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.

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic.

its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

Remember, kids, not only do you need to need to buy enough models so that you can make a good army when GW inevitably flips the table; you also need to have enough models to ensure that you can build a sufficiently bad army when GW makes some of your stuff OP.

Bear in mind that you are not obliged to like any of the models bought for this purpose. So long as it achieves balance, you should expect to use plenty of models that you don't like and have no interest in, rather than the ones you want to be use but that are currently not sufficiently balanced.

Under no circumstances should GW be blamed for this. The failure lies always and only with you, the player. Buy more or feel rightly ashamed.

A new player is going to lose to an experienced one regardless if they're playing honestly. If you're not strictly teaching and don't want a dick stomping, don't buy worse units, take fewer good ones. Buy more and feed GW aren't the only responses.

 vipoid wrote:


Remember, kids, not only do you need to need to buy enough models so that you can make a good army when GW inevitably flips the table; you also need to have enough models to ensure that you can build a sufficiently bad army when GW makes some of your stuff OP.

Bear in mind that you are not obliged to like any of the models bought for this purpose. So long as it achieves balance, you should expect to use plenty of models that you don't like and have no interest in, rather than the ones you want to be use but that are currently not sufficiently balanced.

Under no circumstances should GW be blamed for this. The failure lies always and only with you, the player. Buy more or feel rightly ashamed.

Can you knock it off with that dumbass argument? This applies to litterally any fething game ever. Do you think someone like Magnus Carlsen goes 100% all-in when he introduced someone to chess? Or that Messi starts destroying kids if he plays with them? Its the same thing for wargaming (including 40k). And if you happen to own ONLY the ultra meta list for an army, then you can make a judgment call and realise that the new player might have more fun if you tone it down by bringing the "bad" wargear options, or not using Overwatch when it would be devastating to do it.

Karol wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

I have seen a returning player try to finish a game vs 1ksons pre changes and then quit his return in the middle of game with eldar. A person used to regular games, even ones 8th ed style, was mind blown when a out of sight LoS eldar artilery blew up his single votan character, which then procted the Avatar to teleport in his midfield, and when he tried to engage him he ate a wrightlords overwatch and the Avatar phantomed outside of his berzerkers range. Dude quit the game, and he had a fresh bought and fresh painted army. And not some kid either, a 42year old veteran player.

That's a bit drastic. All he had to do was cross Eldar (or maybe just that particular Eldar player) off the list he's willing to play against.

You think that if he saw a congo line of respawning GSC or knights blowing him up from behind cover he would feel much better? Even some of mid armies like orks or tyranids, would be a problem. I see people go second vs necron and realise turn 2 that their army doesn't have the fire and melee power to shift them from objectives. And yes one can say that then they could go full GK mode, not engage the opponent , play secondaries and just try to draw or have a minor lose, because of primaris. But it is a horrible way to expiriance the game, it is mind numbing and boring. Especialy when other armies don't have to suffer through it.

There's what, 29 factions (counting Blood Angels & other SMs, & mono-god demons) in this game? And numerous ways to build forces within most of those.
But you're telling me that there's NO other match ups for this guy? No one else owns/plays something less than top tier tourney lists? What would happen if he'd played someone like....you?

Karol wrote:
I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic. Especialy when the lower win rate armie can not play anything else. Try playing a bad army and not play their "toxic compatitive" list, then stuff like turn 1 lost game happen. Also it is not a question of thin skin. He did the math vs his opponent lists, decided he didn't like the way w40k is played . He wasn't hidding it during a game, which is not the norm here as people don't talk much during games here.
Plus it it is not like the only match ups he would have, practicaly every mid to high tier army lists would do the same thing to him.

So you're telling us he made the classic noob error of simply building a bad list.

