrote:
[A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).

Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.

My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.

Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.

The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.

Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.

Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.

Well said, vomit of feline. This is the problem with GW's casual, imprecise writing style. They need to begin writing rules in the office, not down at Bugman's.........

 catbarf wrote:

 oni wrote:
[A lot of the terrain rules have changed from the BRB to CA:2018, yes. Your specific example regarding Woods however has not. I understand it feel odd, I've had this exact example mentioned to me quite a bit, but the oddities often need to be ignored in order to facilitate good game play. Your definition of 'good game play' may differ, but we have agreed that the terrain rules are clear and clarity means that there will not be any disagreements on how to apply the rules. That counts for a lot in my book. I've been in this hobby for a very long time; terrain and cover has always been a point of contention. At least now, despite ones own opinion, the terrain rules are crystal clear in their application & benefit(s).

Without derailing the topic too much... The ITC (and Nova) did not house-rule LoS per-say; they house-ruled Ruins, but don't get it twisted, this was not done to fix a rule that was poor or broken. The problem is that these formats foster a specific style of play and favor a specific style of army build. The ITC and Nova created a play-ability problem where LoS and terrain became the scapegoat.

My issue is that you say to apply the same abstractions we have every edition, but I don't think that's true at all.

Before TLOS, the abstractions involved in line of sight were baked into the rules, rather than something players have to work out for themselves on the fly. Line of sight goes through an area of woods? Can't see through it. No arguing over whether the target's foot is exposed, no arguing over what parts of the model count for LOS purposes, no arguing over whether a vehicle is 50% obscured or not.

The rules may be clear, in that they are easy to understand, but their application leads to disagreements and arguments. GW tells you that weapons and details like banners don't count for LOS, but then leaves it up to the players to work out exactly what does and doesn't count. They provide simple guidelines like '50% obscured', but there's no easy way to determine that on the fly. IMO it delivers a generally unsatisfying experience that needs to be kludged into working by the players.

Worse, they actively detract from my hobbying experience, because now the actual physical configuration of terrain is paramount. Something as simple as putting a window on a building can render it worthless for the LOS-blocking role I had intended for it, and dynamic posing can render units more vulnerable.

Per the current terrain/LOS rules, my prone and crouching heavy weapons teams can't see anything while behind a chest-high sandbag line intended to provide cover for infantry. Simple? Sure. Fun? Not in the slightest. Improving that experience requires house-ruling and abstraction, and then we're not following those simple, clean, rules-as-written anymore.

This isn't my experience at all. I remember a lot of LOS arguments in old editions, and they faded to practically none (barring TFG) after TLOS rules were introduced. People just shrugged and said 'sure, you can shoot.'

Thank you for this post.

I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

Snowcloak wrote:
Thank you for this post.

I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

People enjoy the hobby in different ways. Some people want the competition even in a casual setting. And sometimes they see players as goofing off when they commit to something more serious.
Its the same with narrative games, if i put in the effort to get set up for a narrative game. And someone turns up with there hello kitty army, they wont be invited again. The player that does not want to be part of the narrative will get the same treatment.
Sometimes its about communication, or attitude being in line for the environment.
As above, you could be perfectly legit in a weird response to your army. Or you could be breaking a rule that is set up to keep the setting in mind for the tournament games they are wanting to promote. They let you play, Rather than tell you outright they do not want to play with you.
Just sorta throwing it out there as thoughts after reading it

I've heard of 40k for a long time and followed it on and off. Never really got too serious into it until recently about 5 months or so ago. I haven't had a proper game going yet as I don't have a full army(I prefer using painted minis personally) but that will be soon hopefully.

So far the community feels good from forums and facebook groups and such. I know there are toxic people now and then, every hobby has them, but on the whole I find the 40k community really nice. People always welcome you and are willing to help you out especially if you are new. The amount of toxicity flowing around the hobby is way less than even an online game like WoW or LoL or DotA.

I am truly looking forward to play some games soon and I'm pretty sure the people will be just as nice IRL at the FLGS as they are around here

well yeah MMOs have a level of toxicity second only to politics.

