|
Post by greyseer on May 20, 2014 17:08:41 GMT
Would I still have chosen to get into 40k? Definitely.
40k has helped me grow as a modeler, a sculptor, and a painter. It has helped me refine my creativity and storytelling abilities, giving me yet another medium in which I can practice.
My girlfriend also plays, so it's something that we can both share with each other, learning from each of our successes and failures.
Could this have happened with other games? Maybe. But I've always felt 40k was more open ended than most other modern miniatures games. There's a lot of room for personal creativity, both in the physical realm (the models) as well as the written realm (rules and fluff). GW tries to promote that open aspect of play, and it's one of the things that truly calls to me as a creative gamer.
There are plenty of other games where I feel like an outsider: wanting to play for story and fluff instead of playing to win. Those are games where, if I lose, my opponent immediately assumes I want his advice in list building, or tells me where I was "wrong" in a choice. In my local 40k group, if I lose, my opponent instead compliments me on the twists and turns in the scenario, or how he almost couldn't complete the objective due to an unforseen turn of the narrative, but pulled it off anyway.
See, I get joy out of running / participating in a good scenario with local store customers, not out of pursuing a position on a bracket, or accumulating a specific point total. Those other games already cater to that crowd. Their narratives are limited or restricted. 40k, however, currently caters to my crowd, and it's great.
So, yeah, I wouldn't have chosen to pass this up, regardless of cost.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 17:16:39 GMT
Those are games where, if I lose, my opponent immediately assumes I want his advice in list building, or tells me where I was "wrong" in a choice. In my local 40k group, if I lose, my opponent instead compliments me on the twists and turns in the scenario, or how he almost couldn't complete the objective due to an unforseen turn of the narrative, but pulled it off anyway. To be fair, I've had 40k players do this to me at tournaments. ESPECIALLY against other tyranid opponents. Like....just because I didn't run MC spam doesn't mean I don't understand how to play our codex. It means I walked into an environment where I should have predicted the degree of cheese and built a list divorced from fluff or my own personal conceptions of fairness. Also it means I don't own in the case of my most recent tournament, more crones or a skyshield landing pad nor was I willing to spend the money on these. That has a lot more to do with opponent imo. Most wargames have a significant fluff component though I'd agree not as significant in many cases as warhammer's. With those opponents though if you tell them you don't have the models to field that they tend to run out of advice pretty quickly, even if you aren't being honest.
|
|
|
Post by Inquisitor Stingray on May 20, 2014 18:03:51 GMT
Due to a more recent unhappiness with the game, my initial thought was "No", but that's really not true. Growing up I spent countless hours and my parents must have been an equal amount of money on LEGO (like a true Dane, heh) and Warhammer was to me the next logical step as my interests matured (only slightly, LEGO is still awesome). Initially it was Lizardmen whose design is obviously irresistible to anyone who was bitten by a mad dinosaur as a child. I didn't even know the rules back then as reading through the 6th Edition Fantasy book proved too taxing for 10-year old me.
Why am I telling you all this? Because to me, as I am sure is the case for a lot of other people, Warhammer was a hobby to me long before it was a game. And even now in recent times where the game has left me wanting for more, the hobby aspect is still as strong as ever. And by hobby I do not necessarily mean painting and converting, but planning lists, writing silly fluff, spending copious amounts of time discussing future releases and strategies on forums and in real life. Those are things I greatly appreciate and they are what keep me interested in a hobby that would otherwise ignore my army for another three or four years.
TL;DR - Yes I would still have gotten into the hobby, though I would have had much more expectations to/from the game and probably gone a bit easier on the purchases, as I am a snail and painting and even assembling at times.
