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.

 Gert wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."

Sorry, how are casual hobbyists being wrung for cash? I'm very casual and I've not felt pressured into buying since GW stores moved away from the insane sales targets they used to have. I've also never been told by a GW employee that if I don't like a game I'm having fun wrong.
Can you explain why you feel GW pressures you into purchasing models you don't want or how you feel you're being told you are the problem when it comes to not enjoying the game?

Rules churn/edition churn. I want to play a game where I can learn to play once and then just keep playing. GW wants me to play a game where I have to learn to play again every couple of months when some new pile of shenanigans come out that breaks core assumptions of the game, piles twenty new layers of rules on top of an already bloated system, and is about 50-70% more cost-effective than it was before the update. They then explain to other people that the constant growth of bloat, power creep, and increasing irrelevance of my stuff is absolutely necessary for the good of the game, and everyone else (casual and competitive) believes them, so they (players, casual and competitive, in-person and online) tell me that I'd have fun if I bought a different army, or I'd have fun if I quit for two years and came back when I got a Codex update, or that I'd have fun if I bought different models because there's no way GW choosing not to support any of my stuff could possibly be their fault.

I talk about GW 'treating casual players like competitive players' because they assume that the casual players will hang onto their every word and stand in line to buy all the new stuff at launch like the competitive people do, so they 'support casual players' by doing things like Crusade (which feels to me like a tournament format that they tacked 'narrative' tables onto after the fact), where you get to have fun if you have a 9e Codex and have army-specific Crusade content, and if you don't bad luck, you'd better buy a different army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
...Actually, right now GW produces more resources aimed at narrative players than competitive ones. Competitive players get two mission packs per year; Crusaders get four. Campaign books, while they ostensibly offer content for both competitive and narrative play have far more to offer the narrative player than the competitive one.

And creating 3 ways to play, IMHO, was one of the best things that's been done for the game. I DO chase Crusade content, but I have zero interest in Meta, or points balances- I haven't purchased a single GT mission pack/ munitorum bundle this edition, nor will I need to. Having 4-6 Crusade armies at 25PL and friends to play them like Inquisitor 28 is awesome. Screw meta.

My fundamental issue with Crusade is that it's still nailed to the exact same Codexes as tournament play where there are twenty times as many rules as there need to be (this is hyperbole, I don't have an exact measurement) and playing models I like still gets me turn-two tabled by other people playing what they think are weak armies from weak Codexes. I don't care about playing the competitive meta. I care about the fact that when two people pick what they think are weak armies composed of minis they like in 9e, 'casual' or not, turn-two tablings still happen all the time because the damage creep is so out of control and the weak/unsupported stuff is still unplayable against the weakest bottom-end of the stronger Codexes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.

This assuming you can only play against tournament lists. The vast majority of games aren't this competitive. Just have a look at one of the bazillion youtube channels that upload 40k battle reports. They all show fun games that don't last just two turns, or even just three.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Rules churn/edition churn. I want to play a game where I can learn to play once and then just keep playing. GW wants me to play a game where I have to learn to play again every couple of months when some new pile of shenanigans come out that breaks core assumptions of the game, piles twenty new layers of rules on top of an already bloated system, and is about 50-70% more cost-effective than it was before the update. They then explain to other people that the constant growth of bloat, power creep, and increasing irrelevance of my stuff is absolutely necessary for the good of the game, and everyone else (casual and competitive) believes them, so they (players, casual and competitive, in-person and online) tell me that I'd have fun if I bought a different army, or I'd have fun if I quit for two years and came back when I got a Codex update, or that I'd have fun if I bought different models because there's no way GW choosing not to support any of my stuff could possibly be their fault.

