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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

you got it all wrong. When someone criticizes your person instead of discussing your arguments, you should just ignore them completely.

It doesn't work in real life (read Schopenhauer), but it's perfect on the internet.

Labelling someone who only hates something as a hater isn't controversial.

labelling someone anything isn't an opener for a civil discussion.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Well you've proven you're a frothing-at-the-mouth hater, if nothing else.

You can't say a single positive thing about the game.

Can you point out anything positive that isn't totally subjective and thus not really relevant?

The fun you get from a game is indeed subjective. If you aren't having any fun playing a game why are you still playing it, that's my question. And that question has to be asked of all the incessant haters who have nothing positive to say about this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

you got it all wrong. When someone criticizes your person instead of discussing your arguments, you should just ignore them completely.

It doesn't work in real life (read Schopenhauer), but it's perfect on the internet.

Labelling someone who only hates something as a hater isn't controversial.

labelling someone anything isn't an opener for a civil discussion.

Then I suggest you address everyone on this forum who labels me in every single topic. Not hard to find examples.

I think it was a really good move that they removed initiative.

My criticisms are valid. It just so happens the bad outweighs the good. Like how CP is a massive feth up in implementation.

I like that the move stat exists.

I am going to be honest. If people think Warhammer is garbage I highly recommend playing other games. Nothing good comes from hanging around in a community and a game you despise, unless your life goal is to foster bitterness and hate. Life is too short for such meanderings.

Hate ain't going to solve any of your problems, and will probably cause more than not.

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

So you just want an echo chamber.

Not at all. There are many problems with the game that can be discussed productively.

However, if you believe that there is more bad than good, and literally don't have fun playing the game I don't see what you can offer beyond the typical snide hate, sarcasm and negativity. There is nothing positive about the discussions involving this attitude.

It happens in every topic. It's always the same.

I hate Mushrooms. I can offer no productive discussion about a dish that involves Mushrooms because I hate them and thus the dish.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

So you just want an echo chamber.

Not wanting every thread derailed by hyperbolic complaining is not the same as wanting an echo chamber. I don't think anyone on here thinks 8th is a flawless game but constructive discussion about almost anything is very difficult.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

Wouldn't that mean that people that like that like the stuff that is now win? because there is a hell chance people will let others win. And even if they do they will on purpose make it as bitter and bad tasting as possible, out of share spite.

Then I suggest you address everyone on this forum who labels me in every single topic. Not hard to find examples.

Lol.

 Ishagu wrote:


I hate Mushrooms.

Reported for blatant racism. You should know better than to pull out this kind of bigoted crap on a forum dedicated to orks. Take your slurs to Bolter and Chainsword.

If you don't want discussion to be derailed by negativity, find the things that are useful to discuss and respond to them, or propose your own ideas for what might be changed based on what we know so far. If you really find people to be unrelentless haters, the ignore functionality is right there and voila, they no longer clog up your view of the thread.

Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Let's be honest, there are a lot of bad faith arguments made from both sides and at the end of the day GW will never make a system that caters to 100% of all players.

I honestly appreciate that we have systems with different mechanics set in the same universe as it gives players of all stripes ways of engaging with the setting in manners that best suit their tastes.

And honestly I don't think homogenizing the games one way or another is the correct approach as it shuts out one group or the other.

I also don't think AA fixes all the issues, or even most of the issues. I think it just trades one set of issues for another. We'll have to see if GW's other fixes help make early game less lethal (they should because obscuring terrain means blocking LoS is easier on tables now) and how that works before we can point fingers at the game and call it "dead on arrival".

And I still standby that engagement is what you make of it during a game. Any game. If you only feel engaged when you're rolling dice, then I don't think the game is at fault, but rather your expectations are. 40k has always been about the social experiance to me. Chatting with my opponent, thinking about my next moves, helping them with rules, getting their input on anything I'm not sure of, and so on. It's a back and forth as two players work together to have a good time, rather than just mug at each other while rolling dice.

I mean if you prefer mugging cool, but saying you have "nothing" to do for 30 minutes? Unless they're moving 100 Ork Boys (or 200 Grots) and insist on measuring them all out to be 1" apart like it's 5th edition, I don't think you should have to wait that long to need to roll dice, much less be involved in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Well put.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Let's be honest, there are a lot of bad faith arguments made from both sides and at the end of the day GW will never make a system that caters to 100% of all players.

