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.

I am not sure this is related to the genre at all but to a certain mindset I usually encounter with people who come from GW

there are the SciFi Gamers who still suggest Dirtside II or FullThrust, though they haven't seen an update in years

than you have met some people who think/say that a game that does not change (and really mean change, not just additional content) at a regular bases, like at least once a year, is a dead game (as people don't like to play the same army list for 2 years and therefore quit and the game is dead)

a negative example would also be 1st Edition of SAGA, which is a historical game
2nd Edi update was not well received, yet people did not only not switched over, but also stopped playing 1st because it is not the most recent set of rules
even going so far that the rather wide spread community rules for other settings (there was a generic Fantasy version, a Lord of the Rings version and a Song of Ice and Fire version) died because they were not updated to work with the 2nd Edition and therefore not played

it is also not really model related, there are so many SciFi and Fantasy models out there, (though a lot are aimed to meet the GW style) that finding something that fits the rules/setting is not a problem at all

thinking that games need to have a new Edition on a regular bases is really something that comes with people growing up with GW games get marketing telling them that this is necessary

 kodos wrote:
I am not sure this is related to the genre at all but to a certain mindset I usually encounter with people who come from GW

That's probably true, just given GW's ubiquitous presence, I generally assume anyone with fantasy leanings will have been inside the machine at some points.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.

And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.

I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.

I lurk these forums occasionally in the hope that one day either (a) GW will stick with a ruleset, actually improve it, and hopefully end up with a good consistent game system that will last many years (not likely); or (b) a greater number of fans/players/consumers will eventually decide to get off the GW 40k rules churn rollercoaster and move to a "3rd party" ruleset (ex. One Page Rules) that allows us to play a fun game with our little army men and not be shackled by GW's terrible rules writing, bloat, and churn. Maybe one day. In the meantime, my gaming time these days is taken up mostly by Blood Bowl, a game that does not require so much of me (or my wallet), with gameplay that is always exciting, strategic and fun (and funny), win or lose.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That they're just about simulation isn't an argument, all games are trying to simulate something, the difference is only the the thing fantasy games are trying to simulate is made up. It's also not entirely true, for as much as there's a thread that is trying to recreate precisely what happened, there's plenty that are playing a sandbox "What If?" style of game that's functionality little different to many fantasy systems.

They do tinker, yes, but they do so among themselves, they don't require the latest edition handed down to them on high. If something isn't working as they feel it should then they agree to changes (or, speaking from what I've seen, the owner of the game will assume responsibility for fixing it.)

There's literally dozens, if not hundreds, of fantasy and sci fi models by many different studios (even more if you include STLs) released every month. That you need the "right" troll or bowman or sci fi man with laser cannon is one of GWs greatest marketing successes and is a symptom of the same line of thinking.

Think this is absolutely spot on.

Just seeing what happened to some of the Heresy players with the new release, actually hundreds of pounds worth of miniatures, that have similarly taken hundreds of hours to complete, that they could now not use in game. I actually find quite obscene.

And it's one very strong reason to try and step back from the 'wave' of new releases. Find a gaming group or some pals that just want to play something, and that it doesn't have to be the absolute latest edition, or a game that isn't going through the rapid release cycles (most games aren't like it, and GW is by far the most egregious in this regard, as its a fundamental part of their business model).

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.

And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.

I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
.

This is why I'm firmly on the side that as soon as affordable consumer AR glasses are a thing the game aspect of our hobby will being switching to AR played via the internet vs in person with real models. Sub model at $15 month and you get access to the game and all new releases. Save and pick up where you want. No arguing about rules as the game has them baked in.

That sounds like the exact opposite of what I want...

Asenion wrote:
Sounds like GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

So let me get this straight - not only are they banning games being played in their official stores....but they are trying to shut down all the other game stores where people can play 40k as well?

Brilliant.

So where do people play, especially new players? Is WH supposed to only be plàyed at homes, like it's a dirty little secret?

It makes no sense. It's like a Dungeons and Dragons store where you can't play Dungeons and Dragons or a library that bans reading actual books.

Yes. Play at home to avoid unsavory subjects. This should actually be a rule on the first page. I have played in thirty years in the hobby five times in a GW store and most of these were N18 intro games.