It's interesting that you talk about edition/rules churn like that's never been a thing before now because 4th Ed only lasted 4 years, same with 5th, while 3rd Ed lasted longer but had multiple armies get double Codexes. Does that extra year make such a massive difference that 40k has become unplayable in recent years? I also want to ask, did you prefer it in days past when an army could go 7 years without getting updated? I mean the average from 4th to 7th Ed was about 4-5 years between Codexes but hot damn there are some real outliers.
I'm curious as to which core aspects of the game have been broken recently because as far as I'm aware, I can put down my army and still play perfectly fine. I am 100% sure we've had this discussion before, but how much of your issues with 40k are a result of a competitive and unforgiving local scene, and how much is it GW "forcing" you to buy products? This is someone asking who has never bought a Chapter Approved, never attended serious tournaments, and actively avoided meta netlists, and has yet to feel like my time is wasted playing 40k.
BTW the advice about just taking a break isn't an insult, people need time away from things because they get overloaded. I took a 6-month break from playing GW games because I just wasn't enjoying the time spent with my friends. We still met up for Warhammer days, I just didn't play and used the time to paint/build/just chat instead of getting annoyed and stressed that I lost a game of toy soldiers. I tried different games like Bolt Action, played some RPGs, and then when I felt a lot more chilled out about life in general, I went back to 40k. I also 100% recommend getting away from the internet complaints BS where every new release is "broken OP game destroying" and just wait to see what comes up.

I talk about GW 'treating casual players like competitive players' because they assume that the casual players will hang onto their every word and stand in line to buy all the new stuff at launch like the competitive people do, so they 'support casual players' by doing things like Crusade (which feels to me like a tournament format that they tacked 'narrative' tables onto after the fact), where you get to have fun if you have a 9e Codex and have army-specific Crusade content, and if you don't bad luck, you'd better buy a different army.

Honestly, and I say this without malice, that first bit is in your head mate. I think the only thing GW banks on for non-comp players is that they like fancy models and will buy said fancy models.
I think you should seriously consider taking a break from GW stuff if you think that you're being forced into continuing this hobby.

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.

That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.

Its interesting how often these discussions come down to:

Person A: The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B: The game is fine you just aren't playing it right.

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.

This assuming you can only play against tournament lists. The vast majority of games aren't this competitive. Just have a look at one of the bazillion youtube channels that upload 40k battle reports. They all show fun games that don't last just two turns, or even just three.

Don't underestimated how much youtube battle reports are curated. If people record a game that ends in 1.5 turns where 1 side flattens the other its probably not getting uploaded and they instead try again after some adjustments. Plus you don't see the work put into trying to create 2 lists that will have a fun game, something that normally doesn't happen when 2 people play a pick up game at a store/club.

GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.

The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.

The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.

live services work online because you don't actually have anything without their service.

I can play warhammer just fine without a live service subscription because I physically have everything needed to play it.

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Brand new from GW:

Warboss: $35 90pts
3 units of 10 Boyz: $108 270pts (new kits will be about $30-50 more)
2 Trukkz: $88 140pts

500pt army, smallest game size that is really supported: total cost? $231

The Ork Combat Patrol is $140. Can't do the maths in my head quickly but its got to be +/- 500 points.

Whether this is a good set to start Orks can be debated - but still.

A Combat Patrol, a Paint Starter and some plastic glue is probably under $200.

I don't think the hobby is that cheap - but I also don't think its ruinously expensive unless you make it so.

The Combat patrol box is naked 530pts. Its also only legal as a patrol detachment and even then its a garbage list with no cohesion. 2 units of troops or 1 big unit of troops that are slow as all hell. A warboss who is just as slow, a deffdread which is the fastest land based model in the list at 6' movement and finally 3 deffkoptas which move 14' and can auto-advance. I mean...its a ridiculously bad list that was designed by someone who doesn't understand anything about orkz...Kind of like every Ork box set to be honest I remember the old CP Box that literally didn't even include an HQ option!

If you don't give a damn about coherency and just want the cheapest models possible then yeah its a good deal. If you have a theme in mind its terrible. And that also leaves off the Codex and BRB, dice and measuring tape, easily another $130-150

As far as all the Competitive vs Narrative player nonsense.

