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.

The issue is, GW is too big to fail, currently. Everything dies and GW will be no different come the end of its run. For now however as others have said it sit unique on some fronts and it's carried forward with the weight of sunk cost, time and friends made playing it.

I'd say if another game was out, that let me use all my current stuff and I could get all my friends on board and it was a pandemic free time, I'd gladly leave the GW world behind. For now though, to value all of that time and money already spent I'm stuck circling around with the GW herd mostly.

I play other games but its size makes it the one everyone I know plays where the others only some play this or that.

TBH "too big to fail" doesn't exist. White Star Line was one of the biggest shipping corporations in the world. But a small string of disasters (notably the Titanic) torpedoed that.
But I do agree with the sentiment.
I live in hope that one day a straw will break the camel's back. That suddenly the community decides GW has gone one step too far. Then the world of wargaming can explode into a million better games.
But then I know that every time GW feths up, instead any minor fix is taken as proof of just how awesome they are. "I know their app had some teething problems, but they've fixed some of the bugs now, they're so great for listening to the community!".

I'm in a similar situation to Karol. I'm not really close enough with anyone in the local wargaming scene that my opinions have much, if any, sway over anyone.
Why would they play another game with this random guy that they've maybe met once vs one of the other fifty 40k players around?

Like AngryAngel, if I felt I had the option I'd gladly leave 40k behind (the rules, not the world). But I can't, not with any reasonable hope of continuing to play.

And that's the rub. Inertia and an established following means that GW has to do very little to redeem itself. 8th edition is a perfect example of that. Not much changed and they quickly ruined it again but even it came out even people that had given up GW for other games were conned into coming back and abandoning everything else. Like at one store here 8th killed every other game that was being played virtually overnight for some reason.

Definitely. GW's new social media strategy has worked absolutely perfectly for them.
Their business practices are as anti-consumer as ever (and in many ways more so) but the "New-GW" posts a generic "thanks for the comments, we'll pass it on!" on Facebook comments now so you know they care about us, deeply.

And I think that is why a lot of people are tend to be seemingly "GW fans are stupid" because they keep falling for that stuff. Like I remember there were a bunch of people including here that were all giddy that GW was on social media and acted like it was some major revelation when it was really them finally pulling their head out of their ass and coming into the modern era. And it was seen as some sort of proof that they were different when they were doing what everyone else had already been doing for years.

It's like if GW came out with a plastic box that was cheaper than the previous one and had more figures, like that would happen, people would praise it as being some sort of miracle when that's how every other God damn company does it so GW doing it doesn't make them special.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

If people enjoy the game, or like the models, for whatever reasons how is buying GW products "incredibly servile"? That's a bizarre characterisation that seems to be based purely around your own inability to understand other people's reasons for liking things. That strikes me as your problem, not anyone else's.

As to why they don't play another game, it's been shown over and over in this thread that actually getting games is often the main driver. There's a sliding scale of satisfaction vs effort when it comes to whether you try to get a new game off the ground. If I'm completely satisfied with 40k I have no reason to try any other game. If starting up the other game would require me to put in loads of effort for likely very little reward then I'd need to consider just how dissatisfied I was with 40k to put that effort in. For me, 40k is fine as a social activity between friends played at a semi-competitive level because everyone involved understands what sort of game each person wants to play. It probably also helps that we already have pretty big collections so we're not caught in a spiral of paying current-GW prices for entire armies. If I want to play a tournament-style competitive game there's no way I'd choose 40k. It works for me at the level I want to engage with it at.

Apparently that makes me a battered spouse

I mean to be fair, it's not like other games were giving us a vastly superior consumer experience.

PP has monopose characters with no options too, in inferior materials, and most of their minis are also really overpriced. The quality of the design is highly variable as is the quality of the actual minis when they are produced.

Where PP was better was in allowing for balance, but that has also taken a beating with their new edition and the prevalence of theme lists.

Similar issues exist with other games.

Now, GW are moving toward being more PP-esque in a lot of ways. Monopose characters. Special characters over player made characters. Fewer options for customising your dudes in the rules and in the models. The sculpt quality remains high as do the production values, but the price is even higher than it used to be.

Rules wise, I find it hard to judge. So much of 9th is antithetical to what I want from a wargame that it is hard for me to judge quality as it is like judging the quality of a food I don't like. But I trust the general consensus that 8th/9th were good for the people who like that style of game, and that people are having a lot of fun with it.