 Monkeysloth wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


I'm not surprised if far fewer people than you'd think play with their armies regularly, or at all. The game takes a lot of space to play, requires a lot of terrain that's either expensive to buy or time-intensive to build (and takes a lot of space to store in either case). Games last a long time to finish compared to board or video games, you can't "save" your progress overnight or into next week without cordoning off an entire 4x6 out of your living space, transporting your army to where the game is being played is an actual hassle sometimes and requires yet another purchase of a carrying case in many cases, etc.

And finally, and here's where it gets subjective, it's just not that fun. The game I play in my head before the start of the first turn is always superior to the actual sad affair with the dice, counters, objective markers, and constant need to refer back to page 87 for the precise wording of the Armour of Contempt rule.

I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.
.

This is why I'm firmly on the side that as soon as affordable consumer AR glasses are a thing the game aspect of our hobby will being switching to AR played via the internet vs in person with real models. Sub model at $15 month and you get access to the game and all new releases. Save and pick up where you want. No arguing about rules as the game has them baked in.

I'm not so sure. There is something "special" about the tangible feel and weight of playing an in-person game with models and face-to-face communication and interactions with your opponent that I don't get from online games. Ex. Chess with an actual physical board and pieces vs. an online computer chess game. 40k tabletop vs. Tabletop Simulator online computer game. Or often in my case these days, tabletop Blood Bowl vs. the online computer game. While I can have fun with both types of games (in-person and online), I get much more enjoyment from an in-person game with physical models/pieces and the face-to-face banter with my opponent. Yes, it takes more time to set up, move figures, roll real dice, etc. but I imagine I'm not the only one that gets more satisfaction from the in-person game.

Racerguy180 wrote:
That sounds like the exact opposite of what I want...

Don't worry. Its way down the list of things that will cause the end of GW and TTG in general.

 Azreal13 wrote:

This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.

The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.

This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.

My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.

The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.

As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.

Then again, the old despising the young is a perennial feature of civilization so it's questionable if we should fight it. My parents never understood me or thought my concerns were in any way valid, so why wouldn't I perpetuate that towards the young people of today? Let our hatred be the wind beneath their wings to propel them to better things, just like that of my parents' generation was for the greatest minds of mine. Not me though, I'm a waste of life who never amounted to anything.

30 odd years around the hobby and other hobbyists confirms this isn't new in any way shape or form.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.

Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.

It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.

There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.

Anyone who's content with Games Workshop rules is probably content with almost everything, just with life in general.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.

Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.

It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.

There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.

I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.

Not to detract from this topic but what was made invalid from the new HH edition? I couldn’t find anything on someone saying they couldn’t use their models anymore.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.

Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.

It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.

There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.

I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.

In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).

I wonder if its a partly cultural thing? Only I seem to see this "we can only play as its written in the rule book" extreme purity reported by people in the USA. Which could be just that there's more in the USA talking on dakka so I'm picking up on it more, or could be a cultural thing.

It might not even be that surprising considering that, from what I'm aware, the USA GW staff were more trained for the hard sale than being a hobbyist whilst the UK lot were more trained for the hobbyist side of things (which doesn't mean they aren't there to sell, they are shopkeepers, but that they are less focused on hard sales tactics and the like).




The only other thing is that GW tends to have extremes of matched or open (narrative is just one or the other with story) and with open there's often so much potential variety its not talked about much because two different people won't have the same open play experience. So matched becomes the standard most talk about because it provides a known level ground to discuss.

Prometheum5 wrote:
In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).

The cult of officialdom is a real thing & very difficult to overcome without a ton of effort.
every single 30/40k game I've ever played has followed this methodology.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.

The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.

This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.

My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.

The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.

Perhaps views on censorship have changed for those growing up in the age of hate-speech driven mass shootings. Or maybe nothing ever changes and only one perspective is ever right.

 Prometheum5 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
As always, it's the young people who are the problem. According to old people, at least.

Who says that's a problem? It's just an explanation as to why so many current gamers (who trend young) won't consider playing an unsupported game.