I honestly appreciate that we have systems with different mechanics set in the same universe as it gives players of all stripes ways of engaging with the setting in manners that best suit their tastes.

And honestly I don't think homogenizing the games one way or another is the correct approach as it shuts out one group or the other.

I also don't think AA fixes all the issues, or even most of the issues. I think it just trades one set of issues for another. We'll have to see if GW's other fixes help make early game less lethal (they should because obscuring terrain means blocking LoS is easier on tables now) and how that works before we can point fingers at the game and call it "dead on arrival".

And I still standby that engagement is what you make of it during a game. Any game. If you only feel engaged when you're rolling dice, then I don't think the game is at fault, but rather your expectations are. 40k has always been about the social experiance to me. Chatting with my opponent, thinking about my next moves, helping them with rules, getting their input on anything I'm not sure of, and so on. It's a back and forth as two players work together to have a good time, rather than just mug at each other while rolling dice.

I mean if you prefer mugging cool, but saying you have "nothing" to do for 30 minutes? Unless they're moving 100 Ork Boys (or 200 Grots) and insist on measuring them all out to be 1" apart like it's 5th edition, I don't think you should have to wait that long to need to roll dice, much less be involved in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Well put.

The thing that's wildest to me is that there's plenty of space there available for GW to put more interactions in place on the opposing player's turn that just haven't been discussed yet. People here are saying Kill Team is an alternating activation game while 8th is IGOUGO - why? Kill Team has AA in exactly 1 more phase than 8th, the shooting phase. The fight phase in 8th is *technically* already AA, it just has the exact same loophole that Kill Team has baked into its shooting - charging units always go first in 8th, Readied units go first in KT. Long range gunlines in KT still generally go all at once, before non-gunline teams activate. Anyone who's played vs a skitarii ranger team or a Tau pathfinder team or an intercessors team knows this.

I will definitely say that the time that it takes to resolve an action in 40k didn't bother me until I played Apoc, and it became pretty clear to me that a shooting sequence of

Roll
Maybe re-roll
Now roll again
Now maybe re-roll again
Opponent rolls
then I roll
then my opponent picks models to remove

Now I do the same thing to resolve the next weapon

And a close combat sequence of

Select targets
Opponent does that whole shooting sequence above
Now I roll
Move models
Move models again
Whole shooting sequence above but with melee weapons
Move models again
Now opponent does the whole shooting sequence above but with melee weapons

....all that means I am spending A LOT of my time playing 8th just resolving the effects of stuff I've decided to do. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly games I've played where that sequence was much longer - I play some beardy-ass historicals sometimes, after all - but I won't pretend it's not something I think could be majorly streamlined. And I've played enough 40k at this point that I've got this ruleset DOWN, and I can resolve it pretty darn fast while telling my opponent what I'm doing. and still, I resolve a whole detachment's actions in apoc faster than a single unit's in 40k, and it ultimately makes it feel like I'm spending more times making tactical decisions than I am just trying to figure out how to resolve decisions I've already made.

Ultimately, I think full AA would not be as good in 40k as some people think. I definitely think there is design space for there to be more interactive decision making on your opponent's turn, but I don't think you have to scrap the turn structure for that to be a thing.

-More reactive actions besides automatic Overwatch shooting attacks in response to charge declarations
-More reactive terrain system allowing you to gain more extensive cover benefits by taking reactions to your opponent's moves
-Reactions during the movement phase (e.g to fall back, deep strike/reserves, or advance moves)

I feel like some of the stratagems exist to try and add more into player turns than existed in the past, but that is a fair point about the streamlining. I wouldn't even be against a Warcry like system where they change toughness and armour values into a single stat you roll to wound against and then damage is handled if it's beaten.

Some streamlining (like the Warcry mechanic) results in a massive invalidation of the current system though, and GW probably doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater to make those happen.

Putting AA into the shooting phase could be good, though I could see some armies (Tau, Guard) always just readying and basically turning it into a massive fish shooting competition as their entire army shoots first all the time anyways, but I'm at least not against the concept.