Karol wrote:
The win vs fun thing is something I will never understand. It goes beyond me how it could be true. I have never seen someone dominate a ranking or cathegory and be sad about it, or the fact that they are winning and everyone else is losing. And it can't just be sponsorships, scholarships or contracts in the future. Becuase people feel the same when they were not doing ranked matches or even during training. Even comparing to other table top games, w40k is the only one where fun is somehow split from playing and winning the game. Everything is fun in w40k. Painting, having friends, lore, but winning is bad. Or you have to do the condesending with "I beat him and his tournament list with my lore accurate friendly eldar list, which didn't have a WK (but spamed the living hell out of WSetc) ". Even in AoS there is no as much focus put on winning being anti fun, and it is a GW game. I mean what is next put the requierment that in order to play, both the people write both the lists? Have the "starting kit" for w40k be a car, five to six 5-6k armies and a flat or house to play the games in? And better yet what is next, forced painting session pre game to socilise the players ?

Well, given what you've told us about the scene where you play, that people rarely talk during games, and your own views? Socializing the players wouldn't hurt....

,

Karol wrote:


...which is not the norm here as people don't talk much during games here.

This might be the most telling part of how miserable your entire 40k experience sounds, and what is wrong with a lot of local 40k gaming environments. If I show up to play with my toy soldiers that I've spent a great deal of time being inspired by the fiction behind and working out a strong theme for an aspect of them that interests me, I want to play against someone else who's approaching the hobby from a similar angle and shares in that enjoyment. A bunch of e-sports try-hards beating the snot out of each other without any social interaction and treating it as a purely competitive activity is the worst trend in the hobby. GW catering to those people is why we're in this mess.

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

I like how legal armies are somehow hypere compatitive or toxic.

its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

Remember, kids, not only do you need to need to buy enough models so that you can make a good army when GW inevitably flips the table; you also need to have enough models to ensure that you can build a sufficiently bad army when GW makes some of your stuff OP.

Bear in mind that you are not obliged to like any of the models bought for this purpose. So long as it achieves balance, you should expect to use plenty of models that you don't like and have no interest in, rather than the ones you want to be use but that are currently not sufficiently balanced.

Under no circumstances should GW be blamed for this. The failure lies always and only with you, the player. Buy more or feel rightly ashamed.

As a related aside, I'd LOVE rule of 2 instead of 3.

 LunarSol wrote:


As a related aside, I'd LOVE rule of 2 instead of 3.

I basically self-apply a rule of 2 personally, i just don't have the drive to paint 3x of the same model most of the time

 Prometheum5 wrote:

Karol wrote:


...which is not the norm here as people don't talk much during games here.

This might be the most telling part of how miserable your entire 40k experience sounds, and what is wrong with a lot of local 40k gaming environments. If I show up to play with my toy soldiers that I've spent a great deal of time being inspired by the fiction behind and working out a strong theme for an aspect of them that interests me, I want to play against someone else who's approaching the hobby from a similar angle and shares in that enjoyment. A bunch of e-sports try-hards beating the snot out of each other without any social interaction and treating it as a purely competitive activity is the worst trend in the hobby. GW catering to those people is why we're in this mess.

1000000000% this

Hey, hasn't the debate about fun Vs winning showed up earlier in this thread? Or was it in another one?

"Woops, I just happen to have brought a Wraithknight, an Yncarne, some LOS-ignoring artillery, maybe a unit of Wraithguard... What's that? It looks rather similar to the best performing tournament list for the last 2~ months? And there's been wall to wall condemnation of the faction since the first demo game of 10th? Nah, it just coincidently happens to be all I own..."

I just don't believe the scenario.

Tyel wrote:
"Woops, I just happen to have brought a Wraithknight, an Yncarne, some LOS-ignoring artillery, maybe a unit of Wraithguard... What's that? It looks rather similar to the best performing tournament list for the last 2~ months? And there's been wall to wall condemnation of the faction since the first demo game of 10th? Nah, it just coincidently happens to be all I own..."

I just don't believe the scenario.

I been playing Iyanden since 3rd edition you described most of my army for them.

It’s really sad that can’t even play the army I am most passionate about without it being declared unfun, and WAAC and other things.
I didn’t even know the artillery was also top tournament, if it’s stuff I buy in 3rd edition someone should have given me a heads up about it.
Or we could just tell GW there game sucks, and would be nice if they put out a product that’s sucked less.