It's an interesting contrast with the environment of the 80s, where individual experimentation was encouraged. TSR supplied the stats, xp calculators and so on for people to make their own monsters and dungeons. Even board game designers often published their notes on how they calculated the strength for various combat formations.

There was a period where GW did something like this, but it ended 25 years ago. Since then, that's proprietary information and their customers seem content with that.

I'm not going to experiment if I have to pay $60 for a codex. It needs to be well written to begin with.

In doing a lot of collecting and reading of vintage gaming materials in recent years and also getting way back into Battletech, I've started to think the problem with modern GW players is organized play. It causes this expectation that everyone must always play the exact same way and prevents any discussion of what kind of game or which rules you may want to play before arranging a game. There's no room for flexibility or tailoring the game experience to your preferences, it simply must be played as written in the book. When we prep for a game of Battletech it's a conversation about what story we want to tell or what units we want to try out and then coming up with the right framework and which optional rules we want to use to best have that experience. It's a totally different mindset that seems to be not even an option for GW players (of which I still am as well).

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.

 Prometheum5 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.

Starting of from a good point helps facilitate that, GW just put out bad rules and bogs it all down.
If it wasn’t for the common use of GW rules, I wouldn’t hesitate to drop them completely and use something better as my starting point.
But this also comes from time, and who your playing with, if your playing at a club or shop. Your limited more on what you can do.

GW has done well to pull people into the cycle, but I am seeing that break more and more. Which I think is healthy for the hobby as a whole.

 Prometheum5 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.

For a rulebook that cost $20 and hasn't had an update in 15 years? That's a perfectly reasonable expectation.

For a ruleset that costs many times that, has near monthly updates and despite decades of opportunities is still as riddled with balance problems and errors as it was in the 90s? Less so.

Not that I'm under any illusions that the balance churn isn't working as intended because they get higher sales from constant flux than working towards some sort of end point of "balanced."

 Gnarlly wrote:


I totally agree with this. I'm one of those that collected and painted multiple armies (7 now I think) across 2nd, 4th, and 5th editions, have tables, mats, and terrain, but these days I could care less about 40k "the game" for various reasons (rules churn and bloat being the primary ones). The game "is just not that fun" when it is weighed down with rules bloat, requiring the player to keep up to date on numerous levels of rules (ex. doctrines, subdoctrines, stratagems, warlord traits, etc.), rules changes, additions, errata, etc., and then if you ever feel like you have a handle on the rules, GW soon scraps the ruleset and starts a new edition again. Not to improve the rules, but simply to make more money by selling "new" books.

I lurk these forums occasionally in the hope that one day either (a) GW will stick with a ruleset, actually improve it, and hopefully end up with a good consistent game system that will last many years (not likely); or (b) a greater number of fans/players/consumers will eventually decide to get off the GW 40k rules churn rollercoaster and move to a "3rd party" ruleset (ex. One Page Rules) that allows us to play a fun game with our little army men and not be shackled by GW's terrible rules writing, bloat, and churn. Maybe one day. In the meantime, my gaming time these days is taken up mostly by Blood Bowl, a game that does not require so much of me (or my wallet), with gameplay that is always exciting, strategic and fun (and funny), win or lose.

For what it's worth, I'm mostly in the same boat minus the Blood Bowl. For a few years after I stopped playing due to balance and churn issues, I'd still buy models for rpgs and to paint as well as novels to read. Eventually, those stopped too. I hoped the primaris edition reset (8th?) would have signaled a change but the churn continued.

“I wonder if its a partly cultural thing? Only I seem to see this "we can only play as its written in the rule book" extreme purity reported by people in the USA. Which could be just that there's more in the USA talking on dakka so I'm picking up on it more, or could be a cultural thing. ”

Weve wondered that too. Reading or watching UK battle reports always seems to be fellas who either just had a beer together or were planning on one afterwards. Generally friendly, good sports for the most part. I’m certain it’s mostly greener grass syndrome but game philosophy certainly feels like it’s different in the states from some places.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.

For a rulebook that cost $20 and hasn't had an update in 15 years? That's a perfectly reasonable expectation.

For a ruleset that costs many times that, has near monthly updates and despite decades of opportunities is still as riddled with balance problems and errors as it was in the 90s? Less so.