Honestly I think some of the reason GW keeps 40k IGOUGO or more interactive is the social aspect and I don't mean with those people just playing the game but also with the people around them. When we play there's usually a couple of people or other players watching the game or waiting on their own turn to chat to about the game and I think GW leaves the systems the way they are to encourage that.

I'd honestly love more out-of-order effects like reactive movement but it requires more concentration and focussing your attention on whats happening on the board. While I enjoy Warmachine for the strategy and tenseness of close games I like 40k for the craic because you can have a laugh about whats going on on the board during the downtime since during a majority of your opponents turn you roll some saves, remove some casualties and have a chat with a friend and don't need to be constantly observing the board state.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm often lambasted for saying this, but IGOUGO is unlikely to be removed from 40K for a number of reasons, but the primary reason is the following:

Non-IGOUGO will almost invariably lead to a longer game...
A longer game leads to smaller forces to reduce said game length...
Smaller forces means less models...
Less models means less sales...
Less sales means less moneys...

GW's rules for 40K have never been amazing, even in editions I really like (2nd edition), the rules are more or less...mediocre. There are cool rules, funny rules, but very rarely clever or elegant or well thought out rules. GW has one main goal; sales, mainly of models. This means the rules don't have to be amazing, they simply have to be "good enough". If they were new to the market, they'd have to put more work into it, because it would be received as a mess and wouldn't gain market traction. Right now, GW has a massively captive audience. At this point rules need to simply be good enough to play, and rules need to lean heavily into selling new models/books/units, vs. maintaining a balanced game, etc.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's simple business practice. It's not one I fault GW for. GW has been streamlining and simplifying the game over the past 20-25 years. The size of games and the model count has grown which in turn generates more sales.

Expecting GW to pursue more modern or "better" rules for the game is kind of a lost cause. If it doesn't generate more sales, it's not being done.

Having said that, when I was playing 8th edition, I played Tokenhammer almost exclusively. Super easy to convert over, and far more interesting/better. However, it does lengthen the games, though you get far more use out of your 1250 or 1500 point games.

Have you tried using AA in a game of 40k? I have and the game was marginally shorter when we were not used to the new format. On our second game, the game actually shorter than the games we usually have. AA doesn't add any actions, youre still doing the same number of actions per round.

Apparently needing to actually think about how to counter the opponent is too long a process, who needs a tactical game right?

 Ishagu wrote:

The fun you get from a game is indeed subjective. If you aren't having any fun playing a game why are you still playing it, that's my question. And that question has to be asked of all the incessant haters who have nothing positive to say about this game.

Even if you have fun you're allowed to complain about aspects of the game you think are weak without being labelled a hater.
I love 40k even with all its mistakes, i'm still going to complain about these mistakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Then I suggest you address everyone on this forum who labels me in every single topic. Not hard to find examples.

You're a self-labeled "somewhat arrogant" person, arrogance rubs people the wrong way. Notice the common point between you labelling people and people labelling you?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Most of the posters in 40k General play no more than half a dozen games of 40k a year and they don't understand half the rules when they do play. 90% of threads in the subforum are just the same 10-15 people replying to each other making basically the same arguments for months at a time, pretty much just acting out whatever particular obsession they have about 40k. It's really not worth worrying about.

Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

Complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Eldarsif wrote:I am going to be honest. If people think Warhammer is garbage I highly recommend playing other games. Nothing good comes from hanging around in a community and a game you despise, unless your life goal is to foster bitterness and hate. Life is too short for such meanderings.

Hate ain't going to solve any of your problems, and will probably cause more than not.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Ishagu wrote:Not at all. There are many problems with the game that can be discussed productively.

However, if you believe that there is more bad than good, and literally don't have fun playing the game I don't see what you can offer beyond the typical snide hate, sarcasm and negativity. There is nothing positive about the discussions involving this attitude.
.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

If you find negativity "boring" why are you reading/posting in a topic entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)"? If you believe that the good outweighs the bad then simply walk away.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Thats not the common consensus right now. it was OP's opinion but has now devolved into a "8th is perfect, don't critizise it, hater" and "we can't pass judgment on 9th until we see the rules" and "Ishagu is god".

I agree that we can't pass judgment on 9th just yet, but OP is free to voice his disapointment in the lack of AA.