I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.

The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!

soviet13 wrote:
I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.

The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!

TBF: GW Has a sole monopoly on the warhammer universes.(copyright law and disney be praised)

TBF further, GW is the biggest fish in the pond aswell, they don't have the sole monopoly power overall, but they are big enough to dictate market conditions well enough.

however indeed with that attitude , it is indeed no wonder as to why no one is able to be convinced to change.

on the other side, there are indeed however these servile "elements" within the hobby that do "whiteknighting", just as much as there are the equivalent blackknights aswell found.

Lots of posts here come off as lowkey insulting to be honest. Instead of circle jerking around "If you enjoy Warhammer, you are stupid" you could consider that maybe some people are able to look at a product, evaluate pros and cons and make an informed decision on wether or not they want to spend their money on it.

I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.

At the moment their product is good enough for me that I want to buy it. Strongly implying to be or being called stupid, servile, immature, simping, white knighting for enjoying Warhammer and not having a "took them long enough" attitude when something good is happening, is very irritating.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Lots of posts here come off as lowkey insulting to be honest. Instead of circle jerking around "If you enjoy Warhammer, you are stupid" you could consider that maybe some people are able to look at a product, evaluate pros and cons and make an informed decision on wether or not they want to spend their money on it.

I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.

At the moment their product is good enough for me that I want to buy it. Strongly implying to be or being called stupid, servile, immature, simping, white knighting for enjoying Warhammer and not having a "took them long enough" attitude when something good is happening, is very irritating.

Agreed. I've self published some RPG stuff and rule number one in that field is 'don't try to sell your game by criticising other games; instead talk about what makes YOUR game fun'.

'GW sucks, wake up sheeple!' is just never going to be a winning PR strategy.

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?

"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"

You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games!
Oh, wait...

Hecaton wrote:There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.

Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.

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).

And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.

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.

Ooh, another r/iamverysmart moment! If there's another one, do I get a cookie?

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*.

Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.

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.

I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.

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.

Ah, the third comment dripping with contempt and sheer self-importance!
I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.

Can I have the cookie now?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:@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.

Well put - there's a hecaTON of condescension and sheer arrogance in their posts, so if that's how they conduct themselves IRL, I'm not surprised they seem to have an issue getting people to listen to them.

Hecaton wrote:

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.

Today I learned that enjoying certain plastic models and rules makes me like a victim of domestic abuse! That's not at all a trivialisation of abuse, not at all!
Clearly, if you find ANY enjoyment in something, you're just a brainwashed sheeple who obeys servile whims and are fine with being beaten within the walls of your own home. /s

Yeah, in my experience, I see a lot more toxicity/snobbiness from people who are pro-GW past the point of reason

Your experience clearly doesn't involve you looking in a mirror, I see.

painting shoddily if at all, and exult in their unwillingness to consider new games or refine their skills.

Oh wow, this goes deeper! Apparently if you don't paint your models, you're doing the hobby "wrong" and if you don't end up as a Golden Demon level painter and sculptor when you're done, you're doing it wrong because you're not "refining your skills".

Jeez, I know you can enjoy it how *you* like, but some folks are fine with getting stuff done to a standard they're content with - and that's fine, because this is hobby for PERSONAL ENJOYMENT, not masochism or competetion.

Instead, they treat the game as a contest

As opposed to a contest about actively rejecting enjoyment and comfort and how you should have improved by X% by the end of the year or you're a battered spouse?

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.

You've never considered that this is a trait of those particular people, and, you know, not a unifying factor among GW hobbyists?

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.

Again, just like with Karol, I'm fairly sure that's a You and Your Local Store problem.

soviet13 wrote:I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!

Well put.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.

Aye, same here. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing 40k when I'm able, but if/when I stop enjoying it, I simply won't play it. And I've got my own fair share of gripes with the company's practices to boot.

@ Hecaton

You are crossing the line.
Cease that attitude now.
Your "better" games are in no way "objectively" better than anything else, and for sure you are not better than those 40k folks you talk about.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This....isn’t exactly news to anyone.

The justification offered is that characters simply sell fewer units, but don’t cost that much less to sculpt, tool and produce.

