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.
Dudeface wrote: Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?
Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.
The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.
This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.
But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.
So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.
Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.
I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.
Dudeface wrote: Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?
Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.
The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.
This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.
But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.
So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.
Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.
I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.
Good input and a solution that would suit most people I think as a concept.
Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.
It'll never happen but what GW really need to do separate 'bodies' sprues to use up optional parts from the current sprues, which would solve a big chunk of the issues. As has been pointed out in this thread currently GW either makes it so you have to buy multiple boxes just to get one optimal squad, lock the squads to just what is in the box, or provide so many options on the sprue that you end up wasting most of the kit. All of which have the pros and cons as covered already.
Using the current Scions sprues as an example of the benefits of an additions 'bodies' sprue. The current Scions are jam packed with amazing options but only 5 bodies to actually use them, having built your 5 Scions the sprue looks hardly used. When I first built this kit I was new to the game and it really caused a lot of decision paralysis as I didn't want to pick the wrong thing but knew if I did I'd have to buy a whole new box just to get the right ones. However if there was a cheap box of bodies available I'd have had a lot less worry as I'd have known I could use up the rest of the options to swap in and out of the squad.
In this way there would also be no need to lock down datasheets for new players who now have a cheap way use up all of the options presented to them, but players just chasing optimal builds can still buy multiple boxes.
Another big advantage would be to cut down on waste. I know it's great to have a few spares for the bits box but when a majority of the sprue goes into the bits box then there is a real environmental issue. Also with the modern semi-locked dynamic poses bits are not quite as much of an appeal as they were (Scion bits vs Guardsman bits for example). From a cost point of view it's quite disheartening to find that most of what you have paid for isn't going to be used.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The customer: "put enough of every weapon in the box to cover every option!"
GW: "the customer wants every option in the box! Quick, slash options and rewrite unit entries!"
Ouch. That one stings a bit
Be careful what you wish for. You must might get it.
The big problem is that as GW kits have evolved, the model have become more dynamic and detailed. This makes providing many options, either in the kit or via an option box, unworkable (assuming you expect the kit to go together as instructed without modification).
They can get away with this in Horus Heresy that are old-school Marine models with a drop in gun. However, I think they were luck to cram as many options into the Plague Marine box as they did once you include all the boltguns along with the special and melee weapons.
Is it a perfect solution? No.
Does it mean your kit is all you need to build you unit? Pretty often yes.
Does it support more real-world units where a variety of weapons is actually the norm? In theory if the points cost ever made taking a variety of weapons actually viable. But that is a whole different discussion.
Have you ever built either of the Genestealer Cult Neophytes or Acolytes boxes? TONS of options in those kits. "Unworkable" my a$$.
They can totally provide the options, they just don't.
Neither of those units provides all the options permitted for their "optimal build" in the box, you can field 2 acolyte heavy melee weapons in a squad of 5, no limit on duplicates, but with 1 of each in the box. Now your options are:
- not give a gak and have 2 mismatched weapons
- bits scalper
- buy 2 kits and potentially make more models than you want/need for the right bits
- GW limits the unit options to match the box contents
Same applies to the neophytes where it's 2 heavy ranged and 2 special ranges weapons per 10 - box of 10 contains one of each, so not the best example.
I don't care what the options are. The point is that there are tons of them, putting to rest the insipid idea that somehow it's an "unworkable" physical impossibility to provide numerous options on a modern GW sculpt.
Yes, but the flaw with your example is that they didn't put in enough of the options, making it a bad box stand alone if you want an optimal squad, which leads exactly back to the topic of the thread as the solution to that problem. Less options or weird equipment lists.
Yes, but the flaw with your example is that they didn't put in enough of the options, making it a bad box stand alone if you want an optimal squad, which leads exactly back to the topic of the thread as the solution to that problem. Less options or weird equipment lists.
The point wasn't that they were 100% optimal kits. The point is that an absolute gakload of options can be given to a kit. "Modern, dynamic poses" isn't the excuse people think it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote: Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.
I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 15:58:27
w40k often falls apart for new players, the moment they start to understand how the rule set works, how it gets updated and fixed. The idea that your army may stay bad for the next 2+ years, because GW plans to update it at the end of the edition is not something many players want to expiriance twice. One of the reasons why so many people don't make it past their first edition.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Tallonian4th wrote: It'll never happen but what GW really need to do separate 'bodies' sprues to use up optional parts from the current sprues, which would solve a big chunk of the issues.
Tallonian4th wrote: Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.
