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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I distinctly remember when GW started doing the single-frame plastic characters (original plastic Banshee, Chaos Sorcerer, Tzeentch Sorcerer, Necromancer, etc.).

I was a massive proponent of those releases, even though, at the time, I didn't play Warhammer Fanatsy and thus had no use for these models. I bought them anyway, because I wanted to support such a venture (and I found ways to slot them into other games, especially the 40K RPGs and Old Skool Warhammer Quest). I felt this change was a huge step forward for GW (especially after the absolute debacle that was FineCost), as we could get plastic characters to replace metal/resin ones, especially great for things that didn't really have options but would be better in plastic.

Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.

If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.

It's like they have to take every good idea they have and corrupt it into something worse...

It's rather sad that finecast can be considered both, their best and worst models to date.

You have more than a few options for them to be run, but they could pop out with some of the worst deformations imaginable.

Even now, it's rather difficult to get options for most characters, or even just standard units. Without looking through several boxes of bits and don't get me wrong. That makes some of the fun all it's own. Because who wouldn't want to dig through a metric ton of spare parts and find something like 19 chem dog heads.

But this issue with purchasing a model that already cost more than a standard 5 man squad and it doesn't even come with an optional helmet...(I'm looking at you Voldus). Hell, at least papa smurf got his own option for a helmet, but primarchs get more than enough love as it is anyway. At least when they finally get released that is.

kirotheavenger wrote:I've asked people why they're not interested in trying another game.
"I don't like the rules" is rarely the reason given.
It's normally "I like the theme/models of 40k". This includes when I'm asking about something like 40k which uses exactly the same models, but whatever.

And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.

Another common one is that not enough people play <insert game here> compared to 40k.
Or that they don't want to invest any money in the system. (But they won't play with my collection either).

Because the other game system isn't *enough* to persuade them.

I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?

So I think you're objectively wrong that quality of game and player base are directly correlated.

Disagree, nor is that even what my point is.

It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.

If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.

I have zero interest in other games due to the fact that they;
A - don't pull me in. I tried battletech back in the day but the lore didn't do anything for me, so I can't get invested in my mechs, ergo the game has nothing to offer me. Even tho I thought the game was OK.
B - miniatures suck. Had someone demo a game of Malifeaux, the game was ok but models & lore didn't do anything for me.
C - rules. I don't care how "balanced" a game is, if A&B suck.

I like 40k for the Lore, Minis, etc. Absolutely no consideration is given to rules or what's good/bad. If I like a model, I'll buy it and use it. if I don't, no skin off my back.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.

You have a point that these other games don't offer enough better than 40k to overcome people's loyalty.
But that doesn't mean that that loyalty isn't there. In fact the point that I and others are making is exactly that this loyalty exists.
Plus, the idea that a game needs to be good enough to overcome people's biases for 40k, rather than just being better than 40k, shows that there is not a precise relationship between quality of game and number of players. 40k got it's foot in the door and has by the far the most players - this gives it a massive leg up over competitors.
Throw in a large amount of sunk-cost and players are extremely reluctant to even entertain the idea that the grass they're standing on is anything but neon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I distinctly remember when GW started doing the single-frame plastic characters (original plastic Banshee, Chaos Sorcerer, Tzeentch Sorcerer, Necromancer, etc.).

I was a massive proponent of those releases, even though, at the time, I didn't play Warhammer Fanatsy and thus had no use for these models. I bought them anyway, because I wanted to support such a venture (and I found ways to slot them into other games, especially the 40K RPGs and Old Skool Warhammer Quest). I felt this change was a huge step forward for GW (especially after the absolute debacle that was FineCost), as we could get plastic characters to replace metal/resin ones, especially great for things that didn't really have options but would be better in plastic.

Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.

If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.

It's like they have to take every good idea they have and corrupt it into something worse...

I remember those days ! I was super thrilled. I played/play Vampire counts so those plastic characters were amazing ! For both cost and working with. I was actually excited to see them coming out and picked them up for VC, the Necromancer, and Wight King I picked up. Not sure if I did for Banshee but I had an old version of that still in metal.

Unrelated but the plastic black knights were ace and cheapish. Back when GW released things I was happy to see and didn't make me say " Oh ,my god they cost what now ?!?! "

I'm mostly drawn to the IP. If you want to try out a different ruleset that is compatible with our 40k models, let's have a game.

Modelwise though, I haven't seen a game yet that makes me want to collect it, with one exception.

Dropzone Commander / Dropfleet Commander.
Once I finished my current 40k project, I'll look into them.

Drop zone stuff does look cool, reminds me of a table top command and conquer which I like the idea of.