Snowcloak 781894 10621715 wrote:

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.

what is an "army of darkness" ?

Karol wrote:

Snowcloak 781894 10621715 wrote:

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.

what is an "army of darkness" ?

I have to disagree with the bold part...you can MAKE everything into a competition if you WANT to. But not everything is a competition, at least to a lot of people it isn't. If I'll play a game of W40k with the goal of maximising the fun for me and my mate it becomes a cooperative undergoing. I don't need to "compare" results, etc. to anyone so by nature it is not a competition.

In the same vain I can write a poem strictly out of self-therapy or to impress a loved one, which is no competition either.

That is not how human brains work, we compare stuff to other stuff all the time. When we see someone for the first time we judge them under 1 sec, and we judge people by comparing them to other people we met and seen before.

And as no one wants to come out bad in the eyes fo others, humans are in a competition with other humans no stop, since the day they are born, when as a child they fight for parents attention over other siblings to the day they die.

Karol wrote:
That is not how human brains work, we compare stuff to other stuff all the time. When we see someone for the first time we judge them under 1 sec, and we judge people by comparing them to other people we met and seen before.

And as no one wants to come out bad in the eyes fo others, humans are in a competition with other humans no stop, since the day they are born, when as a child they fight for parents attention over other siblings to the day they die.

Of course we compare ourselves to others, but as thinking, self-reflecting beings we can stop that (at least in certain fields to a certain degree).

EDIT: Also, I can compare events as well, so one game I try to fight against my opponent, the other game I try some cooperative approach to the game and see that it holds more pleasurable results for me and my opponent ("no one wants to come out bad in the eyes of others").

Snowcloak wrote:
Thank you for this post.

I was beginning to think I was the one there was something wrong with. I am that one player in my local klub that takes the hobby the LEAST serious. I have a 5000 point imperial guard army painted as the troops from Spaceballs, the movie… I get a lot of gripe about that, because the army is not "fluff" enough. have even gotten points taken of for painting at tournaments for that, even though I never paint with unpainted models.
I have several armies, both loyalist and... not, and my main goal is for at least two people at the gaming table to have fun. (one on each side). This often means that I get my backside handed to me by two space marine hovertanks and such, but hey, fun is the name of the game. (Or, rather, it should be.)

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

A game of warhammer is not a competition when you play, by your choice. Some of us enjoy competition outside of tournaments.(nice jab at those "awful" tournament players, the gaming "other.") A tight ruleset facilitates all approaches to the game. Maybe I want the army and characters I give backstories to to win a good portion of their games? Maybe I play and enjoy games for their mechanics, not (solely) to play pretend with action figures?

Karol wrote:everything is a competition

Christ no. Not even in the slightest.

even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game.

Sounds like you've never played a narrative game before. Like, seriously? A narrative game is about making a narrative *between* eachother, there isn't a "best narrative", only "A narrative".

Say we have two people, one with guardsmen, one with Chaos. They play a bunch of narrative games, not to win or have the "best narrative", but to let a story develop, to build character and flavour and small sagas of glory for their models. It's not about winning or losing. It's telling a story.

That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc

Nonsense. So you're saying that there's no point in writing a book or doing a piece of art unless you're trying to beat someone else?

Absolutely not.

Those prizes and awards exist, yes, for those people who are rewarded for telling stories that encapsulate the human spirit, for making touching and relevant and important pieces of art, or showcase masterful performances or techniques, but that is a celebration of art. Which is why I think that those who create things just to tick boxes and do things purely to win awards are the complete antithesis of what their art should be. It's not about making "the best poetry" or "the best films", it's about making ones that speak to the human condition, to express a perspective on the world or a message.

But hey, I guess if you're not an Oscar-winning actor, you're just a failure, because you haven't "won" the "competition".

The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol

It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.

The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:everything is a competition

Christ no. Not even in the slightest.

even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game.

Sounds like you've never played a narrative game before. Like, seriously? A narrative game is about making a narrative *between* eachother, there isn't a "best narrative", only "A narrative".

