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.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue.

Oh the irony. You know why a special character was limited by game size? Because GW said so. And you followed their terms.

 Just Tony wrote:
But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.

Past three years have seen Primaris, Chaos Marines, Sisters and Necrons substantially or completely redone / updated. Admech got a new wave of releases and Sisters seem to get another one as well.
You are welcome that my purchases in the past months made it possible for players of those factions to enjoy new plastic.

Weren't death guard redone for 8th ed too and mechanicus , new knights and custodes.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue. Superheavies used to be Apocalypse only, now they're every game. Used to be a limit on what you can take, now you can take whatever obscene nonsense you like. So now we've got to this point where 40k is a bad joke. The game is a MTG ripf-off, the lore becomes more and more like the Marvel universe and the models are overdesigned and overpriced junk.

In short, I hate what special, centre-piece characters have currently become.

damn, maybe you should take a break, thats a lot of vitriol towards a miniatures game.

It's an expensive and time-consuming hobby, so I would be lying if I said it wasn't valued part of my life, and that I am deeply disappointed with how it's turning out. This is just my genuine feeling. At least I'm not trying to trivialise others' concerns and imply they have no life. If some are happy rolling over without a squeek that's fine, if they actually like how things are going that's fine, but it's just not me, so while there's a 40k discussion going on, I'll discuss what I feel about 40k. Peace.

Yeah sure, discussion is fine, just don't start slinging gak at other players for liking something you might not like. Its all subjective. Just because i like Maggy/Morty/etc doesnt mean im "greedy" and "less imaginative" and "focused on eating what GW is cooking".

Your whole original comment attacks the players instead of GW.

The players are the ones who enable GWs behaviour. When their actions conflict with my interests of course I will attack their actions, who wouldn't? I don't hate the sinner, bit I sure do hate the sin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Seems people get greedier and less imaginative as times go on, more focussed on eating what GW is cooking instead of enjoying 40k on their own terms. A special character used to be special and limited by game size, now they're standard issue.

Oh the irony. You know why a special character was limited by game size? Because GW said so. And you followed their terms.

 Just Tony wrote:
But the players immediately shelling out for whatever the next flashing thing is SHOULD be attacked as it is what facilitated the current climate of 3 year total rollover that we're experiencing now. Anyone who isn't buying along when this sort of thing happens is getting outvoted by the people who are, and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because there is a plurality of players who DO immediately shell out for the next flashing thing.

Past three years have seen Primaris, Chaos Marines, Sisters and Necrons substantially or completely redone / updated. Admech got a new wave of releases and Sisters seem to get another one as well.
You are welcome that my purchases in the past months made it possible for players of those factions to enjoy new plastic.

We all eat what GW serves, but when they switch from good food to dirty slop then it's time to stop rather than go on like a (pay) pig in it's trough. Restrictions that made the game good have given way to excess all at the behest of an often decadent and gluttonous playerbase.

As for the idea that people like you buying trash models enable actual good releases, your martyrdom is not necessary: if you didn't buy bad models, GW wouldnt make bad models, and then we would just have good ones. If anything, every baby'carrier or overwrought goofy character you buy is one less release of something worthwhile. Crazy to think I know...

It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?

You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.

But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.

Honestly? Probably what people were expecting when they started playing.

When I got in in WH40K was relatively small firefights that were slightly larger than a skirmish. That's evolved over the years into mini-appocalypse games. Nothing wrong with evolution, I'm happy to play along but one key element missing from earlier editions was Primarchs and the Chaos Primarchs. They were literally missing. WH40K wasn't necessarily a large name unit game, it was squads of relatively interchangeable troops slugging it out.

Now I don't think any of the "Primarchs" are horribly imbalanced in terms of game play I do find them out of kilter with the thematics of the game.

Right - see - I started with Rogue Trader. So I played back then. I still like the inclusion of the big models and Ghaz, etc. Your reasons for not liking them are also perfectly valid.

It's the "They objectively make everything worse" type comments I'm just not getting here.

I was a kid when I started, and a lot of the stuff we're getting now, is all stuff that teenage me, at one time or another said "Wouldn't it be cool if we could use X in a game!?" So like I said, I like a lot of this stuff. But I also get it if someone has different tastes and these things are simply not to their liking. The nice thing is, you don't have to use them. They aren't mandatory and unless you're going to a tourney, there's no reason you'll ever have to face one if you don't want to.