Becoming a WAAC player because you play the same army for a long time a d did not buy enough models to make a weak list is the natural progression of the rules people are talking about

Also the natural progression of rules make it that taking longer pauses like 4 years makes you a noob again even if you played 20 years prior

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Remember, kids, not only do you need to need to buy enough models so that you can make a good army when GW inevitably flips the table; you also need to have enough models to ensure that you can build a sufficiently bad army when GW makes some of your stuff OP.

Bear in mind that you are not obliged to like any of the models bought for this purpose. So long as it achieves balance, you should expect to use plenty of models that you don't like and have no interest in, rather than the ones you want to be use but that are currently not sufficiently balanced.

Under no circumstances should GW be blamed for this. The failure lies always and only with you, the player. Buy more or feel rightly ashamed.

Can you knock it off with that dumbass argument? This applies to litterally any fething game ever. Do you think someone like Magnus Carlsen goes 100% all-in when he introduced someone to chess? Or that Messi starts destroying kids if he plays with them? Its the same thing for wargaming (including 40k). And if you happen to own ONLY the ultra meta list for an army, then you can make a judgment call and realise that the new player might have more fun if you tone it down by bringing the "bad" wargear options, or not using Overwatch when it would be devastating to do it.

I'm sorry, Vlad, that's absolutely not what I'm personally getting from Vipoid's argument. I'm getting a complaint that gw can't balance the options in their game sufficiently so that someone can simply choose to run the models that they like without the fear that they will be either OP or UP, thus hindering the enjoyment of the game. This is obviously a problem of gw repeatedly "flipping the table" with resets and the like. They absolutely can balance the game, as evidenced by pre-Loyalist Scum 2.0 era 8th edition. Having the correct costs for various wargear is obviously a component of this, instead of the godawful system adopted in 10th edition.

What exactly are you raging about?

Apple fox wrote:

I been playing Iyanden since 3rd edition you described most of my army for them.

It’s really sad that can’t even play the army I am most passionate about without it being declared unfun, and WAAC and other things.
I didn’t even know the artillery was also top tournament, if it’s stuff I buy in 3rd edition someone should have given me a heads up about it.
Or we could just tell GW there game sucks, and would be nice if they put out a product that’s sucked less.

Play the knight with sword&board
Play Wraithblades, wraithguards with the d-scythe
Bring some guardians
etc.

And if you've been playing since 3rd, people you play with will probably know that in your case, it really is just a passion for the army and not metachasing that made you play them. It's a non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

Or we could just tell GW there game sucks, and would be nice if they put out a product that’s sucked less.

we have, GW just doesn't care because people keep buying gak from them. For every person on here that feels strongly about the problems of the game, GW recruits 5 new players that will buy a full army and quit in a year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'm sorry, Vlad, that's absolutely not what I'm personally getting from Vipoid's argument. I'm getting a complaint that gw can't balance the options in their game sufficiently so that someone can simply choose to run the models that they like without the fear that they will be either OP or UP, thus hindering the enjoyment of the game. This is obviously a problem of gw repeatedly "flipping the table" with resets and the like. They absolutely can balance the game, as evidenced by pre-Loyalist Scum 2.0 era 8th edition. Having the correct costs for various wargear is obviously a component of this, instead of the godawful system adopted in 10th edition.

What exactly are you raging about?

i read it as a roundabout way of saying "You're white knighting for GW".

Being WAAC does NOT mean taking a good list.

WAAC is an attitude of player behaviour and play that denotes a selection of non specific negative elements. For example taking a good list against known new players specifically to get easy wins; being obnoxious when winning (and losing); cheating; attempting to game the system etc...

Just taking a good list doesn't make you a WAAC in anyway shape nor form. Honestly building a good list that works is PART of the game. That's why people harp on about having good balance so that hte game doesn't have lists that just "auto win" and the like so that people CAN spend time building a good list and using good tactical choices of models on the table and not just win every fight because that's what they chose.