The game gets better for EVERYONE when play is balanced. The game does not get better for everyone when narrative becomes "more fun", Look at 7th edition when Eldar, Tau, Necron and SM players got really really good fluffy narrative lists. it was the lowest the game has ever been in my opinion. We had entire game clubs die out because nobody wanted to play anymore because it was either a lopsided battle or it was mirror matches.

Eldar: I'm just walking into game night with my casual Eldar list with a wraightknight 2 units of scat bikes and some warp spiders and fire dragons, totally not a net list (Ironically it wasn't)

Opponent: Ok I guess i'll just pick up my Non Fly-rant Nid list and just go home, you win, congrats.

Tau: I'll just play 1 riptide instead of 3, that will be fair right?
Opponent: Good Game bud.

Necron: I'm literally not even playing any of the really good units
Opponent: Ok, well I spent 6 turns killing warriors and ended up not even removing a single Unit. GG


The competitive scene is only as "cutthroat" as you make it. You'll always have a couple of really competitive players, but there isn't anything wrong with that...its a COMPETITIVE GAME. If you go to a tournament with a sub par list you know you likely aren't going to win so you are just there for hte laughts...that was pretty much me for all of 7th with my orkz getting ROFL Stomped every time I played the net lists.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its interesting how often these discussions come down to:

Person A: The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B: The game is fine you just aren't playing it right.

More like :

Person A : The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B : Yes, and if you're willing, i've found some changes that you could bring to the game to make it more enjoyable.
Person A : Oh yeah, looks interesting, i'll give it a try.
Person C : Wait a minute, are you REALLY changing the rules to have a more enjoyable time, thats illegal, you're supposed to not have fun and blame GW because their game i spend way too much time talking about is litterally the worst thing on hell.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.

The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.

I've swapped to OnePageRules recently and it's sooo much more enjoyable than 40k IMO. And if you subscribe to their patreon you can even get access to their points calculator so you can homebrew units or add a tad of fluff (giving Fear to all my nightlords for example).

Infinity is also great, tho i wish the lastest season had changed the missions more.

Corvus Belli is a garbage company frankly.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its interesting how often these discussions come down to:

Person A: The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B: The game is fine you just aren't playing it right.

More like :

Person A : The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B : Yes, and if you're willing, i've found some changes that you could bring to the game to make it more enjoyable.
Person A : Oh yeah, looks interesting, i'll give it a try.
Person C : Wait a minute, are you REALLY changing the rules to have a more enjoyable time, thats illegal, you're supposed to not have fun and blame GW because their game i spend way too much time talking about is litterally the worst thing on hell.

Did it take you long to construct that strawman?

 Gert wrote:
...BTW the advice about just taking a break isn't an insult, people need time away from things because they get overloaded. I took a 6-month break from playing GW games because I just wasn't enjoying the time spent with my friends. We still met up for Warhammer days, I just didn't play and used the time to paint/build/just chat instead of getting annoyed and stressed that I lost a game of toy soldiers. I tried different games like Bolt Action, played some RPGs, and then when I felt a lot more chilled out about life in general, I went back to 40k. I also 100% recommend getting away from the internet complaints BS where every new release is "broken OP game destroying" and just wait to see what comes up...

I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."

The problem is the game is not fine AND too many players are donkey-caves.

 Gert wrote:
...I'm curious as to which core aspects of the game have been broken recently because as far as I'm aware, I can put down my army and still play perfectly fine. I am 100% sure we've had this discussion before, but how much of your issues with 40k are a result of a competitive and unforgiving local scene, and how much is it GW "forcing" you to buy products? This is someone asking who has never bought a Chapter Approved, never attended serious tournaments, and actively avoided meta netlists, and has yet to feel like my time is wasted playing 40k...