As far as whether or not they have a negative effect on competitive play - not any more than any of the other half million legtimately OP things that have happened over the years involving really basic models, so I don't get the complaint here either (unless, again, it's just personal preference which is obviously fair game). Still waiting on the explanation for how they objectively make the game worse ...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?

You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.

But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.

It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?

You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.

But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.

It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.

My standards are that any game that lacks a big centerpiece is garbage. /sarcasm

What makes your standards more important than others?

There's a big difference between taste, and standards.

While true ... I'm not entirely sure you fully grasp the difference? They're both generally up to the individual to set, unless the individual has joined a group with express, documented, specific standards. So, for example, it seems like you do not like Mortarion. That's fine. That's your personal preference. But what "standards" does Mortarion violate?

My guess is, you can't provide an answer that isn't some version of "My own personal standards" which, as Grotsnik mentioned, is really just your opinion ...

No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.

No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.

If you agree that everything you've posted really is just an opinion, then I guess I'm curious what you perceive the difference between "taste" and "standards" to be?

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?

You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.

But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.

It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.

Is it widely held though? What’s your metric for widely? Where are you obtaining your data from? Are you canvassing opinion? Have you considered confirmation bias?

And please, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric.

40K is not “polluted” by the existence of army options. Nor is it polluted by anyone using something you don’t want to use.

You are not a, let alone the, Gatekeeper and High Arbitrator of 40K. Nobody is - not even GW.

Use them, don’t use them. You do you, and I’ll do me. Our choices do not affect each other’s relative enjoyment of the game, nor the games we play within the hobby. Please don’t pretend otherwise.

I think people should worry about their own armies and not those of others quite so much. I get that my choice of army might not appeal to another, but I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay.

If other people's army choices bother someone so much, they can always play solo and have as much fun as they want!

Having said that, if my opponent in the pre-game discussion asks for a special condition like "No named characters or no units with a PL above 12" I will play along. I'll make compromises for the sake of variety. I've certainly never made demands of my opponent to alter their list. I'd rather lose a game than an opponent.

I think people should worry about their own armies and not those of others quite so much. I get that my choice of army might not appeal to another, but I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay.

If other people's army choices bother someone so much, they can always play solo and have as much fun as they want!

Having said that, if my opponent in the pre-game discussion asks for a special condition like "No named characters or no units with a PL above 12" I will play along. I'll make compromises for the sake of variety. I've certainly never made demands of my opponent to alter their list. I'd rather lose a game than an opponent.

Exactly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s almost as if that’s......just your opinion on the matter, but one you seem to feel is somehow more correcter than anyone else’s on the matter?

You and yours don’t want to use Named Stuff? That’s completely cool. That’s your hobby. Genuinely more power to you.

But don’t pretend like it’s any sort of benchmark for others to observe and follow. Because it’s simply not.

It's all opinion, but a widely held opinion becomes the norm. So if you have an opinion you put it out there, show your colours and then we can see what opinion is widely held or not. I will never apologise for acting in my own interest instead of standing by permissively while a good thing that I enjoy is polluted, and I definitely don't believe I am the only one. There's a big difference between taste, and standards.

Is it widely held though? What’s your metric for widely? Where are you obtaining your data from? Are you canvassing opinion? Have you considered confirmation bias?

And please, dial back the hyperbole and rhetoric.

40K is not “polluted” by the existence of army options. Nor is it polluted by anyone using something you don’t want to use.

You are not a, let alone the, Gatekeeper and High Arbitrator of 40K. Nobody is - not even GW.

Use them, don’t use them. You do you, and I’ll do me. Our choices do not affect each other’s relative enjoyment of the game, nor the games we play within the hobby. Please don’t pretend otherwise.

The thing is your choices DO effect the enjoyment of other's games, this is a collaborative hobby. Same reason you don't field a grey tide (I would hope). As for High Arbitrator, as much as I'd love such a lofty title, it's not a matter of one opinion, but of the majority. How we measure that is unclear, especially when people like you stand ready to pounce on anyone who says anything other than 'new model good, new fluff good, GW good - please more more'. And it's not hyperbole to call GW's latest offerings pollution of the eyes, if that is exactly what it is.

It....very much is hyperbole though?

The appreciation of a design is entirely subjective.

Some are commonly considered poor (Pumbagors, for a completely non-controversial example), but will still have their fans.

Others (Nundam) are genuinely divisive.

A few meet near universal acclaim - but will still have folk not finding them to your taste.

None of them are “pollution”. The existence of them doesn’t really impact the wider game, at all.

The rest of your post really isn’t worth engaging with I’m afraid, as it resorts entirely to ad hominem attacks.