I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"
But that is true if the data sheet is limited or open. At least limited the new player doesn't have to worry about what their micro choices are doing. If you pick a faction that has a weak codex it's weak there is not a lot you can do about it. From my personal experience the options which I admittedly now enjoy were one of the things I disliked most as a new player. Limited datasheets are a bad fix to the problem, but they are a fix.
I would rather want to worry before I spend money, and make the proper choices, giving me a proper army to play, which is fun. Then worrying about what I bought after 2000pts of models, which suddenly turn out to be bad and unfun. Limited sheets are no fix at all, besides ones which are good for GW.
Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. It is like boosting for real money in MMORPGs or existance of bribes anywhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 16:19:22
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Crispy78 wrote: It makes sense from a certain perspective, but it does feel like another example of GW choosing the worst way to fix a problem. They know boxes come in different sizes, right?
Strange as it might sound, that may not be up to them. Or, rather, they get their boxes from a specific manufacturer, and that's the size box they offer, so they have to made do with the limitations of the product.
Overread wrote: The thing is it basically costs GW nothing to just change the suggested gameplay board size. Not even a line of text and its done. No redesign work, no investment, no changes to packaging, nothing. Just a second or two changing the size.
Yeah but they want people to buy their product, so of course they're going to change the game to meet the limitations of their product.
Overread wrote: Plus in the end players are still free to use whatever size of board they want.
But don't, because people are so obsessed with officialdom in all things that they will cut up expensive 6x4 neoprene mats to match the board size GW invented.
To answer the thread question, no, I rather dislike it. Even as bad as I am at conversion and mix and matching kits, it is an aspect of the hobby I enjoy so its sad to see wargear options vanish because it isn't directly in the kit.
Dudeface wrote: Casual/competitive doesn't come into this topic directly, if casual players are getting whipped by competitive players because they spend more to get optimal loadouts I can see why they'd be pissed. I don't see how having a squad with 5 plasma guns is "helping" (to extrapolate the opposite of hurting) the community or game in any way more or less than limiting the number of specials in a unit?
Compared to, say, 1 plasma 1 flamer 1 melta and whatever, 5 plasma guns is much less cumbersome on the table. And it can make Troops squads actually worthwhile when they can lean into a particular role.
The problem with that is that in 40k, generalists generally don't do that well because they're worse at their assigned task than specialists are. That of course is only logical because of different ranges and ideal targets for different weapons. For a long while, it's already been an issue that the standard weapons carried around by base troops are struggling, but with the scope of the game constantly increasing, they fall behind more and more which reduces the ordinary soldiers to being nothing but ablative wounds for the actual weapons. It also means that 'normal' anti-infantry weapons just aren't seen as relevant because ordinary infantry isn't what does the actual fighting and killing.
This is all true, but there's another part of it too. In a game system where every model can shoot all its weapons every turn, weapons are linearly priced according to fire output, and you're encouraged to put identical weapons together to ensure each is being employed at maximal efficiency.
But in the real world, not every weapon is being used all the time. A four-man fireteam may have a machine gun, anti-tank rocket system, and a grenade launcher, but the team lead can only direct and spot for one specialist at a time, and cover fire and observation are needed from the other members of the team for any special weapon to be effective. Replacing the MG and grenade launcher with additional rocket launchers does not directly triple the fireteam's effective anti-tank capability, as there are diminishing returns.
So in a wargame, if you have to pick whether you're going to use the MG, rockets, or grenades because you can only use one at a time, then you can make extra options cheap because they're not stacking extra firepower. That makes generalists viable as you're just paying for options, and can always use whichever weapon is situationally optimal without 'losing out' on potential firepower.
Meanwhile in 40K, if I'm picking weapons for my Scions I'm always going to take four of the same thing for each squad, because everyone is firing every turn, and mixing and matching just makes them mediocre at everything for the same price. Limiting the ability to mix-and-match weapons is a sledgehammer solution that doesn't really address the root issue- which is that weapon costs are fixed, but the actual utility of a weapon heavily depends on what the rest of the squad looks like.
I suppose one way you could do it would be to have increasing prices with duplicates. Like, in a squad that can take four special weapons, price plasma guns at 6/15/27/42 points. The price goes up the more of them you stack, so a squad with four different special weapons would be substantially cheaper than one with four duplicates. It's more complicated, and it still wouldn't be perfect (flamer+meltagun syncs better than flamer+sniper rifle), but it would at least provide a disincentive against eBaying a bunch of whatever weapon is best.