Wargames should always be a duality of good list building and gameplay with the latter being the greater component; assuming that the former is done to a decent level of competency

 Overread wrote:
Being WAAC does NOT mean taking a good list.

Exactly.

I'll get asspounded by a meta eldar list played by a chill dude : fun game
I'll beat a terrible list played by a person with a gakky attitude : unfun game

It's all about the interaction between the humans outside of the game IMO

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Being WAAC does NOT mean taking a good list.

Exactly.

A few moments earlier . . .

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

 vipoid wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Being WAAC does NOT mean taking a good list.

Exactly.

A few moments earlier . . .

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
its not the legal army being toxic, its bringing the best army against someone unfamiliar with the game that is.

Exactly proves my point. Taking a good Eldar list doesn't make you a WAAC. It was taking that list against someone brand new to the game and then stomping them into the ground in a fashion that wound up with the person just quitting the whole game after 2 turns - THAT was the issue.

Again taking good lists isn't a bad thing; its not something we should be discouraging. Heck most chatter about games that isn't griping about the balance or debating how a rule works; is "how do I build a good list/army". We help each other lal the time build better lists and understand how to put together an army. It's part of the game.


Again taking good stuff isn't bad, its the context of when you take it; how you use it; how you conduct yourself; who your opponent is etc....

 vipoid wrote:


A few moments earlier . . .

what is "Context" ?

I was specifically talking about Karol's anecdote

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I'm sorry, Vlad, that's absolutely not what I'm personally getting from Vipoid's argument. I'm getting a complaint that gw can't balance the options in their game sufficiently so that someone can simply choose to run the models that they like without the fear that they will be either OP or UP, thus hindering the enjoyment of the game. This is obviously a problem of gw repeatedly "flipping the table" with resets and the like. They absolutely can balance the game, as evidenced by pre-Loyalist Scum 2.0 era 8th edition. Having the correct costs for various wargear is obviously a component of this, instead of the godawful system adopted in 10th edition.

What exactly are you raging about?

i read it as a roundabout way of saying "You're white knighting for GW".

Mmmm. I read as more of an attack on the premise that players should "self govern", in order to make up for gw's poor balance, instead of just being able to "play with the models that they like". In short, it's less a problem of "white knighting", and more a problem of having a defeatist attitude and just telling people to "do the balance themselves", instead of expecting gw to achieve the balance by adjusting it over time (as they did during 8th, prior to the Loyalist Scum 2.0 books).

Gw has shown that they can achieve acceptable balance, they just refuse to do so in favor of churn. That is the issue, IMHO.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
A bunch of e-sports try-hards beating the snot out of each other without any social interaction and treating it as a purely competitive activity is the worst trend in the hobby. GW catering to those people is why we're in this mess.

Ah yes, the classic "PEOPLE ARE HAVING FUN WITH SOMETHING I DONT ENJOY SOMEONE MAKE THEM STOP" argument. Why is ok to constantly post condescending and insulting comments about competitive play on a forum where rule #1 is "be polite"?

You're not exactly the least aggressive nor least condescending in your posts though...

 LunarSol wrote:
As a related aside, I'd LOVE rule of 2 instead of 3.

So sacrificing narrative elements for a perceived balance improvement in competitive play? I guess that's a trade that can be made but it seems kind of at odds with the idea of "use whatever models you like".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
Becoming a WAAC player because you play the same army for a long time a d did not buy enough models to make a weak list is the natural progression of the rules people are talking about

Also the natural progression of rules make it that taking longer pauses like 4 years makes you a noob again even if you played 20 years prior

That is not what WAAC means. You do not become a WAAC player just because GW made your army more powerful and people really need to stop using WAAC to mean "anyone who brings a list that is stronger than mine" instead of what it actually means: an attitude that winning is all that matters and any unethical behavior is acceptable as long as it helps you win. Having your army jump 20% in win rate overnight doesn't mean you start cheating, rules lawyering, deliberately only playing your games against newbies and avoiding anyone who could expect to win against you, etc.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
A bunch of e-sports try-hards beating the snot out of each other without any social interaction and treating it as a purely competitive activity is the worst trend in the hobby. GW catering to those people is why we're in this mess.