Say we have two people, one with guardsmen, one with Chaos. They play a bunch of narrative games, not to win or have the "best narrative", but to let a story develop, to build character and flavour and small sagas of glory for their models. It's not about winning or losing. It's telling a story.

That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc

Nonsense. So you're saying that there's no point in writing a book or doing a piece of art unless you're trying to beat someone else?

Absolutely not.

Those prizes and awards exist, yes, for those people who are rewarded for telling stories that encapsulate the human spirit, for making touching and relevant and important pieces of art, or showcase masterful performances or techniques, but that is a celebration of art. Which is why I think that those who create things just to tick boxes and do things purely to win awards are the complete antithesis of what their art should be. It's not about making "the best poetry" or "the best films", it's about making ones that speak to the human condition, to express a perspective on the world or a message.

But hey, I guess if you're not an Oscar-winning actor, you're just a failure, because you haven't "won" the "competition".

Absolutely incredible post. If we ever meet IRL the beers are on me.

 Ishagu wrote:
The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol

It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.

The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.

I only have 14-15 years of experience as a 29 year old. If half my life isnt enough then I dont know what.

I have slightly higher expectations on GW than their competitors. If I had 0 experience I would have expected much more due to their size and experience but due to how I kmow they are inept already I have set the bar quite low and yet they fail to reach it after 30+ years. Experience only counts sometimes it seems.

For me the hobby was at its best 5-8 years ago. Mk 2 warmachine if I wanted a good game and 40k if I just wanted to move some marines around at a casual team tournament. Now warmachine is dead around here and 40k rules deadliness makes it super competetive since if you dont bring your A game the game is over turn 1. In older editions you at least felt you had some chance even with a more casual list due to dying slower.

GW produces much more content and if that is the only metrix that counts then it is a golden age but I prefer quality over quantity. GW already has a huge line up, especially for 40k,that we need quality stuff only. They could take it slower and focus on quality but they dont.

 Ishagu wrote:
The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol

It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.

The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.

Please provide data to support your assertion.

Blastaar wrote:
Please provide data to support your assertion.

He's riding a new marine hotness high.

Bias is the other answer.

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The people who complain about the hobby online a small, vocal minority.
It follows the old rule: 5% of customers make 95% of all complaints lol

It's a combination of unrealistic expectations, lack of experience, and in some cases people simply get a kick out of complaining.

The hobby is indeed the best it has ever been, this is a golden age and it's amazing to see how far it has risen.

I only have 14-15 years of experience as a 29 year old. If half my life isnt enough then I dont know what.

I have slightly higher expectations on GW than their competitors. If I had 0 experience I would have expected much more due to their size and experience but due to how I kmow they are inept already I have set the bar quite low and yet they fail to reach it after 30+ years. Experience only counts sometimes it seems.

For me the hobby was at its best 5-8 years ago. Mk 2 warmachine if I wanted a good game and 40k if I just wanted to move some marines around at a casual team tournament. Now warmachine is dead around here and 40k rules deadliness makes it super competetive since if you dont bring your A game the game is over turn 1. In older editions you at least felt you had some chance even with a more casual list due to dying slower.

GW produces much more content and if that is the only metrix that counts then it is a golden age but I prefer quality over quantity. GW already has a huge line up, especially for 40k,that we need quality stuff only. They could take it slower and focus on quality but they dont.

GW produces content at a break neck pace, and it still seems to be rising in price. With boxes less to get players in and buying, but to get as much money as possible. The necromunder box is the second going from a almost certain purchase to a no way am I paying that on price alone. I not sure if I will be playing GW games in the near future on price alone.

Karol wrote:

Snowcloak 781894 10621715 wrote:

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.

what is an "army of darkness" ?

Army of Darkness is a movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Darkness

As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

Snowcloak 781894 10621715 wrote:

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.

what is an "army of darkness" ?

Army of Darkness is a movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Darkness

As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.

You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.

