@2ray_degenemax Me and my friends would bring our game systems and CRTV's to each other's houses to game together in the basements.
English
Emps
2.9K posts
Emps
@Emps_rex
Beginner Artist. I do 3D animation and modeling. (Follow does not equal endorsement.) https://t.co/3UvbSZjw72
Katılım Şubat 2020
1.3K Takip Edilen139 Takipçiler
日本だとHaloはマイナー作品だけどアメリカだと大人気だったから、アメリカのティーンは友達と画面分割でHaloやりながら冷凍ピザとマウンテンデューを味わう青春を送ってた人が多いんやろうなぁ... 本当に羨ましい。俺も2000年代のアメリカのティーンになりたい....
VariousThings@bluefirewake74
@2ray_degenemax I wish I could go back to those glorious days of endless Halo nights, mountain dew, and pizza with the boys. It will never be the same again sadly.
日本語
@2ray_degenemax Halo was basically THE game of the 2000's. Cultural linchpin.
English
I think my core problem with removing templates to speed up the game is that I've seen the developer mindset of stripping things out to streamline the experience for competitive players over time water down the experience. I saw it happen with world of warcraft where over time the game just streamlined itself in order to get people into high end raiding as much as possible. And that's honestly how I feel about tenth edition where I think they heavily streamlined things far too much to make it easier to balance for competitive but at the same time removed a lot of flavor (even if 9th admittedly had a bloat problem). Competitive players will have a tendency to optimize the fun out of things, when I think that genuinely that the feelings a game invokes are more important than the raw numbers. Like if I was going to draw an example from WoW again, the talen system had become pretty cookie cutter and most people picked the same talents over and over. And Blizzard's solution was to...just remove most of the options and have you get them automatically (no choice) and give you an option of one of three side grades every 15 levels. People made the argument this didn't matter because mathematically it was the same thing on paper and didn't impact gameplay but it very much impacted the way the game felt. Eventually after years of demanding Blizzard brought back a system similar to the older talent system.
And I know these examples aren't 1 to 1 with Warhammer, but it's a similar mindset. I understand people wanting the game to be less clunky, but I think if you take it too far you end up sanding down some of the cool stuff that gives the game a bit of pizazz.
English
Do you like losing every game you play? This is just more proof of your projection calling actual gamers tourists while likely not even understating how the game works. Even if you hate the lore you should still know that intercessors are superior on the tabletop.
Chainsword@Chainsword40k
Yeah, because most buyers are meta slaves. It’s not like GW doesn’t realize that the bulk of their sales actually come from collectors, painters, and casual players. Good effort though.
English
@Dante45p @Git_Stompa @tlark8 I care about the setting, I run "my dudes" not tons of named characters. Hero Hammer is for meta chasers.
English
@Emps_rex @Git_Stompa @tlark8 Nah not really
Cato sicarius was literally just an upgrade of the standard captain kit original
Ofc the smarsh captain
The fluff was kit bashing but you lore addicts removed it because you care only about name character
English
After following this conversation, I think the root of this conversation, the whole does lore matter thing vs do people buy models for the game, you just have to ask why do people play warhammer over other games that have objectively better systems and mechanics than warhammer. Warhammer is popular because of its setting. If it was just about mechanics and what's meta mattering it'd be better to just sell cardboard cutouts or cheap pieces. GW sells premium models where there's effort into making them look good on tabletop and are expensive. Who would pay thousands of dollars just for game pieces? You drop this much money on something you care about. That's why this is a hobby, not just a game. Long term, undermining the setting hurts the hobby.
Ultimately catering to the top 1% of hardcore meta chasers and competitive hurts the experience of the average player. This can be seen in World of Warcraft as an example.
English
Yeah, I’ve read the article. Is there somewhere I can watch the interview, or are we just supposed to take the journalist’s word for it? Because all the articles do is quote the financial report, which I already linked the exact wording from.
Also, it goes like this: GW produces 10k boxes of X, they all sell, and GW proclaims it the best-selling box. GW then produces 11k boxes of Y, and proclaims that it sold even better, a new record.
Ever wonder why GW doesn’t provide sales data for each system and range?
tlark@tlark8
@Chainsword40k Read the article I linked where the CEO confirmed this as they were asked by the interviewer/journalist. Or are you gonna move goal posts? Logan Grimnar also won best 40K mini of the year. It was a great year for SW.
English
I skipped sleeping to make a brush for lining and colouring this nefarious Weiss Schnee
You’re welcome
#RWBY #RWBYfanart #FNDM
English
I like pushing myself too, I personally just don't bring it into 40k. I like competitive games, I played the hell out of StarCraft 2 and various fighting games. I push myself a lot in animation to get better. For me I like wargaming not for the competition but for the feeling. My main joy is seeing my dudes painted up on table top looking cool and laughing with my friends about the dice results. I don't get the same dopamine hit I do with winning in SC2. I guess I view it like trying to make DnD competitive.
Also for me I hate making anything with random elements competitive.
And I think a hard thing is that competitive play and fun fluffy play are at odds mechanically and it's hard to appease both groups.
English
@Emps_rex 2) I like to push myself though and be challenged. It’s what helps me grow deeper knowledge and skills in things. I do this outside of gaming too. I just bought a table saw and built work benches for my hobby space. First time I ever tried this b/c I like learning new skills
English
That's interesting but good if it's the case. My friend who was way more into the competitive scene described the opposite behavior increasing which is why he switched over to heresy where he could enjoy more fluffy lists without the meta gamers who's favorite chapter switches based on who's got the most OP codex. Maybe that attitude is on the downswing. I pretty much exclusively play with my friends and avoid the competitive spaces so I really only have my friend's personal account and what I see online to base my opinion off of.