I'm going to paraphrase how this discussion usually goes:
9e fan: "This is the greatest most balanced edition of the game ever, there's no way anyone could not be having fun unless there was something wrong with them!"
Me: "I quit 9e because I wasn't having fun getting two-turn tabled and told the problem was that I needed to buy different minis."
9e fan: "That's literally impossible, this is the most balanced edition ever, you must be playing with some real donkey-caves! Out of curiosity what armies do you play?"
Me: "Alpha Legion, Deathwatch, Knights/AdMech."
9e fan: "Well, if you waited for your 9e Codex to come along or bought a different army maybe you'd have fun."
Me: "The Deathwatch had a 9e Codex last time I played them, they weren't particularly fun then."
9e fan: "Tournament statistics say it's possible for them to win so I don't know what you're talking about."
Me: "I'm glad you're having fun, but I do think other games/oldhammer/houserules are necessary for some people to have fun."
9e fan: "No, that's impossible, nobody should play other games/oldhammer/houserules because (choose one or more of) a) nobody plays other games so you'd never get a game, b) people aren't smart enough to learn two different sets of rules, c) I don't care what your experience has been all those other games I've never played must be worse than 9th at all of these or they'd outsell 40k, d) the 'three ways to play' essay obviously means that if you declare you're playing casually your armies will stop being gak that gets two-turn tabled every game, e) tournament statistics/sales figures prove that this is the best game ever and nothing else could ever surpass it, f) the fact that I'm having fun proves that absolutely nothing's wrong and there's no possible way you could not be having fun."

Cool, so categorically not GW forcing you to buy stuff just people not taking your point of view into account.
You do you with your hobby chief, just don't pretend it's all GW's fault when in reality nobody is forcing you to like/buy the new Edition.

I doubt that that's everyone's response to you Rake. If thats what you're reading from people/your community it's definitely time for a break from it. And even so, just.. roll your eyes - those perspectives are not worth engaging with.

40k or it's spin-offs can be fun, despite the many and varied flaws of the game(s). In my experience it takes a good community with a bit of emotional maturity and a good understanding working together and collaborating to achieve that. In my experience it's rewarding and worth it.

But I'm pretty sure you've heard that from me too!

Deadnight wrote:
...I doubt that that's everyone's response to you Rake. If thats what you're reading from people/your community it's definitely time for a break from it. And even so, just.. roll your eyes - those perspectives are not worth engaging with...

If it was just people in one local group I'd agree with you. This is everyone. Try and engage with the community at another game store, same story. Try to engage with online communities, same story. If you told me there was an organized conspiracy of secret GW employees seeded throughout the world trying to undermine any criticism of GW I would be completely unsurprised given the sheer number of people in different communities from different countries, even, that I've run across using the exact same script.

...40k or it's spin-offs can be fun, despite the many and varied flaws of the game(s). In my experience it takes a good community with a bit of emotional maturity and a good understanding working together and collaborating to achieve that. In my experience it's rewarding and worth it.

But I'm pretty sure you've heard that from me too!...

Yeah! I believe you! I just think that "must play the most current tournament-standard version of the rules with current officially-sanctioned missions" doesn't work very well! I'd rather play 30k! Or modded/expanded 30k with 7e Xenos books! Or 5e! Or 4e! Or 3e! Or Necromunda/Mordheim, or various content-expansion hacks on Necromunda/Mordheim! Or BFG! Or AT! Or old-AI! Or Epic! Or (gasp) non-GW games! But any time I suggest anything like that anywhere I might find people who I might be close enough to that we could play the 9e-fan mafia comes out of the woodwork to explain to me that literally everything else is terrible and I should just play current tournament-standard 9th! And then they say "If you don't like 9th why are you participating in any discussion of wargaming in general, why don't you just quit?" And then I meet other people who started playing 40k in 8th/9th and are literally unaware that any other wargames exist and assume that the things that GW does wrong are the industry standard because obviously anything the market leader does must be the best possible, which is the exact opposite of true, and I feel like if I don't stick around in these communities telling people that GW isn't perfect and there are other options that message won't exist and the wargaming hobby will slowly die as GW runs out of new people to feed into the "play for an edition and then quit wargaming entirely when you can't be bothered to keep up with the rules churn" machine. And all that will be left are the tournament people loudly enforcing the tyranny of officialdom on their own without any input from GW. And my hobby will have died, all because there's a crowd of people that can't possibly accept that a hobby that's slightly different from theirs might exist and insist that their hobby needs to take it over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Cool, so categorically not GW forcing you to buy stuff just people not taking your point of view into account.
You do you with your hobby chief, just don't pretend it's all GW's fault when in reality nobody is forcing you to like/buy the new Edition.

Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.

Cool, never have I ever said that.
But you know what's great? Whenever you say anything good about 9th, the people who make hating GW their entire personality come out and hurl lovely insults about how you're a gatekeeper or a shill or a sycophant.
That's how opinions work. You think there's a pro-9th mafia, I think that this site is the domain of salt-filled raging hate mongers who try their absolute best to ruin any sort of joy you make get out of the hobby. You either choose to get over it and enjoy what you enjoy with the people you enjoy it with, or you duck out and find something else to do.
"Sticking it out" so you can tell people just how awful GW and how terrible 40k are, isn't doing anyone any good, and honestly, if a lot more people had a serious look at themselves and said, "I think I should find a different hobby that makes me happy", the wider community wouldn't be such a massive bin fire.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


If it was just people in one local group I'd agree with you. This is everyone. Try and engage with the community at another game store, same story. Try to engage with online communities, same story.
.

Bunk.

It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Yeah! I believe you! I just think that "must play the most current tournament-standard version of the rules with current officially-sanctioned missions" doesn't work very well! I'd rather play 30k! Or modded/expanded 30k with 7e Xenos books! Or 5e! Or 4e! Or 3e! Or Necromunda/Mordheim, or various content-expansion hacks on Necromunda/Mordheim! Or BFG! Or AT! Or old-AI! Or Epic! Or (gasp) non-GW games! But any time I suggest anything like that anywhere I might find people who I might be close enough to that we could play the 9e-fan mafia comes out of the woodwork to explain to me that literally everything else is terrible and I should just play current tournament-standard 9th! And then they say "If you don't like 9th why are you participating in any discussion of wargaming in general, why don't you just quit?" And then I meet other people who started playing 40k in 8th/9th and are literally unaware that any other wargames exist and assume that the things that GW does wrong are the industry standard because obviously anything the market leader does must be the best possible, which is the exact opposite of true, and I feel like if I don't stick around in these communities telling people that GW isn't perfect and there are other options that message won't exist and the wargaming hobby will slowly die as GW runs out of new people to feed into the "play for an edition and then quit when you can't be bothered to keep up with the rules churn" machine. And all that will be left are the tournament people loudly enforcing the tyranny of officialdom on their own without any input from GW. And my hobby will have died, all because there's a crowd of people that can't possibly accept that a hobby that's slightly different from theirs might exist and insist that their hobby needs to take it over.
.

I don't think it works well either. See, its not 'everyone'. And this is a 'your meta' thing. My group.does historicals like fow and bolt action, necromunda, warcry, shadespire etc. Cirrent game is saga! Hell I know groups within about a half hour of where I live and not far from where I work that play pp, historicals, infinity, amongst many others.

I dunno what to say man. The 'official at all cost' shouters might be loud but they don't represent everyone, let alone the gw playing community. You need to get out of the gw sphere snd especially that toxic community you're in.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.

Don't hyperbole. That's not what Gerts saying. Gw are far from perfect but its possible to work with people and around the sharp.edges. we do! And I'm pretty certain he's not saying there's something wrong with you either. He's having fun, presumably because like me, he found, built and fostered a good community who also wants those. i play not far from him.snf it wouldn't surprise me if we have mutual acquaintances. ust because you're miserable and despair about seeing the good things that absolutely do exist in this hobby doesn't mean those good things are not out there or that they're out of your reach.

 Gert wrote:
..."Sticking it out" so you can tell people just how awful GW and how terrible 40k are, isn't doing anyone any good, and honestly, if a lot more people had a serious look at themselves and said, "I think I should find a different hobby that makes me happy", the wider community wouldn't be such a massive bin fire.