The flip side of this is also that in 40k often non killing options are just not that great. In Guard, Command Squads (both Scion and regular) are more suicide special weapons teams with better BS than the rest of the army, instead of the lynchpin on which the army pivots. I had to actually look up to see what med packs and the regimental standard do currently, because put bluntly they aren't that great, especially when compared to an extra plasma or meltagun. If the noncombat bits were useful, and the squad had the ability to survive more than a stiff breeze (say recombining into Company Commander and giving entire squad character protection), I could see a version of the unit playing a support role for the rest of the army instead of its current form.
Neat idea on the increasing points cost per repeat weapon, its not perfect but better than outright banning the combo etc.
Tallonian4th wrote: Kit restrictions aren't fun and the Plague Marine datasheet is hilarious but I can see how it's much more new player friendly. It's mad for them to be doing it this late in the day though. Pulling the rug out from people's currently legal squads does no one any favors.
I disagre with the notion that it's new player friendly, because at some point the new player is going to learn that other squads can load up on the same weapon and be more effective, and this new player is gonna wonder why they got screwed. "Oh, did I choose the wrong army?"
But that is true if the data sheet is limited or open. At least limited the new player doesn't have to worry about what their micro choices are doing. If you pick a faction that has a weak codex it's weak there is not a lot you can do about it. From my personal experience the options which I admittedly now enjoy were one of the things I disliked most as a new player. Limited datasheets are a bad fix to the problem, but they are a fix.
It's true that "did I choose the wrong army" will still be a question, option or not. But if you have a robust set of options in your kit you can at least alter the squads you've already made as you learn. You can essentially maintain your investment and flex to the expanding need of your army. In no world will I see the potential bewilderment brought on by "micro-options" outweigh the benefits of maintainability and customization.
It is possible for a weapon to be undercosted when taken in multiples or on an ideal delivery system, but overcosted when taken singly or on a suboptimal platform. Quad meltaguns on a unit of deep-striking Scions is worthwhile. A single meltagun on a footslogging Veterans squad is a waste of points.
The actual utility of a weapon option depends on more than its damage output in a vacuum, and both the capabilities and equipment composition of the carrying unit will determine how much mileage you get out of it. Setting universal prices is always going to result in min-max incentives.
LunarSol wrote: The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.
Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.
Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.
To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.
Nomeny wrote: I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.
What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?
It's indistinguishable from your prescriptivist painting rant earlier, which makes your performance in this thread very, very funny to see as an impartial outside observer.
In both cases each camp thinks the other is abandoning a "key tradition" of gaming, is doing something nasty and cheap, is denying themselves a Source of Pride™, is breaking an unspoken social contract (and each side also glows with the fire of sunk-cost bitterness; the generalist unit-builder secretly thinks they would win more games if they broke ranks and min-maxed, and the paintagandist secretly wishes they had a refund on the hundreds of hours they spent rubbing tinted goo across plastic toys )
LunarSol wrote: The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.
Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.
Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.
To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.
Why do you consider them a mess?
In theory theyre super simple :
one hand is combi (with all options)
other hand is CC (sword or axe)
you get to replace one pair with one heavy/special weapon per 5 (blight launcher, flamer, autocannon, flail)
Nomeny wrote: I kinda like how it kicks min-maxers in the teeth, but part of the game is hanging around in dark parking lots late at night to score some prime, rare bits. I'm torn.
What is it with casuals and having such a strong "cutting off my nose to spite my own face" mindset? Did min-maxers murder their families?
It's indistinguishable from your prescriptivist painting rant earlier, which makes your performance in this thread very, very funny to see as an impartial outside observer.
In both cases each camp thinks the other is abandoning a "key tradition" of gaming, is doing something nasty and cheap, is denying themselves a Source of Pride™, is breaking an unspoken social contract (and each side also glows with the fire of sunk-cost bitterness; the generalist unit-builder secretly thinks they would win more games if they broke ranks and min-maxed, and the paintagandist secretly wishes they had a refund on the hundreds of hours they spent rubbing tinted goo across plastic toys )
Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?
"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"
The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.
Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/18 19:31:39
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
LunarSol wrote: The old system definitely kept me out of 40k personally. You'd see armies of the same weapon copy pasta'd 15+ times and learn that you only got 1 copy of it for every 5 models you bought. I still don't really attempt to play 40k competitively for this reason, but the gap between what's optimal and what I'm actually willing to put into building an army is a lot closer than its ever been.