Ah yes, the classic "PEOPLE ARE HAVING FUN WITH SOMETHING I DONT ENJOY SOMEONE MAKE THEM STOP" argument. Why is ok to constantly post condescending and insulting comments about competitive play on a forum where rule #1 is "be polite"?

Oh, let me be a clear as possible I despise the concept of competitive Warhammer playing and what it has done to the hobby. One only has to go look at, uh, most other wargames and wargaming communities or read a non-GW wargaming website or magazine to see what fun could be had, working together on a collaborative storytelling experience or a way to have an engaging time with your fellow hobbyists. The Waterloo guys aren't stuck having this argument over and over again, they just all agree on a big, cool game they want to play and they get their mates together to make it happen. Nobody's having to toss out their models because someone nerfed arquebuses after an abusive meta season. Instead, Warhammer players are stuck with environments like Karol's.

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
A bunch of e-sports try-hards beating the snot out of each other without any social interaction and treating it as a purely competitive activity is the worst trend in the hobby. GW catering to those people is why we're in this mess.

Ah yes, the classic "PEOPLE ARE HAVING FUN WITH SOMETHING I DONT ENJOY SOMEONE MAKE THEM STOP" argument. Why is ok to constantly post condescending and insulting comments about competitive play on a forum where rule #1 is "be polite"?

Oh, let me be a clear as possible I despise the concept of competitive Warhammer playing and what it has done to the hobby. One only has to go look at, uh, most other wargames and wargaming communities or read a non-GW wargaming website or magazine to see what fun could be had, working together on a collaborative storytelling experience or a way to have an engaging time with your fellow hobbyists. The Waterloo guys aren't stuck having this argument over and over again, they just all agree on a big, cool game they want to play and they get their mates together to make it happen. Nobody's having to toss out their models because someone nerfed arquebuses after an abusive meta season. Instead, Warhammer players are stuck with environments like Karol's.

Here's the thing though

If GW actually catered properly to the competitive crowed and built a balanced game system that competitive people could use well, then it would 100% benefit the narrative crowd as well.

A sensible wargame competitive rules set that isn't based on whoever goes first or whoever gets the first strike and which aims to have even balance both between armies and within armies (ergo not just one option per army) its a great thing for ALL players.


thing is GW doesn't actually cater to any real crowd. They "kind of" cater or at least focus on competitive because its a lot easier to do so; but even then the balance isn't anywhere near where it should be for a 30 year old game. Things like minimum board size weren't based on competitive nor narrative players it was based purely on the size that fit into GW's existing boxes.

The focus on using competitive stats for balancing makes perfect sense because its easily harvested data and at least should have most people playing the game right. You can't really harvest independent player data the same way because its highly unreliable.

 Overread wrote:

The focus on using competitive stats for balancing makes perfect sense because its easily harvested data and at least should have most people playing the game right. You can't really harvest independent player data the same way because its highly unreliable.

Fundamentally I totally agree with you. The problem I see is that tournament players are playing a totally different game from narrative/casual players and GW is trying to balance around and cater to an utterly skewed and warped form of the game. The narrative and casual players aren't digging through the rules to find abusive edge cases and meta combos, but those are the data that GW is modifying the core rules of the game around.

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Oh, let me be a clear as possible I despise the concept of competitive Warhammer playing and what it has done to the hobby. One only has to go look at, uh, most other wargames and wargaming communities or read a non-GW wargaming website or magazine to see what fun could be had, working together on a collaborative storytelling experience or a way to have an engaging time with your fellow hobbyists. The Waterloo guys aren't stuck having this argument over and over again, they just all agree on a big, cool game they want to play and they get their mates together to make it happen. Nobody's having to toss out their models because someone nerfed arquebuses after an abusive meta season. Instead, Warhammer players are stuck with environments like Karol's.