|
|
|
Post by legasher on May 20, 2014 18:55:44 GMT
No. I would not. I love the hobby part of this game... I get so excited when I get a new model like the Haruspex that just looks so cool. It feels a lot more complete than Magic: The Gathering as far as really making the game mine and connecting with the hobby. But then I get so disappointed when I look at the game itself. I'm a gamer. I love the painting and the hobby and it relaxes me... but in the end it's about the game. And way too often I'm reminded how little GW actually cares about the game, or me for that matter. I guess I'm a little spoiled by Magic, who always feels like they're building something for us. They're not just excited that they made something cool, they're excited to see us unwrap it. They have nicknames for the types of players that play their game and try and put stuff in each set for each of them. It doesn't matter if I'm a Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos or Melvin, I may not like every set, but I'm bound to like some part of each set. GW always just seems to put stuff out and pose to accept adoration for it. They like to take a lot of credit for our creativity and imagination, believing that it's their fluff and their designs that inspire awesome sculptors and terrific painters to do incredible projects. As if the bits markets and the design tutorials and all the hours I put into learning to do this thing right were all somehow their idea. And if (in Magic terms) I happen to be a Johnny, and identify with a non-human race for some strange reason, I get some fluff, but there's very little in the 40k universe that's for me. Even my codex is written from "the enemy's" point of view.
And the big thing: the rules. I understand GW's view that it's more important to have fun than worry about the rules. But here's the thing, disagreements about the rules, and frustration over poorly written, poorly conveyed and poorly organized rules is a lot more unfun than having specific rules that say what they mean and mean what they say so that two people from different sides of the country can get together and with little to no discussion sit down and play an enjoyable game. Again, since I'm most familiar with Magic, I'll compare it to that. Magic has a department whose entire function is to know how rules will interact with other rules to influence wording, and to concern themselves with formatting and grammar. If a mistake is made, it can be errata'd, but rarely is that necessary. FAQ's are needed sometimes, but they are written before a new product comes out, because Wizards figures out what might be confusing and fixes as much as possible and explains the rest beforehand, instead of waiting to see what breaks. And if there's still question or dispute, Wizards has put time and effort into training and rewarding judges, so that there is often someone on-hand that can simply answer a question based on an understanding (vs. an interpretation) of the rules. Not having clear rules doesn't stop enforcement of rules, it just enables cheating and misplay.
So my point is that I love Warhammer 40k models, but if I had never picked up the hobby and sunk so much time and effort into it, I think I would have saved myself from a lot more frustration and disappointment than I would have denied myself enjoyment and entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by greyseer on May 20, 2014 19:58:06 GMT
Those are games where, if I lose, my opponent immediately assumes I want his advice in list building, or tells me where I was "wrong" in a choice. In my local 40k group, if I lose, my opponent instead compliments me on the twists and turns in the scenario, or how he almost couldn't complete the objective due to an unforseen turn of the narrative, but pulled it off anyway. To be fair, I've had 40k players do this to me at tournaments. ESPECIALLY against other tyranid opponents. Like....just because I didn't run MC spam doesn't mean I don't understand how to play our codex. It means I walked into an environment where I should have predicted the degree of cheese and built a list divorced from fluff or my own personal conceptions of fairness. Also it means I don't own in the case of my most recent tournament, more crones or a skyshield landing pad nor was I willing to spend the money on these. That has a lot more to do with opponent imo. Most wargames have a significant fluff component though I'd agree not as significant in many cases as warhammer's. With those opponents though if you tell them you don't have the models to field that they tend to run out of advice pretty quickly, even if you aren't being honest. That's the thing, though. I feel that GW is specifically trying to support me and other players like me. I surround myself with those players, and it makes the overall experience so much better. There are plenty of other systems more focused on providing a way to get a "fair win" to the game. They run organized events with prizes, and the focus of those events is winning some promotional item, or trophy, or title. They reshuffle rules and pieces in order to balance things, but the fluff / narrative player tends to be treated like an social outcast. "If you're not focused on winning, you're doing it wrong." I appreciate that GW currently promotes the other side of the coin. That's what I wish to support. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Xantige on May 20, 2014 20:12:30 GMT
greyseer - I'm envious, in my area, 90% of people play 40k to win, the scenario, the narrative, the reason for fighting never comes into it, it's about exploiting your codex to WIN. I've found a couple painting/modeling/fluff enthusiasts, but they've all just been passing through the city, and eventually moved on (literally). I suck at the game, but my nid army draws people to the table from across the Mezzanine of the big store/club I do play at, so that's something. When I first started, I couldn't even have a game without being distracted by every joe wanting to give me advice half of it was wrong, half of it was cheesy exploitation.