Not that I'm under any illusions that the balance churn isn't working as intended because they get higher sales from constant flux than working towards some sort of end point of "balanced."

I'm with you on the balance churn 'working as intended'. That's clearly the current sales model. My suggestion is, don't keep up. Play with the books you like and agree with your opponent to ignore others. If everyone knows the army you're bringing is 'unbalanced', make use of that in your game. Give the weaker army the advantage or set up a game scenario that doesn't cater to those strengths. There's so many ways to use the tools the rules writers provide to do more and have a better time, but 40K/AoS are simply relegated to '2000 points, GT packet missions, pick up games with whoever's at the store'. That sucks, and some of it is on the players.

Oh, I'm well off that treadmill dear boy. I've moved on to games I enjoy, and, aside from a firmly low priority 30K modelling project, there's little I buy these days from GW except paint.

I'm just keeping a weather eye out for the day they make another 40K edition I want to get involved with again, even if that's only looking likely by accident these days.

I've been off the treadmill for a while, though getting back into painting minis now and taking a look. But holy crap GW stuff is hard to justify if you're not playing. I reckon everything is at least 1/3rd more than I'd want to pay so at least at 20%ish off I can handle it.

Take that Christmas orc rocker guy. £21 for a single 32mm mini is crazy; I can buy a squad of something or a huge reaper mini for that. For 20% less at £16.80? That's painful but I can handle it.

Of course, people will buy up that rocker guy because it'll be out of production by Christmas and it's pretty much guaranteed to make profit.

Tyel wrote:

And while, theoretically, you could hope to hold on to GW minis for years to make money, that's quite a different business plan. You would want to sell stock in order to get cash to buy more stock. Like a shop.

Ultimately Scalping is exploiting the law of one price. Within reason GW or FLGS have to sell to everyone at one price. But as we see in this thread, the value people assign to such things is all over the place. There will be some people who really want certain things. So if you can buy that stock and find those people, you can make the profit on the difference. But if those people can get the product at the regular price, they will do that and not buy from you.

Scalpers don't scalp stuff that has an open supply, so it's clearly more about supply.

Time on quantity limited figures like games day minis? Perfect for scalpers, because they won't expire and people will be forced to pay whatever the asking price as the supply drops to 0.
The same happens when Lego kids stop production; people will drive round the stores and buy up all the stock because the price will only go up.

The same largely applies to festivals and concerts - they don't happen that often and an artist may not be back to a city for years if ever, so if it sells out then fans will be forced to pay way above market value for tickets or miss out. Like Blink 182 - their gigs sold out within a day and tickets were available for 10x the original price.

The only time it's based on price and not supply is something like a Space Marine squad box is exploiting regional pricing - buy it at 20% off in the UK and then sell it to someone in Australia for more than retail because it's still cheaper for them than buying locally.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.

The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.

This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.

My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.

The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.

Part of it might also just be the perception of the job market.
It's easy to be bolder when you can leave work in the morning and have another job by the afternoon. These days just landing a half decent job isn't all that easy. So I suspect many people are more defensive and wand their boss on their side if they do anything risky. Because the potential blowback can be extreme. Esp with the internet able to whip up a storm in a teacup and many firms caving over a weekend of bad publicity before the internet forgets it and moves on. For an artist that might be a big concern for them, that if they go too far suddenly they are out of a job and landing a new one might be extremely difficult.

Hence a desire to toe the line a bit more.


Then again they are also kids in school and, well, listening to authority figures is kinda drummed into you at school. Esp if its a good school were the kids are generally well behaved and such.


As for communities hashing out rules on their own, Age of Sigmar sparked a huge wave of that upon its launch. Indeed it encouraged that behaviour. The reason it didn't last is because different groups want to play together. It's hard to organise that if everyone is using their own rules. So I'd wager a big part of it is that local groups are potentially more connected (or aspire to be more connected) to a chain of other clubs and groups. Furthermore individuals within groups want to compete and play within larger group events, so they want to play the standard rules system. So everyone gravitates toward a standard (even if its not the best) because they want to experience going to that major tournament event and such. Plus with wargames taking hours, many people don't have the time to play every evening of a week so they can easily play multiple game systems and rules.