GW games have an extra "inertia" factor that other games need to overcome in order to become more popular and I think at this point that inertia is so high it's unlikely anything will topple 40k in the foreseeable future. If all else was equal (quality of models, quality of rules, etc) that extra inertia would still mean GW games would come out on top.

The closest we've seen to 40k being unseated from its position at the top was a few years ago with X-Wing. In that case I think the reasonable price point of the models combined with a popular and recognisable IP was almost enough to overcome the inertia. Eventually the rising prices of X-Wing and GW actually bothering to do some social media marketing were enough to knock X-Wing way back down in popularity which just goes to show the power of GW's market position.

One interesting factor I've noticed among X-Wing players is there are a very large number who have never played another wargame and had no exposure to wargames prior to playing X-Wing. I think if anyone's going to compete with GW that might be the way to approach it. Trying to cannibalise 40k's players seems doomed to failure (see the fate of WM/H) but creating your own inertia from outside that established ecosystem would be one way to disrupt the current status quo.

X-Wing had a huge advantage compared to other games though: there are millions of Star Wars fans around the world, and they are among the most loyal fans. In fact everyone complaines about the recent movies being crap and yet they all go see them. Like 40k, most of those who criticize it are still around the game.

It's a priviledge that very few brands can get, especially about wargaming.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
It is kind of a hard to make an army without them, when GW writes the rules in a such a way that the whole army rule set revolves around characters, their auras and buffs.

Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.

Actually there is one army, that has a relatively well working option to be built out of 1 singular box.

2 boxs.

one box, as in one box type, as in tyranid warriors.

Spoletta has said it - but certainly for me X-Wing and Warmahordes (and Malifaux/Infinity) blew up in the 2012-2016ish era, where GW's main games all seemed to have massive problems and people wanted something new. GW's models were also seemingly not much better than the competition. The nadir was obviously the death of WHFB and AOS's launch.

But 8th's release massively reinvigorated 40k, AoS 2.0 made AoS a game worth playing, and GW's models are now very good.

Moreover games like X-Wing and Warmahordes struggled for similar reasons to 40k. If you are going to be a game system, rather than selling something like Monopoly (the game), you have to keep coming up with new things. Which means you run into codex creep and bloat. Star Wars is undoubtedly *massive* - but once you've run through the big names, you are sort of scraping the barrel for new things to keep people interested. Warmahodes went down a similar road and then the third edition alienated a lot of people.

According to their accounts GW are now selling about 2.5-3 times as much as they did in 2015. Some of that is explained by price rises - but but either they've managed to brainwash twice as many people over the last 5 years, or they've made games more people want to play.

Not Online!!! 795402 11033256 wrote:

one box, as in one box type, as in tyranid warriors.

Ah, I don't think there are many tyranid armies build without Tyrants or a Swarmy and the exosomethingsomething. GK on the other hand, GK master, capting ,librarian, ancient, apothecary even Voldus, easily made with the termintor box. Termintors and Paladins out of single box, and then strikes, interceptors, purifires and purgators, Crow etc out of the power armour box.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

You have a point that these other games don't offer enough better than 40k to overcome people's loyalty.
But that doesn't mean that that loyalty isn't there. In fact the point that I and others are making is exactly that this loyalty exists.
Plus, the idea that a game needs to be good enough to overcome people's biases for 40k, rather than just being better than 40k, shows that there is not a precise relationship between quality of game and number of players. 40k got it's foot in the door and has by the far the most players - this gives it a massive leg up over competitors.
Throw in a large amount of sunk-cost and players are extremely reluctant to even entertain the idea that the grass they're standing on is anything but neon.

Could it be you are simply not seeing the other communities?

Back in uni, I played a lot of 4th Ed 40k. Our group was almost exclusively 40k and some fantasy. During one if those years I was introduced to warmachine (black and white rulebook era) and immediately fell in love with it. Problrm was no one played.i went for years without ever knowing a community bar one in Dublin.

And low and behold a few years pass (around the launch of mk2) and through a lovely girl I met who became a very dear friend, I came across some of her pals and acquaintances who were die hard warmachine players. Turns out they'd been playing for years, since the era of the black and white rulebook.

Simply put the two communities were oil and water and never mixed. But it taught me a valuable lesson. Other players who play other games and who got into the game through other avenues exist and there's more of them than you think. Staying in the microcosm of your own known community ends up making folks myopic, without them realising.

The players exist is the tl;dr. It might take legwork but they can be found.

Deadnight wrote:


The players exist is the tl;dr. It might take legwork but they can be found.

Not always, people mileage may vary.