Inquisitor Stingray - "No" was my initial reaction too. I got into it later than 10, more like age 20 or so, but it was still a hobby for me. It's GW that messes it up, ironically, but it's still satisfying to make your own fluff, your own army.
legasher - I think I had a discussion similar to this somewhere... or it may have just been in my head. I agree, the problem with GW is that it costs a lot of money and hours to make an army, and it can take years, but the game aspect is better suited to something with little to no commitment. Imagine how much fun (or at least acceptable) the 40k GAME might be if you just bought a box of cheap, premade boardgame models for $50 and that was all you ever needed to play. I imagine the randomness of everything would be a bit more acceptable when you're fielding $50 that only took the time to put it on the board as opposed to 500 hours of painting and $3000 dollars that loses because you kept rolling 2's for charge distance.
|
|
|
Post by commandersasha on May 20, 2014 23:46:14 GMT
I have had great fun over the past 7 years, and don't regret getting in to it at all, so if I could turn back time and advise myself, I'd say yes,yes,yes. (But don't bother with Battlefleet Gothic!)
Now, however, if a young wannabee gamer asked for my advice, or if burglars broke in, ignored the computers and TVs, and stole my whole gaming cupboard so that I had to start again from scratch, I wouldn't.
Malifaux for the models, Dreadball for the tactics, and X-Wing for the pew-pew. GW have driven me away!
|
|
|
Post by Bot on May 21, 2014 0:21:25 GMT
Yes.
Without a doubt yes. I have many really good friends today who I met because of 40k and I still enjoy the game and the hobby today. But... in the same burglar scenario as Commandersasha? I probably wouldn't start. I'm cathing myself playing more Warmahordes (with the same people) than 40k... and GW has been pissing on my feet for too long. :/
|
|
|
Post by Xantige on May 21, 2014 1:25:02 GMT
I think, other than the rich, the diehards and the newbies, if anyone stole someone's army, that person would likely stop playing and go on to something else. If that happened to me, I'm not sure what I'd do (assuming hunting the arsehole down and making him choke on sprue until he returned my precious army wasn't an option).
|
|
|
Post by legasher on May 21, 2014 15:28:13 GMT
legasher - I think I had a discussion similar to this somewhere... or it may have just been in my head. I agree, the problem with GW is that it costs a lot of money and hours to make an army, and it can take years, but the game aspect is better suited to something with little to no commitment. Imagine how much fun (or at least acceptable) the 40k GAME might be if you just bought a box of cheap, premade boardgame models for $50 and that was all you ever needed to play. I imagine the randomness of everything would be a bit more acceptable when you're fielding $50 that only took the time to put it on the board as opposed to 500 hours of painting and $3000 dollars that loses because you kept rolling 2's for charge distance. Lol, take away the fun part of the game and keep the bad? lol. I have tons of games. If GW said "Here, we'll sell everyone completed armies to use, and you go have fun with our game," I would laugh in their face. The rules to me have the lowest quality of anything they put out. If there were as many people interested in playing the other games that I have, and I wasn't so excited to see my hard work "in action," Warhammer is one of the last games I would play for enjoyment. So far, I am cautiously anxious for 7th, because it looks like that may not be entirely the case this time, but I'm trying not to get my hopes too high.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on May 21, 2014 16:02:09 GMT
I probably would, but I would LOVE, and I can't stress this enough, to unspend everything and re-spend in a more consistent, efficient, focused way.
I have 5 armies (6 if you separate stealer cult) none of which are full painted and none of which I ever think of as really complete.
I have far more ideas and excitement than I have commitment to my armies and I wish I'd used that money to actually finish something even if it meant paying someone to help me paint!
|
|
|
Post by PumpkinHead on May 21, 2014 16:55:46 GMT
The only reason I started warhammer was because of friends. If I knew then, what I know now, I would have dove further into the hobby.
|
|
|
Post by scrotatohead on May 22, 2014 3:14:57 GMT
I started 40K because my young son enjoyed painting miniatures and developed an interest in the game. If I'd known then what I know now I would have taught him how to start fires with rolled up twenties, and just skipped the hobby altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on May 22, 2014 3:28:13 GMT
Knowing what I know now? Yes. Though I would have bought considerably more models.
Oh! How I miss the halcyon days when a box of Tyranid Guants / Warriors costed £12, ah sweet nostalgia and bitter regret.
|
|
|
Post by N.I.B. on May 22, 2014 19:02:02 GMT
Knowing what I know today, I wouldn't have bought any Hive Crones in january.
|
|