And thanks to capitalism, that cost/sale ratio outcome is passed on to us, the consumer.

I mean, it's this. Can't believe anyone needs another seven pages to go round a discussion that's happened hundreds of times before.

Also, what's with this sudden influx of thread names that sound like clickbait youtube video titles?

Hecaton wrote:

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).

Yes you could. And maybe you & I would do so.
But the poster in question has indicated that the game itself is of trivial importance to their enjoyment of the models/lore/hobby crafting aspect. They don't care if the game even exists. They'll play it, but they've TOLD you that if there was no game they wouldn't bother playing another. So do you really think they care that GDF exists?

Wayniac wrote:
And I think that is why a lot of people are tend to be seemingly "GW fans are stupid" because they keep falling for that stuff.

Honeatly Wayne, take a step back and maybe consider taking a break. This isn't you. 'Bitter and angry' isn't a colour that suits you.

'Falling for that stuff? Good christ, You're something else, you know that. This isn't a con. This is pure black Knight bitterness territory Wayne, twist every action gw do to be 'bad' and underhanded, project all the negativity and condescension onto the folks that may actually enjoy these things (without for a moment considering them in anything other than 'bitter' filters) and assume a sense of smug righteousness, because hey, it's cool to hate right? You're basically othering people for nothing more than liking different things to you.

Wayniac wrote:
. Like I remember there were a bunch of people including here that were all giddy that GW was on social media and acted like it was some major revelation when it was really them finally pulling their head out of their ass and coming into the modern era. And it was seen as some sort of proof that they were different when they were doing what everyone else had already been doing for years.

Gw haters for years: 'gw are idiots, they never use social media'.
Gw changes approach and uses social media. Quite decently too and people like myself rejoice and enjoy it.
G haterswith all the shock and outrage ' how DARE they?! Why can't they just HATE honestly without thinking or questioning?! How DARE they be anything other than ANGRY like me?! It doesn't matter what gw does, gw are idiots... because gw are idiots'... the hate is what's important.

Haters are gonna hate... because it's cool to hate, right?

Ever think.people might have been giddy because gw were finally getting on board with the 21st century and doing what they'd wanted them to do for years? But hey, we can't be ascribing any positivity to the 'others sides actions now, can we?

why is it that people can't be allowed to be happy and to enjoy something? Why this bitter filter saying they've no right to do so, that it's all a con? Do you only accept someone's view when they are apoplectic with rage? Look at the underlying conceit to your statement - youre basically trying to delegitimise people's enjoyment. saying how dare folks be happy or how dare they enjoy something and that they're wrong to do so. Why be so bitter when their enjoyment has no bearing on you?

Wayniac wrote:
.

It's like if GW came out with a plastic box that was cheaper than the previous one and had more figures, like that would happen, people would praise it as being some sort of miracle when that's how every other God damn company does it so GW doing it doesn't make them special.

Are rhey? I mean, to be fair, I can't remember pp or cb dropping prices and increasing the model count in their boxes either. please, drop your hyperbole.

And it did happen. Reminds me of betrayal at calth. People rightly praised it, not because it was 'some miracle but because it was finally gw turning around and providing a great value box set. That box set kept gw in the black that year.

soviet13 wrote:
I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.

That's the thing is, I don't. I have a playgroup that regularly plays non-GW games. And I still do play Infinity with the pandemic on, because myself and some others got COVID way back in the beginning. We play GW games sometimes, but pretty rarely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"

The sunk cost fallacy and senseless brand loyalty is a thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games!
Oh, wait...

Again, I actually do find it relatively easy. I've had multiple friends go "40k is kind of stupid, even if the models are cool. What's that other game you're playing?"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.

Sure, but some people have a senseless investment in the brand to where they'll keep buying GW products even when they're worse.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.

I dunno if GW stuff is really that accessible - it's widespread in the retail space, but the game is... not good, and tends to invalidate purchases pretty regularly.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Ooh, another r/iamverysmart moment! If there's another one, do I get a cookie?

No, because your bleating on the topic is meaningless.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.

When a game is decided more by faction choice and listbuilding than what happens on the table, it's objectively bad. It makes the actual gameplay unnecessary.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.

There are actual things that make some games better than others, in an objective sense. There's psychology and math around games that deals with this.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Ah, the third comment dripping with contempt and sheer self-importance!