The tyranid biovore (even the latest version, which is old but not old enough to excuse the thing...) is honestly a horrible model, it does hurt anyone’s eyes to look at the thing, even just a photo actually.
There is no matter of opinion there

There’ll be those who like the model all the same

Nobody is having an issue with people saying they like or they don't like models.

The issue is with how that opinion is presented along with an attack on people who think differently.

I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.

That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.

Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.

A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:

Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.

How do you feel about that?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
...I fail to see how someone buying, painting and playing a Void Dragon, Ghaz or Mortarian somehow pollutes the game (I have none of those, but whatever). If they are not popular they will fade away. If they are popular, they will stay...

For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.

a_typical_hero wrote:
A question aimed at people who dislike the prevalence of unique characters showing up:

Let's say I want to use the rules from a special character regularely, but I proxy the model with my own kitbashed conversion and give it a custom name on top.

How do you feel about that?

I actually don't mind this, and in some ways prefer it. However, my point above stands first, I actually would prefer more restrictions to use SC's in general.

On the flip side of that, I fully support and love crusade rules where there is a legitimate narrative way to specialise your own characters through gameplay (obviously doesn't work for matched play but hey ho... All aspects can't be in all versions of the game).

Centerpiece is entriely dependent on game size and table size. I can easily argue a Predator to be a centerpiece in any game below 1000 points, and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites.

 Banzaimash wrote:
No one person sets the standards, it's done by whatever the majority opinion is, which is why I'm stating my opinion. I can't help you if you can't grasp this basic idea.

If the majority opinion accepts the presence of these models - which I would wager they do, though I don't think any surveys have been conducted to prove it either way - then the standard would appear to be that they are acceptable. Being in line with the standards would be seen as being in good taste, generally.

Therefore standing against the presence of said models would imply poor taste on the part of the person presenting such a position - in this case that would be you.

It would also behoove you to take a less confrontational approach to your posting, sir and/or ma'am.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...and anyone that's run a Land Raider at any game size but then says they don't like centerpieces are already hypocrites...

6-10,000pt classic Apocalypse? A LR squadron is barely enough to count as a centerpiece there.

For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.

I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?

Main one I can think of is Ghaz, as there’s currently no option for a generic Warboss in Mega Armour.

Tycho wrote:

For me the problem isn't about other people buying, painting, and playing the big centerpiece named character, the problem is that GW is using named characters as an excuse to take things away from generic characters.

I can see where you are coming from with that. What examples are you thinking of?

Coteaz is the most obvious (literally everything he does was something Inquisitorial Retinues did in the 3e book that got taken away in the 5e book).

I don't think it's gotten as bad as it could yet, but I'm scared that they'll end up using named characters to warp 40k Codexes into the Sigmar army books, where the whole thing is built around a small pool of named characters whose support is necessary to make the army function. The first SM book in 8e 40k was very much broken by that design theory (everything was priced around having Guilliman's aura on all the time, which made it a narrow one-dimensional book that only functioned in gunline castles where everyone was packed around a Captain/Lieutenant in one building). The more they give named characters stuff generic characters can't imitate the more they push the game towards becoming Warmachine where there are no generic HQs and whether your army works is entirely dependent on how well everything interacts with your named character of choice.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.

That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.

Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.

I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I personally miss 3rd edition SC rules in some way, in the sense they required the opponents specific permission to use. You ended up just playing and building a narrative story with your regular commanders, my UM with powerfist force commander took down a wraith lord with another players emperors champion (not an easy feat in third edition, it was absolutely a hail mary, after it and a seer council ran amok amongst our forces) at a crucial moment whilst battling for an underground bunker underneath armageddon during the third war that arguably lead to victory on the main table as we could break out into the enemy lines on that table.

That just would not have been as fun if it was marneus doing it instead.

Anyway, big centre-piece models should be for capped at games of 2001pts plus, you don't need to see them in regular games.

I can understand keeping LOWS and SCs out of smaller games below 2000 points, as they can skew low point games, but what problems do you see them causing at 2000 points? If it's simply not liking playing with/against them, then you can simply refuse to play with/against them instead of making a hard cap.

2001+ was an arbitrary number, and rather than SC's in general, it was more the LOW characters etc.

I wouldn't have a fit if was 1999+ pt games but personally, I don't like to see huge unique characters in smallish games from a spectacle pov (all my own opinion that others would disagree with). I think if Ghaz is on the field, he should be leading 2500 or 3000 points etc to make him look like he is leading a huge force, same with the silent king and others etc. As I said, my opinion, not saying I am right.