If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

I am most certainly working together with my opponent(s) towards the goal of "let's all have fun playing this game" - it'd be a dick move on my paft were that not the case (terminology aside, that's what Brian's getting at with the sociopath, above). The finer parameters (points, scenario, house rules, narrative, snacks, drinks, composition) are all part of the social exchange that so confounds our more self-focused counterparts.

Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:

Snowcloak 781894 10621715 wrote:

If your army is less power mad than the opponents army, just have fun with it. Are the units in your army useless? Field them ALL!!! They can't shoot all of us! Have fun, even if you dont think you have a chance of winning. Is your imperial guard sergeant about to charge 30 hormagaunts alone? Give him a backstory and start quoting "army of darkness".
Have to paint a lot of night goblins? Paint the ENTIRE army as smurfs!!!

A game of warhammer is not a competition. It is a fun time with a fun hobby and hopefully a pleasant opponent who enjoys the hobby as much as you do. Min maxing units to try to ensure a win is for tournaments, where those players you dont want to face congregate. Leave them to it. Play YOUR game.

everything is a competition, even a narrative game is a competition of who is going to get the best narrative out of the game. That is why there are poetry prizes, nobles for literature, BAFTAs etc
Also the can't shot part, seems true only for armies with 4 pts models. When your basic troop option cost around 40pts, you would be suprised how fast armies nowadays can kill t4 2W models.

what is an "army of darkness" ?

Army of Darkness is a movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Darkness

As for everything being a compeition, that's only true if you're a sociopath. well adjusted sane rational individuals can sit down and work together on things.

Army of Darkness is the 3rd movie in the greatest horror/comedy trilogy in history. It introduced the world to the chainfist. Watch it, its groovy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're not "working together" in a game of 40k anymore than you're working together in a game of Othello or Chess or even Space Hulk.
If you want to work together with people look at games like Mansions of Madness or Arkham Horror (both fantastic for their own reasons but I lean towards Mansions because miniatures).

Sure you are. Just because the win conditions of the game is adversarial doesn't mean players don't or can't work together. Though there is overlap, There is an amount of daylight between players working together and 'cooperative games'. Even the most cut throats tournament players will agree to a basic set of standards and parameters to 'build' a game, even if it's just x points, mission y.

Beyond that, there are those of us (a lot of narrative players, and a hell of a lot of historical playersin my experience) who view aspects of the game like 'game-building' and 'relative-list-building' as more important than things like 'list-building-for-advantage', 'blind' match-ups and the 'competitive-at-all-cost' approach, (which probably differs markedly from how folks like you and Blastaar seem to approach it, not that there is anything wrong with how you see it either...) and also tend to put a lot more emphasis on working together to build interesting games first, then play them and try and feed the other guy his own army.

Personally, I prefer the latter attitude and approach to the game, but like I said, I don't see either approach as specifically 'wrong'.

Blastaar wrote:

Now, this isn't helpful. There is nothing "self-focused" about enjoying a challenging game, where all involved accept that not everyone enjoys the same things they do, or plays a given game for the same reasons.

It's got nothing to do with enjoying a challenging game. Most people enjoy a challenging game (where I will disagree is specifically linking 'playing with/against the best-lists-possible' with being 'challenging games', but let's leave talk of 'relative-list building' to another thread).

It's 'self focused' in the sense that it's you versus the other guy, you want to win at his expense, and you are not going out of your way to help him. It's him versus you, and may the best man win. He makes a mistake, its on him. He builds a bad list, it's on him. Etcetera. Two boxers in a ring. It's on them, no one else. Which is fair. Strictly fair. There is a level of 'honesty' in that approach that I find hard to disagree with or to hold myself against it. It has a certain appeal. That said, i would argue it also has a cost. Too much 'self focus' and too much Competitive-at-the-expense-of-the-other -persons-enjoyment causes damage to a community, if you ask me at least.
Similarly, it's not 'dishonest' or wrong to approach a game differently, where you like to talk it through and 'mutually match it up' rather than blind list-build and focus on list-building-for-advantage, and where you value the enjoyment of the other guy as much as you value a challenging game or wanting to try and beat him.

As you say, not everyone enjoys the same things or plays for the same reasons.