Before covid I asked many 40k players I know if they were interested in Necromunda as I'd really like to play it. Despite access to free rules and accessories (I provide them all) and just one kit of 10 dudes to buy (cheaper than any of the recent infantry GW boxes), assemble and paint to be ready to play no one so far has been convinced to give the game a chance. The only way I managed to convince some of my friends to give the game is a try is that I buy all the miniatures, other than accessories, rules, board and terrain (which I already have) and they come to play at my place. That was a few months ago, then it became impossible to play aything.

I can't imagine pushing for a different game that requires a much more significant investment in terms of money and time (to learn the rules and get all the models/accessories).

 harlokin wrote:
I engage in the 40K hobby entirely for the fluff/setting. I paint the minis, play the wargame and the RPGs, read the BL books, and I used to collect the old boardgames. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other wargames because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.

When WFB was discontinued, I didn't care for the AoS 'setting', and I haven't replaced that hobby time with another wargame.

So why don't you play something like Grimdark Future with your 40k models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
It has nothing to do with good or bad, and everything with monopol or close to monopol on players. There can, and probably are, better games then w40k. And they are cheaper, and the quality of models can be good too. It doesn't matter, if there is no one to play the game with. It is like apple products and the US, or specific types of sport in different countries. Ski jumping is popular here, there club, trainers, sponsorships, schools that teach you etc if the same person would decide that they would rather enjoy a life career as a currling team members, then good luck to their parents or spouse supporting them all their life financialy.

But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.

Karol wrote:
There is no dethroning of GW, other then the hobby ending up dead.

This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.

Mmmm, I think for a lot of people whose highest aspiration in life is to be passive consumers, 40k is going to be more attractive just because more people play it. On Facebook groups people just post a stack of boxes of GW product they've bought with a "look at my haul" or "look what I did," looking for that chemical rush of people approving of your consumption.

So it's not a matter of anything GW is doing - it's about how the community reacts to them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?

I mean, yes, I can. Because it shows they're just passive consumers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.

If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.

You're still saying that, you're just expanding the idea of what "objectively bad" means to things beyond gameplay and model quality.

People are not rational actors when they consume products.

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.

Mmmm, I think for a lot of people whose highest aspiration in life is to be passive consumers, 40k is going to be more attractive just because more people play it. On Facebook groups people just post a stack of boxes of GW product they've bought with a "look at my haul" or "look what I did," looking for that chemical rush of people approving of your consumption.

So it's not a matter of anything GW is doing - it's about how the community reacts to them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?

I mean, yes, I can. Because it shows they're just passive consumers.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.

If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.

You're still saying that, you're just expanding the idea of what "objectively bad" means to things beyond gameplay and model quality.

People are not rational actors when they consume products.

Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.

It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?

Hecaton wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I engage in the 40K hobby entirely for the fluff/setting. I paint the minis, play the wargame and the RPGs, read the BL books, and I used to collect the old boardgames. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other wargames because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.

When WFB was discontinued, I didn't care for the AoS 'setting', and I haven't replaced that hobby time with another wargame.

So why don't you play something like Grimdark Future with your 40k models?

I am currently reasonably satisfied with 40K, and if I weren't, I would stop playing altogether; I have no interest in homebrew.

 harlokin wrote:
I am currently reasonably satisfied with 40K, and if I weren't, I would stop playing altogether; I have no interest in homebrew.

So it seems there's an inherent value to you in playing the 40k wargame itself, even if the rules and/or balance are trash.

Hecaton wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I am currently reasonably satisfied with 40K, and if I weren't, I would stop playing altogether; I have no interest in homebrew.

So it seems there's an inherent value to you in playing the 40k wargame itself, even if the rules and/or balance are trash.

I read that as more of a "Well, I've got the models...."

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.

It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?

Hecaton,

Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?

I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.

It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?

I'm in the lucky position to have a gaming club in my town with over 100 members and people are playing everything under the sun.

From Magic to Yu Gi Oh, AoS, 40k, Kill Team, Frostgrave, some skirmisher where a wizard leads a mercenary band, some historical Japanese skirmisher, X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault / Legion, Infinity, lots of different board, card and Pen&Paper games. I would say those people are very open to trying out new games. Most of them are aged 30-40+, so have enough disposable income to buy into stuff if they are interested.

Nobody is playing a sci-fi game with a similar scale / amount of units on the table as 40k, even those who are unhappy with 8th / 9th edition and don't participate currently. Legion is probably the one that comes the closest.

It feels like there is no game out there that tickles the same spot as 40k does. Just my local observation.

Hecaton 795402 11033836 wrote:


But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.



This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.

The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one

As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models. And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.

Karol wrote:
The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one

Except you can play different games with the same set of models...

If you don't have friends that's uniquely weird. This is a social hobby.