Yup. Chicken/egg. Mutually assured destruction. Violence inherent in the system. I like other wargames (including older editions of 40k), but if I'm going to discuss them I have to constantly fight people coming in to say "the stuff you like is terrible, play tournament-standard 40k". You like 9th, but if you're going to discuss it you have to constantly fight people coming in to say "current 40k is terrible, play other things." If we could discuss things in a more civilized fashion rather than jumping straight to the extreme "GW is fine, if you don't like it there's something wrong with you" or "GW is terrible, there's nothing wrong with the players" positions and then shouting at each other about how the other person is turning the community into a massive bin fire things might be more civilized.

Slipspace wrote:
That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.

The problem is that modifying your style/list to create a specific outcome takes high-level knowledge of the game; you have to understand the balance inside and out to do so. And that's unworkable for new players, who might choose the factions they like and the units they like and then go to play with their friends and have little to no chance of having a competitive game.

Hecaton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.

The problem is that modifying your style/list to create a specific outcome takes high-level knowledge of the game; you have to understand the balance inside and out to do so. And that's unworkable for new players, who might choose the factions they like and the units they like and then go to play with their friends and have little to no chance of having a competitive game.

And as veterans of the hobby it's up to us to help, guide, mentor and accommodate those new to the game. Investing some of your EXP in community-building goes a lot further than putting it into breaking the newest codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Corvus Belli is a garbage company frankly.

Salty about something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
And as veterans of the hobby it's up to us to help, guide, mentor and accommodate those new to the game. Investing some of your EXP in community-building goes a lot further than putting it into breaking the newest codex.

Sure, but in many other games, that's not necessary, since the balance isn't so bad. And what happens if two new players start the game together, and are turned off by the awful balance?

Hecaton wrote:


Sure, but in many other games, that's not necessary, since the balance isn't so bad.

'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me. And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.

Hecaton wrote:

. And what happens if two new players start the game together, and are turned off by the awful balance?

*shrug*

Then they move on, or try and figure it out through the various means available. Personal responsibility is a thing.

Deadnight wrote:
...Bunk.

It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't...

I'm sorry I went off on a bit of a rant here. I'm aware you mean well and aren't trying to be offensive, but the "are you sure it's the game, or are you playing it wrong?" stuff reads as patronizing to me; it gets followed up by questions and suggestions that I feel like assume I'm a moron who jumps straight to shouting on the Internet and has made no efforts to improve their situation.

In my experience of trying to find more casual players, communicate clearly up-front that my minis are terrible and I'd appreciate playing against a sorter list, and leaving game communities to try and find new ones I find that my problems with the game balance remain constant. The difference between playing 9th with casual players and competitive players, to me, is that the casual player will be baffled and confused as to why my stuff is so terrible after blowing me off the table in two turns and tell me they don't think they have the models to play a softer list than that, while the competitive player will shrug and explain to me exactly which models are bad by what metrics and what different thing I should buy before I can have fun again.

I've attempted to play other games. I've gotten ostracized by a couple of play groups that have decided that being diehard 9e tournament players is so core to their identity that if you express any interest in trying to play a different wargame or trying to suggest house rules they won't talk to you anymore. Some of them have followed me to new game stores and started evangelizing tournament-standard-9th-only to people there. Any time I do find a group for another wargame it tends to be something like the same six people who have been playing Warmachine since college and aren't really interested in letting new people participate. I also find quite frequently people who started playing 40k relatively recently and assume that it's the only or the best wargame in existence, and if they have problems with 40k they should quit wargaming entirely.

So yes, I'm bitter, and frustrated, and salty, because I feel like wargaming was my hobby and that I enjoy it when I get to do it, but I don't enjoy official-standard 9th and I feel like the 9e evangelists are trying to take my hobby away by turning all games/communities/players into 9e 40k and telling me that if I'm not having fun playing official-standard 40k I need to quit wargaming.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
...Bunk.

It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't...

I'm sorry I went off on a bit of a rant here. I'm aware you mean well and aren't trying to be offensive, but the "are you sure it's the game, or are you playing it wrong?" stuff reads as patronizing to me; it gets followed up by questions and suggestions that I feel like assume I'm a moron who jumps straight to shouting on the Internet and has made no efforts to improve their situation.