English
@Emps_rex - rules, etc etc. People are still bringing harsh lists, but all of my competitive games begin with a handshake and a "have you played this kind of army before? Let me explain it and my intent."
I think that's what's really changed and for the better. That's list agnostic to me.
English
Having heard the horror stories of past editions, I don't believe that meta gamers are a particularly new phenomenon.
Just off the dome I'm thinking of the original "Fish of Fury" strat for Tau and that's pretty damn old and was pretty popular.
Emps@Emps_rex
@tlark8 People used to make fluff lists before cringe meta chasing took over. There used to be gentleman's agreements.
English
@Git_Stompa @tlark8 I know it's not. What I'm saying is that I think that the 40k community has leaned more into the competitive and cheesy mindset over time. I see this divide play out when comparing the Heresy community with the 40k community.
English
English
English
You might not like sexualized characters, you might not think sexy characters in cartoons intended for developing kids are not appropriate, but, I'm sorry to tell you this, it's the only way to stop them from jerking off to Five Nights at Freddys and Roblox and Minecraft Alex.
English
@GamingAndPandas From what I could gather it's because it was soulless and meaningless work. Very artificial. But then things got worse.
English
@Git_Stompa @tlark8 I know people like this always existed but from my experience metagaming and building your army solely around what's the most viable was not the main priority for most players. What I'm saying is the metagaming mindset has taken over.
English
I kind of disagree about removing templates being good. I find them very fun for simulating a battle more accurately and they feel satisfying. They were removed primarily because it created conflict in the tournament and competitive scenes where players who prioritized winning over friendly competition wouldn't engage with it in good faith. So I think the game lost some of its simulation aspect to be more arcadey and game like.
And playing with friends isn't necessarily about always playing casual. Me and my friend have gone hard with our lists. But it's more about "I know this dude well enough to not be a dick when it comes to vehicle facings." That you don't really get with a stranger. Like we can compete, or play fluff lists, but we agree to terms and are fair and honest. He lets me know if he's bringing a helldrake to our 7th edition games. I play the game primarily essentially to roleplay with my models, not because I want to play something super competitive. I don't think it should be a competitive game like esports because it runs against the idea of it being a battle simulation and involves stripping fun but clunky mechanics to streamline it for a competitive scene. That's why you get the boring standardized L terrain rather than cool scenic boards.
English
@Emps_rex sort of agree. template weapons were problematic and time consuming. Removing them was ultimately good, but I get that they were def cool. Playing with friends is always great, but some people prefer to push themselves and be challenged. I am one of those people.
English
@Chainsword40k I mean there's literally nothing stopping anyone from just using tacticals as intercessors if they want, especially once the tactical squad gets removed next edition. They have the same base size. In fact you can just use whatever armor mark you like the best.
English
By whose criteria? Mine? Tactical Squad, because Primaris lore is shit. In my case, I bought both to kitbash truescale Firstborn. By yours? Probably whatever is best in the current meta. By other people’s criteria? I let them speak for themselves.
tlark@tlark8
Answer me this @Chainsword40k which is a better purchase? A tactical squad vs an intercessor squad and why? Which one of these boxes is the better purchase? Hint: it has nothing to do with the lore
English
You delivered! Tactical squads are honestly a waste of points. Intercessors are only 20pts more and get you “sticky objectives” in game which is so much better than what a tactical squad offers. Zero of my marine lists have tactical squads in them. See how the lore doesn’t apply?
Chainsword@Chainsword40k
By whose criteria? Mine? Tactical Squad, because Primaris lore is shit. In my case, I bought both to kitbash truescale Firstborn. By yours? Probably whatever is best in the current meta. By other people’s criteria? I let them speak for themselves.
English
I'll be real, it's my opinion that wargames really should be played and are far more enjoyable with friends you personally know. I think playing with randoms can be a really negative experience. And that's why more grainy rules like templates and vehicle facings were removed because of metagamy players which created conflict. But those kinds of conflicts don't really happen nearly as often when you're playing with bros you trust (not saying they never do). Not doing that is like random cod lobbies except you gottah stand with the person in real life and deal with a stranger you don't have the full measure of. I don't think wargaming should be treated the same way videogames are.
English
@tlark8 @Chainsword40k I own way more tactical squads than intercessors by a substantial margin.
English
Answer me this @Chainsword40k which is a better purchase? A tactical squad vs an intercessor squad and why? Which one of these boxes is the better purchase?
Hint: it has nothing to do with the lore
Chainsword@Chainsword40k
Yes, miniatures are GW’s main revenue stream, but that doesn’t mean lore is insignificant. The lore is what drives demand for those miniatures in the first place. People don’t just buy generic sci-fi soldiers, they buy Space Marines, Orks, Eldar, etc., because they’re invested in the setting and what those factions represents. GW sold over 4.5 million Black Library novels in one recent year. That's not "2% revenue", that's thousands of people getting hooked on the universe. Also, a lot of new players don’t enter through the tabletop anymore. They come in through video games, novels, animations, and youtube content, then move into buying minis. So even if lore isn’t a direct revenue stream, it acts as marketing and customer acquisition Licensing hit £52.5m last year - all of it rides on the lore. Video games and media aren't "separate"; they're the lore in a different format, and they drive core mini revenue like crazy. Strip the stories, characters, and universe out and the brand becomes generic sci-fi minis. Interest fades, new players stop showing up, existing ones drift. GW knows this. No on is arguing that GW main revenue is not miniatures but calling lore secondary because it doesn't show up as a fat line item on the balance sheet is like saying Disney's movies don't matter because merch is bigger. I am not sure you cant grasp how it;s all tied together or just oversiply this to a excel sheet. You would fit right in with GW execs.
English