 Corrode wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Most of the posters in 40k General play no more than half a dozen games of 40k a year and they don't understand half the rules when they do play. 90% of threads in the subforum are just the same 10-15 people replying to each other making basically the same arguments for months at a time, pretty much just acting out whatever particular obsession they have about 40k. It's really not worth worrying about.

Some of us would have played vastly more games of 40k this year, if we haven't had nearly 1/4 of that year now taken up with a lockdown on non-essential businesses.

Complaining that people taking to the internet don't play enough in-person 40k when we're in the middle of a global pandemic...

in fact, the people with the biggest, most intractable disagreements on this forum are often the people who play incredibly regularly in such vastly different environments that they seem made up to others. I noted a little while ago that my 50+ person gaming group completely skipped the whole entire Castellan competitive meta simply because none of us could be arsed to spend whatever 200$ or so on a big piece of plastic and Karol simply didn't believe me. I still have never played against a Castellan in a game, despite their being two guys who play full knight armies in my group and many more people who often bring allied knights.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Corrode wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Most of the posters in 40k General play no more than half a dozen games of 40k a year and they don't understand half the rules when they do play. 90% of threads in the subforum are just the same 10-15 people replying to each other making basically the same arguments for months at a time, pretty much just acting out whatever particular obsession they have about 40k. It's really not worth worrying about.

Some of us would have played vastly more games of 40k this year, if we haven't had nearly 1/4 of that year now taken up with a lockdown on non-essential businesses.

Complaining that people taking to the internet don't play enough in-person 40k when we're in the middle of a global pandemic...

Yeah, before the pandemic i was playing 3 games per week on average. remember people, 87.5% of online statistics are made up!

 Corrode wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Trouble is, here we are, in this thread, with people utterly determined to dunk on 9th Ed, when we have the merest crumbs of solid info on it.

Suspect nobody here was in on the play testing.

None of have read let alone tried the new rules.

Yet? Apparently it’s dead on arrival because of its choice of turn system, when there’s not exactly been a wider community push for them to adopt Alternative Activation.

Most of the posters in 40k General play no more than half a dozen games of 40k a year and they don't understand half the rules when they do play. 90% of threads in the subforum are just the same 10-15 people replying to each other making basically the same arguments for months at a time, pretty much just acting out whatever particular obsession they have about 40k. It's really not worth worrying about.

Hey, be fair. Some of the same 10-15 people are here to poke holes in other peoples' obsessions.

Karol wrote:and are given such great arguments presented, as . You play in a tournament setting against evil people, in an evil place there for you should stop playing tournaments.

I mean, it's not wrong. Your particular environment (not necessarily you) is incredibly harsh. I wouldn't be caught dead there.

Lance845 wrote:I got it!

We can discuss the games failings so long as you do so in the form of a compliment sandwich to appease the cultists.

8th edition is the best edition so far.

But it still sucks big time as a result of many issues including bloat of rules, wargear, poor rules writing, too many books, a boring turn structure, etc...

But man those new models look sweet!

Is that better?

Calling people who enjoy the game "cultists" isn't a good start.
I appreciate the compliment sandwich, but if you avoid lacing it with drippings of condescension, that would be nice too.

Siegfriedfr wrote:labelling someone anything isn't an opener for a civil discussion.

Quite so - things such as "cultist", "white knight" and "cheerleader", for instance.

the_scotsman wrote:If you don't want discussion to be derailed by negativity, find the things that are useful to discuss and respond to them, or propose your own ideas for what might be changed based on what we know so far. If you really find people to be unrelentless haters, the ignore functionality is right there and voila, they no longer clog up your view of the thread.

There's a difference between negativity and criticism that eludes many people, in the same way there's a difference blind positivity and enjoyment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

Complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Eldarsif wrote:I am going to be honest. If people think Warhammer is garbage I highly recommend playing other games. Nothing good comes from hanging around in a community and a game you despise, unless your life goal is to foster bitterness and hate. Life is too short for such meanderings.

Hate ain't going to solve any of your problems, and will probably cause more than not.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Ishagu wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying. If you believe that the bad outweighs the good then simply walk away. Come back in a few years or don't. You contribute only negativity and frankly it's boring. It's in every topic and damages every discussion.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

Ishagu wrote:Not at all. There are many problems with the game that can be discussed productively.