'Playing it wrong' covers a lot of ground to be fair; more important is who you play with and how you play. It is entirely possible to play a game or play amongst peers in a manner that is toxic and ultimately self-destructive. And in a manner than you do not enjoy. That is absolutely 'playing it wrong'. Might not be your 'fault' in any way but it is what it is.

And to be fair, I don't know you or your city or your peers but it seems all the 'different' groups you go to aren't all that different. Its not surprising all your experiences are similar - you're not seeing or experiencing the alternative that absolutely does exist. Suggestions doesn't mean you're a moron or are being patronising or that people think that- it's people trying to help and frankly it strike me as though you are looking in the wrong places, unaware of where the right places could be or just repeating approaches(or being forced into repeating approaches) constantly that don't work. It takes a toll. I can see that. It's like a personal wound. And for what it's worth, You're taking this far too personally, whether this is intentional or not. These aren't attacks against you. Hence the suggestion to take a break. Youre stewing. And Stewing where you are isn't helping you. And hey, I've been there too.

I met 2 of the guys I play with at a local indy gaming club (warmachine, historicals, 40k) near where I worked that met in a small town library. They did not and don't play tournaments. Theu're wary of playing in stores. Thry played in the dark age (pre internet) where connecting with fellow wargamers was incredibly difficult. Yet they did it. They guys I became friends with had been playing since the 70s and 80s and were big into historicals. I was their introduction to 'other' games and infinity blew their minds. We left the club and played more comfortably at one of their houses - converted garage. Far more comfy and less flgs and club drama. Plus friendly dog. I've since introduced them to plenty games and vice versa. More than anything they introduced me to a different way of playing- casual, narrative, DIY, homebrewing. Everything you claim no one does. Our group has expanded to six since then and six like minded players is plenty. 2 of them are new and really only got into it through us, as adults.

This world does exist.

And there's nothing stopping you building it either. Start with one person. Find some crusty old wargamers. a lot of what you're looking for is, in my experience, bread and butter for older generations and especially historicals.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."

The problem is the game is not fine AND too many players are donkey-caves.

Give this guy a round of applause.

After reading Rake's subjective experiences, and in particular the breakdown of how typical conversations tend to go, gotta say he's kinda been through the ringer- both in person and on line.

I may have even contributed to this unintentionally, and if so, apologies. There's nothing I can really say, accept that sucks.

I also get now why you keep posting- I see the message you're trying to get out.

I think that a lot of people who say these things are genuinely trying to be helpful; they may be confused because their experience doesn't match yours, and so they start hypothesizing about why that might be... But every hypothesis they throw out with the best intentions is still just going to feel like "Play different" - especially if you've heard it a thousand times before.

So point taken- there are other games, both GW and non-GW out there that can work for folks who are fed up and exhausted with 9th. Rake, Sim, Unit and some of the other dudes who share these frustrations are probably great resources for suggestions, and Mezmorki and his crew have put a lot of energy and love into Pro-Hammer, and it seems like a pretty excellent option too.

The flip side though, is that obviously, there are people who like the current version. Some of them are tourney folks, but others aren't. Some of them are Crusaders, but others aren't. Their subjective experiences must somehow be different from Rakes- let's not bother trying to figure out how, he's heard it all before, and it will just come across as another schmuck telling him he's playing wrong.

The point is that these players, who are happy with the current state of affairs also have a message that they want to get out. Where Rake feels like his message is drowned out by a conspiracy of apologists and white knights, these folks often feel like their message is being drowned out by a team of haters.

I don't know what the solution is- if you're happy, you want change to be minimal, if you're not, you're probably looking for something more substantial. It's going to be hard for Player A and Player B to compromise, and that's neither Player A or Player B's fault. I'm not entirely sure it's GW's fault either- theoretically it is possible to invent a game that is satisfying for everyone, but once you've put it out there, it's hard to fix without alienating the people who liked it.

Just my take. Not here to tell anyone how to play.