It's just accurate. You're basically saying any attempt at criticizing your viewpoint is contemptuous and self-important, which is not a good faith argument. Essentially you're supporting 40k in the fact of all reason, saying that rationale doesn't matter, that it's deontologically superior.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.

Inaccurate assessment of my point, especially as I pointed out that some people like the style/quality of GW minis more than me and that's fine. So you can't argue against what I'm saying without lying.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Can I have the cookie now?

You've already made yourself a liar and a fool, I don't need to do much more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
@ Hecaton

You are crossing the line.
Cease that attitude now.
Your "better" games are in no way "objectively" better than anything else, and for sure you are not better than those 40k folks you talk about.

That line deserves to be crossed, because it's made of lies and bootlicking.

I'm not overly annoyed about character pricing. Yes, they charge a premium, but that is to be expected from GW and they have always done it. What does grind my gears is when they charge an eye watering amount for a squad of 5 dudes, who may only be slightly different looking than another box that's much cheaper and in game are cheap in terms of points.

I expect that the new Flayed Ones, still yet to be released, will follow this pattern

Okay people, time to take a step back and calm down a bit. Please remember that rule 1 is be polite. You can have differences of opinion on the pricing of toy soldiers with out being rude about it.

Hecaton,

I think you’ve mixed up the quote boxes? I didn’t write the quotes you attribute to me in your last post.

Cheers,

T2B

Hecaton wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.

That's the thing is, I don't.

Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?

It's the same thing with the games you're suggesting: you say you can't get anyone to play games, but then you say you haven't got an issue doing it. You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.

Which one is it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"

The sunk cost fallacy and senseless brand loyalty is a thing.

So are games simply not being appealing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games!
Oh, wait...

Again, I actually do find it relatively easy. I've had multiple friends go "40k is kind of stupid, even if the models are cool. What's that other game you're playing?"

But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.

Sure, but some people have a senseless investment in the brand to where they'll keep buying GW products even when they're worse.

And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.

I dunno if GW stuff is really that accessible - it's widespread in the retail space, but the game is... not good, and tends to invalidate purchases pretty regularly.

I'd say it's accessible. Strong pop culture awareness, strong branding, multiple smaller entry points (a la Kill Team or just playing smaller games with free rules and in-kit rules) and snap-fit kits to get started. I don't know, perhaps you only consider the game at the 2k level to be "The Game", but playing at 25PL or 50PL is a totally legitimate way of playing, and is a pretty accessible point of entry. When you're playing the core of the game and not actively trying to break it, it's perfectly adequate, and the only real purchase that gets updated are the Codexes, which can by bypassed by playing with in-built datasheets if you're that new to the hobby.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.

When a game is decided more by faction choice and listbuilding than what happens on the table, it's objectively bad. It makes the actual gameplay unnecessary.

Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.

I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.

There are actual things that make some games better than others, in an objective sense. There's psychology and math around games that deals with this.

Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.

You're basically saying any attempt at criticizing your viewpoint is contemptuous and self-important, which is not a good faith argument.

Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?

I noticed you didn't address that. I wonder why.

Essentially you're supporting 40k in the fact of all reason, saying that rationale doesn't matter, that it's deontologically superior.

If you can show *actual* objectivity,, you might have a point. Instead, you're content to just call everyone around you weak-minded.

I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.

Inaccurate assessment of my point, especially as I pointed out that some people like the style/quality of GW minis more than me and that's fine. So you can't argue against what I'm saying without lying.

Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?

Can I have the cookie now?

You've already made yourself a liar and a fool, I don't need to do much more.

Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Hecaton,

I think you’ve mixed up the quote boxes? I didn’t write the quotes you attribute to me in your last post.

Cheers,

T2B

Yeah, I noticed that, I amended that in my responses!

Cynista wrote:
I'm not overly annoyed about character pricing. Yes, they charge a premium, but that is to be expected from GW and they have always done it. What does grind my gears is when they charge an eye watering amount for a squad of 5 dudes, who may only be slightly different looking than another box that's much cheaper and in game are cheap in terms of points.

I expect that the new Flayed Ones, still yet to be released, will follow this pattern

No, characters have not aways been overpriced. As I said pages back, my metal Company Master was $15 when I bought him, as was my FailCast Librarian.