Personally i'd rather have units that have weapons options like Primaris or Tacticals do rather than how blightlords/plague marines are right now.
Nothing fun about disreguarding all the option or needing to inspect every single model in my blightlords squad to know which one has a combi melta/flamer/plasma, then measure from each of them to know which ones are in range, then need to effectively resolve 4 shooting phases for that single unit.
To be fair, I think the Blightlords thing is just a mess. I think you need to design your game to support your kits, but by the same token, you shouldn't design kits that make almost no sense within your game.
Why do you consider them a mess?
In theory theyre super simple :
one hand is combi (with all options)
other hand is CC (sword or axe)
you get to replace one pair with one heavy/special weapon per 5 (blight launcher, flamer, autocannon, flail)
Because they don't fit into the rule structure the rest of the datasheets are designed to fit in a way that works. That text dump is a mess and is a direct result of trying to translate the sprue to rules rather than something that works for both.
Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?
"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"
The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.
Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.
Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.
You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker.
i don't know a single person that uses that rule in real life.
Gert wrote: "Does anyone like getting punched in the face?"
Have you met GW fans? Put a price tag on that and they'd be queuing around the block for it! We wouldn't have any Whales left because they'd have been beaten to death by this point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Gert, if painting is only necessary if you're going to tournaments, why do you feel compelled to convert? Does your casual group not allow proxies?
When they are not bothering to paint stuff building the model should be regarded as a waste of time too. Heck at that point models should be represented by bottle caps. Would be cheaper too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 22:58:24
Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?
"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"
The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.
Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.
Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.
You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.
If you don't like eating and drinking then don't make it your hobby. If you don't like painting then play X-Wing, Attack Wing, Dust or a boardgame - something that doesn't need painting.
It's okay to not love every part of the hobby (for me it's basing, people wonder who are the guys that buy expensive modelled bases when throwing some flock around is extremely cheap and less time consuming than painting a base? Yeah, that’s me ) , but either you find a way around painting like commissioning or choosing a way of the hobby that doesn't need painting, or you just don't start the hobby. Unlike eating, drinking and breathing Wargames aren't a basic need.
Bruh are you suggesting people do not enjoy painting? What is wrong with you?
"People want you to paint their models? Well they secretly deep down, don't enjoy painting!"
The number of weirdos with staggeringly stupid takes in this hobby never ceases to amaze me.
Though personally, I think the anti-painting brigade is so stupid and has such an absurd take that they basically just humiliate themselves wherever they make their claims.
Everyone who plays the game, had to paint their armies in 9th ed, because a 10VP difference means losing the game everytime, if armies are more or less equal and even more so if ones army is weaker. A ton of people don't like to paint their models for many reasons. Cost and time or just not liking to activity being the main ones. And most of them are not very secretive about the fact that they don't like painting their models.
You say the "anti paint" brigade , when it is more like "don't make me paint stuff, you do what you want" brigade, humiliate themselfs, while you just claimed that painting is an activity that can not be disliked. There are no activities in the world, including eating, drinking and breathing that some people do not dislike.
The problem is that they're choosing a hobby *which has painting as a key element*. Denying that it is a key element is, imo, frankly delusional. There are other games they can play if they don't enjoy painting which would suit them far better.
I think it's amazing that this entire debate has started over an argument from absurdity I made. The point of my "converting and painting" are both learned skills argument is to show that initially, no one is often that great at anything, and both take time - but amazingly rather than trying to find another argument for why converting isn't a key part of the hobby people have instead tried to argue painting isn't a key element!
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.
And frankly "getting better/good" at painting can be a curse - because the time per mini massively starts to ramp up when you are no longer satisfied with "basecoat spray, main colour spray, pick out metals/skin, wash, throw something on the base and done." Suddenly its "sure, this is a fairly undetailed fire warrior, but... I'm still doing 7 colours including the base, all of which include a basecoat, wash, basecoat back up, first highlight, second highlight". Which looks dramatically better - but its taking an hour per model rather than an hour for 20.
Tyel wrote: Its pretty clear there are a lot of people who don't like painting. This may be due to "I just hate brushes" - but more often its because they just don't have the time. Either at all - or to get good. They'd rather spend that spare time playing.
I mean those are all reasonable points, but the thing is...
...maybe don't pick a hobby where you have to paint the models if you don't like painting???
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
)
) , but either you find a way around painting like commissioning or choosing a way of the hobby that doesn't need painting, or you just don't start the hobby. Unlike eating, drinking and breathing Wargames aren't a basic need.