Karol wrote:
As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models. And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.

GW is not the *hobby*. There are other wargames, is my point. There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

I read that as more of a "Well, I've got the models...."

Except you could play other games with the same models (Grimdark future, etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?

I mean if they're poor critical thinkers, sure. Some of the minis are pretty cool, and even if there's some I don't personally like, other people can subjectively like them. But the rules are pretty objectively bad, and there's other rulesets to use *with the same models*.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).

The difference in the amount of fun I have playing something like Infinity or ASOIAF compared to 40k is immense, and there's a number of objective reasons why that's the case. If someone actively wants the game to be a matter of listbuilding rock/paper/scissors, then they might like 40k, but their opinion is pretty suspect.

a_typical_hero wrote:


It feels like there is no game out there that tickles the same spot as 40k does. Just my local observation.

40k tickles multiple spots. I mean the sheer variety of factions means that it is more likely to tickle a particular spot. Mine is Tyranids, if any other game wants to compete against 40k, it would need to have a Tyranid equivalent that tickles the same thematic spots.

And for other people that spot may be the Space Marines, or the Orks, or the Eldar, or the Necrons, or etc. But this isn't something that can be done overnight, it took decades for 40k to grow to this point.

To this you add the other advantages like having a large dedicated community, having the mass production capability, having the corporate experience. It is an insurmountable advantage.

GW is not the *hobby*. There are other wargames, is my point. There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.

No on is going to invest their own money in to a game 2-3 other people will play, because any problem with those people would mean you just invested money in to models you can't use anymore. With w40k this problems is a lot smaller, that is why people start w40k. It doesn't matter how good, cheaper or more fun other games are. I have no idea what *hobby* means. And there actualy are rules for spread of market share, smart people got nobels prizes in economic fields writing about it. So there will always be a GW.

Karol wrote:

Hecaton 795402 11033836 wrote:


But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.



This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.

The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one

Concerning friends: You gotta try. And keep trying. Those you go to school with. At your local shop. Should you go off to University. Take jobs & move to new towns/cities. At different shops. And sometimes you just have to cut ties with one group & find new friends.

Concerning getting other games going: You don't make others play.

Karol wrote:
As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models.

Again, you misunderstand. The HOBBY Hecaton speaks of is miniature wargaming. GW, although very large, is just one company involved in making games in that hobby.

Karol wrote:
And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.

House-rules generally come into play once you're playing with a consistent group. They're generally "enforced" by group consensus.
Sometimes if you organize a campaign or such & are the guy in charge you can also apply a house-rule.

If there's a game out there you want to play? Ask. You might well get told "No Thanks". But you might not.

@Hecaton,

I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?

I’ve wargamed for almost 40 years, and I have found that our community does not benefit from those who try to be snobby towards others. We don’t have to like the same things, but we should respect each other’s opinion and choices.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Hecaton,

Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?

I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).

I know more than a few people who don't play the game and greatly enjoy the lore of the setting. Most of my friends either know about the setting, or they read it and only two out of a possible two-dozen people actually play.
For them though, it's mostly the cost of actually getting an army going and all of the work that they have to put into it to get the models board ready.
I've always enjoyed all of these aspects myself and I've even gotten into the PC games over the years. But the table top will always be my primary means of enjoying the game.

Let's just face it. So long as GW doesn't want to lower the bar for entry, it's available player base will always suffer for it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?

No, but I think being a passive vessel for consuming GW's products, and supporting their business/rule writing practices, is incredibly servile. If someone says "Sure, the rules aren't the best, but I enjoy it because I like the setting and the miniatures" that's fine, but why wouldn't someone just play a better game with the same miniatures? It's like being unable to leave an abusive spouse.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I’ve wargamed for almost 40 years, and I have found that our community does not benefit from those who try to be snobby towards others. We don’t have to like the same things, but we should respect each other’s opinion and choices.

Yeah, in my experience, I see a lot more toxicity/snobbiness from people who are pro-GW past the point of reason, to the point of store owners telling customers not to buy Warmachine while there was a tournament with 12 people going on in the store. There's this idea that GW is the superior product, and people compete to see how much plastic they can buy from GW, painting shoddily if at all, and exult in their unwillingness to consider new games or refine their skills. Instead, they treat the game as a contest about how much they can consume, and any valuation of painting skill, skill at the game, or anything else is discarded. I don't see this from everyone, but mainly the people who manage 3rd party stores that sell it or who are otherwise deeply invested in it.

The thing is, though, I've never had trouble getting groups together to play whatever game, there's just a group of people who seem to exult in getting people into playing 40k so they can show off how much more money they've spent on the hobby than anyone else.