GW continues to sell a handful of characters at reasonable prices, too. Dark Elf Sorceress, Tzeentch Sorcerer (or "Magister"), Eldar Warlock.

As always, GW charges through the roof for their products, because people are willing to pay these prices for GW minis.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?

Note this part:

Me wrote: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.

My playgroup does just fine. Again, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'd say go back and take a look at my posts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.

And the popularity ratio of the two has very little to do with the quality of the game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So are games simply not being appealing.

In this case, the "appeal" to the people I'm talking about has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis. Some people have crap taste, that's just a fact.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?

As I literally stated in my post, it's only a fraction of the 40k fans (really cultists) that won't consider other games. It's not 100% one or the other. Go back and read it again if it's hard for you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?

People will continue to hate on the brand with increasing intensity as long as senseless supporters keep denying that there's a problem.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'd say it's accessible. Strong pop culture awareness, strong branding, multiple smaller entry points (a la Kill Team or just playing smaller games with free rules and in-kit rules) and snap-fit kits to get started. I don't know, perhaps you only consider the game at the 2k level to be "The Game", but playing at 25PL or 50PL is a totally legitimate way of playing, and is a pretty accessible point of entry. When you're playing the core of the game and not actively trying to break it, it's perfectly adequate, and the only real purchase that gets updated are the Codexes, which can by bypassed by playing with in-built datasheets if you're that new to the hobby.

I'd disagree that "pop culture awareness" and branding are meaningful components of accessibility. That's just people being programmed to think of GW as the be-all end-all of miniature wargaming, buying into their corporate-speak that equates their company with the hobby itself.

Also worth noting that when you're playing the core game and not actively trying to break it, Primaris are insanely dominant. Which you might think as a plus, but to any sane gamer, it's a negative.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.

And as far as reality is concerned, you'd be wrong. Listbuilding is functionally part of the gameplay, you're right - but making it more important than actions on the table is bad play, as it creates a bunch of unnecessary activity (the actual act of playing the game) which is just timewasting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.

One of the big things I just mentioned; that is, forcing players to make choices for which there is only one right answer and spend time on activities in which no meaningful decisions are made.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, and trying to make that association is peak woke corporate servility. I'm not being contemptuous or self-important, I'm just calling it like it is. If that rubs you the wrong way, because confronting the sunk cost fallacy of 40k makes you anxious, that's a personal problem.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?

You can like whatever you want, it just reflects on you. 40k's aesthetics are much better than its rules quality.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.

You're the one who's faking caring about the topic in the hopes of winning an environment. Cynically exploiting that and attempting to go crying to the authorities, such as they are, is a much more grievous breach of common decency than anything I've done here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Hecaton,

I think you’ve mixed up the quote boxes? I didn’t write the quotes you attribute to me in your last post.

Cheers,

T2B

Sure, fixing.

Hecaton wrote:

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...

It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.

 insaniak wrote:

Spoiler:

Hecaton wrote:

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...

It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.

bravo

 insaniak wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...

It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.

As an abuse victim myself, I find your opinion patronizing, insulting, and monstrous. I dismissed woke corporatism, which is the opposite of social justice, instead being the trappings of that performatively cannibalized for the sake of capitalism.

Hecaton wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?

Note this part:

Me wrote: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.

My playgroup does just fine. Again, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'd say go back and take a look at my posts.

I dunno, your posts very much read like "I try and convince all these 40k players to play but they're just dumb and servile", and you've not exactly shown that you don't hold those beliefs about 40k players.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.

And the popularity ratio of the two has very little to do with the quality of the game.

I'd argue otherwise. It might not be a quality that appeals to you, but it must be a quality to them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So are games simply not being appealing.

In this case, the "appeal" to the people I'm talking about has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis. Some people have crap taste, that's just a fact.

Who made you Taste Police?
Some people might have bad taste *according to you*. That doesn't make it a fact. Please understand this before you say the word "fact" or "objectively" again.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?

As I literally stated in my post, it's only a fraction of the 40k fans (really cultists) that won't consider other games. It's not 100% one or the other. Go back and read it again if it's hard for you.

If it's only a fraction, then how can GW be said to have a monopoly, which was the main gist of this?
Is it wrong that a fraction of people simply have a different taste to you? Is it enough to scream and shout about brainwashing, when it's far more likely that your tastes don't define those of other people?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?