However, if you believe that there is more bad than good, and literally don't have fun playing the game I don't see what you can offer beyond the typical snide hate, sarcasm and negativity. There is nothing positive about the discussions involving this attitude.
.

again, complaining doesn't mean we believe the bad outweighs the good.

If all someone does is complain, you can forgive people for thinking that they definitely *do* think the bad outweighs the good.

Don't think the bad outweighs the good? Fine - where are all the threads saying "hey, I like this feature"?

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:If you find negativity "boring" why are you reading/posting in a topic entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)"?

My question is why should a thread so blatantly weighted against constructive discussion have been allowed to stay open?

VladimirHerzog wrote:Thats not the common consensus right now. it was OP's opinion but has now devolved into a "8th is perfect, don't critizise it, hater" and "we can't pass judgment on 9th until we see the rules" and "Ishagu is god".

Yeah, no-one's saying that.

But hey, if you want to misrepresent people's arguments: "this is thread is all now people calling for death threats on people who enjoy 40k!!!"

If you want people to take you seriously, don't blatantly misrepresent people's arguments. No-one's saying 8th was "perfect". They're saying they enjoyed it. Even Ishagu has pointed out things they disliked, or would have improved upon. No-one's saying "don't criticise". They're saying "if ALL you can do is criticise, what's the point in staying?"

Prove me wrong - where are the threads by people who commonly criticise 40k saying how much they like XYZ feature?

I agree that we can't pass judgment on 9th just yet, but OP is free to voice his disapointment in the lack of AA.

In a constructive manner. They failed to do so. Instead, we got hyperbole, apoplectic rage, and exaggeration in bucketloads. This is a *discussion* forum, not a venting forum.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If all someone does is complain, you can forgive people for thinking that they definitely *do* think the bad outweighs the good.

Don't think the bad outweighs the good? Fine - where are all the threads saying "hey, I like this feature"?

I mean, that's human nature. We focus more on the negatives than the positives. Not liking something is a much stronger feeling than liking something, especially when it concerns something you're highly invested in (like 40k) so people are gonna vent their dislikes more than praise their likes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:Thats not the common consensus right now. it was OP's opinion but has now devolved into a "8th is perfect, don't critizise it, hater" and "we can't pass judgment on 9th until we see the rules" and "Ishagu is god".

Yeah, no-one's saying that.

But hey, if you want to misrepresent people's arguments: "this is thread is all now people calling for death threats on people who enjoy 40k!!!"

If you want people to take you seriously, don't blatantly misrepresent people's arguments. No-one's saying 8th was "perfect". They're saying they enjoyed it. Even Ishagu has pointed out things they disliked, or would have improved upon. No-one's saying "don't criticise". They're saying "if ALL you can do is criticise, what's the point in staying?"

Prove me wrong - where are the threads by people who commonly criticise 40k saying how much they like XYZ feature?

I was exaggerating my examples. And again, criticizing is human nature, which is why you see more posts that are complaints.

I agree that we can't pass judgment on 9th just yet, but OP is free to voice his disapointment in the lack of AA.

In a constructive manner. They failed to do so. Instead, we got hyperbole, apoplectic rage, and exaggeration in bucketloads. This is a *discussion* forum, not a venting forum.

The "hey this is a neat feature" thing are in the forums where they actually exist - painting and modeling and 40k background (though the latter sometimes has upheavals).

There aren't too many "neat features" to be put into 40k general, because the game doesn't have that many - certainly not many that aren't immediately burdened by junk.

Examples:
Sure, it's a neat feature that you can build any army you want in any playstyle you want - except oops, not really, no.
It's a neat feature to use command points, but some armies (daemons) have crap stratagems while others (space Marines ) have several codexes worth, so it's only neat for some people sometimes.
Daemonic Summoning is a neat and fluffy feature, but isn't actually of any utility in Matched Play, and Matched Play is the only way many people play.
The divergence between Narrative and Matched is cool in GW's rules writing, but even GW recognizes that this divergence just means everyone defaults to Matched and that's why they're doing a narrative shakeup in 9th, which I am optimistic for and excited over.

Sounds like you're one of the people who should quit the game.

You're clearly not enjoying it. Don't be a prisoner to something you don't like.