Gotcha. So your response is to double down on "stop having fun the wrong way" and arrogantly assume that anyone who enjoys competitive play needs to be brought to enlightenment on Real Wargaming Fun. Believe it or not the people who enjoy competitive play aren't poor lost souls who need your help, they just enjoy something you don't like and have no interest in the things you enjoy.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:
Oh, let me be a clear as possible I despise the concept of competitive Warhammer playing and what it has done to the hobby. One only has to go look at, uh, most other wargames and wargaming communities or read a non-GW wargaming website or magazine to see what fun could be had, working together on a collaborative storytelling experience or a way to have an engaging time with your fellow hobbyists. The Waterloo guys aren't stuck having this argument over and over again, they just all agree on a big, cool game they want to play and they get their mates together to make it happen. Nobody's having to toss out their models because someone nerfed arquebuses after an abusive meta season. Instead, Warhammer players are stuck with environments like Karol's.

Gotcha. So your response is to double down on "stop having fun the wrong way" and arrogantly assume that anyone who enjoys competitive play needs to be brought to enlightenment on Real Wargaming Fun. Believe it or not the people who enjoy competitive play aren't poor lost souls who need your help, they just enjoy something you don't like and have no interest in the things you enjoy.

That's fine. I've seen those players and that attitude decimate our local player communities and reduce it to a shell of what it was, so I'm not interested in encouraging that type of play.

Market wise, do you think a reason why GW could potentially have got a certain bias towards more competitive mindset be that those palyers are more likely.to buy more?

What I mean is that keeping up with the meta may probably require you to buy a lot more armies and units. In 7th, some people buyed a lot in that fashion to get formations for example. Their, of say you play competitively and Eldar motojets are to meta unit ATM, but you haven't got any in your current army, you may be tempted to buy a few boxes to make up for it.

Whereas, hypothetically, less competitive players, less concerned with the current meta, might be more likely to buy less over the same period of time and maybe even consider second hand market a bit more if they're not in a hurry to find that or this unit they need?

Thinking out loud, any thoughts from you guys in this?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Market wise, do you think a reason why GW could potentially have got a certain bias towards more competitive mindset be that those palyers are more likely.to buy more?

I don't agree with the premise here. I don't think GW is biased towards competitive play. They do at least a minimum to support competitive play but I don't think that support is disproportionate to the percentage of their market that is competitive players. I don't think their support of competitive play represents bias any more than, say, publishing a new Crusade book is a bias towards a narrative mindset.

Also, while a few meta-chasing whales do buy a lot of stuff that value is significantly undermined by the secondary market. The whale spends a bunch of money on a new tournament army but sells the old one on the secondary market, meaning people who otherwise might have bought a new kit from GW buy the whale's old stuff instead. The most profitable whales are the obsessive collectors, the people who buy an entire chapter of marines just because it's cool to have one even though it's way beyond the scope of anything they'd ever use in a game.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Market wise, do you think a reason why GW could potentially have got a certain bias towards more competitive mindset be that those palyers are more likely.to buy more?

What I mean is that keeping up with the meta may probably require you to buy a lot more armies and units. In 7th, some people buyed a lot in that fashion to get formations for example. Their, of say you play competitively and Eldar motojets are to meta unit ATM, but you haven't got any in your current army, you may be tempted to buy a few boxes to make up for it.

Whereas, hypothetically, less competitive players, less concerned with the current meta, might be more likely to buy less over the same period of time and maybe even consider second hand market a bit more if they're not in a hurry to find that or this unit they need?

Thinking out loud, any thoughts from you guys in this?

not just the people who play competitive, but that drives sales in general

and yes GW advertises like that, when the new Meta Watch Article shows that Eldar are the top army, having a banner at the same page saying buy Eldar if you want to win will also have an effect on casual players who don't want to lose every single game because they bought the wrong army

and because they won't have painted and played with their new army before it is neverd they are going to buy another one
and than 11th happen and they leave but are replaced with someone new who gets into the same trap

and GW likes this sales models because it works well without the need to ever get better, care about the rules or invest more into the game than the minimum
it also helps to prevent the wargaming community in general from growing, because GW is in the sweetspot of selling everything they produce and to support more people they would need to grow faster than they could handle which would reduce profits