People will continue to hate on the brand with increasing intensity as long as senseless supporters keep denying that there's a problem.

If they don't see a problem, can they be blamed for it?
I'm not blind enough to say that GW is flawless, but many of these "objective problems", well, aren't objective.

I'd disagree that "pop culture awareness" and branding are meaningful components of accessibility. That's just people being programmed to think of GW as the be-all end-all of miniature wargaming, buying into their corporate-speak that equates their company with the hobby itself.

I disagree. Being able to create an IP and a brand that are recognisable is a pretty good feature of accessibility, as it elicits feelings of familiarity and of brand recognition and security. You call this brainwashing. I call it part of the design which all games, to some degree, engage in.
Some do it better than others.

Also worth noting that when you're playing the core game and not actively trying to break it, Primaris are insanely dominant. Which you might think as a plus, but to any sane gamer, it's a negative.

I've not found my Primaris to be that insanely dominant. But then, I build my lists in a very "GW-like" manner, which is very little repetition of units and a mixed range of models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.

And as far as reality is concerned, you'd be wrong. Listbuilding is functionally part of the gameplay, you're right - but making it more important than actions on the table is bad play, as it creates a bunch of unnecessary activity (the actual act of playing the game) which is just timewasting.

Sounds awfully subjective there - which is fine, you're entitled to those opinions! You can dislike the role list building has, but that still doesn't make it *objectively* bad.

I hate to harp on about it, but you're not using "objectively" right here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.

One of the big things I just mentioned; that is, forcing players to make choices for which there is only one right answer and spend time on activities in which no meaningful decisions are made.

But there isn't an "only one right answer" system, that's an exaggeration on your part. In fact, claiming that "no meaningful decisions are made" is simply untrue as well. You might not perceive it as that, but you also seem like someone who outright doesn't like listbuilding. Therefore, it's just not your tastes - which is fine.

But objective it ain't.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, and trying to make that association is peak woke corporate servility. I'm not being contemptuous or self-important, I'm just calling it like it is. If that rubs you the wrong way, because confronting the sunk cost fallacy of 40k makes you anxious, that's a personal problem.

Insaniak said all I had to say on this matter, suffice to say, that attitude right there is genuinely sickening.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?

You can like whatever you want, it just reflects on you. 40k's aesthetics are much better than its rules quality.

Again, back to subjectivity again.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.

You're the one who's faking caring about the topic in the hopes of winning an environment. Cynically exploiting that and attempting to go crying to the authorities, such as they are, is a much more grievous breach of common decency than anything I've done here.

Whew boy, that's a doozy! "I'm so incapable of empathy that the only possible reason someone would call me out on a tasteless comparison to domestic abuse and violence is because they want internet points!"

Like, genuinely, yikes. I'd take a step back from the keyboard and have a good long look in the mirror, and really think about what you just said.

insaniak wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...

It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.

Thank you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Whew boy, that's a doozy! "I'm so incapable of empathy that the only possible reason someone would call me out on a tasteless comparison to domestic abuse and violence is because they want internet points!"

Like, genuinely, yikes. I'd take a step back from the keyboard and have a good long look in the mirror, and really think about what you just said.

GW's metaphorical boots should be shiny enough at this point that you could do the same.

I never said GW was a monopoly, so, again, stop putting words in my mouth. All you've got is lies, misrepresentation, and bad-faith arguments.

Hecaton wrote:I dismissed woke corporatism, which is the opposite of social justice, instead being the trappings of that performatively cannibalized for the sake of capitalism.

And I suppose you also "objectively" know what's performative?

You chose to compare the relationship between GW and their customers to genuine full on domestic abuse, unapologetically. You didn't have to. You could have literally chosen any other analogy, but you chose to trivialise abuse. Don't you dare gaslight me into thinking that's my problem.

Hecaton wrote:GW's metaphorical boots should be shiny enough at this point that you could do the same.

Even if I look back in the mirror, I know I didn't trivialise domestic abuse. You, unfortunately, can't say the same.

I never said GW was a monopoly, so, again, stop putting words in my mouth.

I never said *you* did. I said that was the gist of the topic before this, not that you said it.

All you've got is lies, misrepresentation, and bad-faith arguments.

Another "objective fact" of yours?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Even if I look back in the mirror, I know I didn't trivialise domestic abuse.

You just did, in this thread.