Why are so many players hostile?

[Mattrulesok]

I think we need to draw the distinction between being negative and being critical, I'm overwhelmingly positive about AoS but I'm still critical of the game and it's many foibles, I started a thread the other day about our most disappointing units in game, its a fairly critical thread but one I would call largely positive because its lighthearted and people mostly asking for more not less. 

 

I think also, with the way a forum space functions it will always lean more critical and more negative because there are only so many "everything's great" posts you can make but infinite complaints. For what it's worth I find the AoS WhatsApp groups far more positive and less critical, they are far more focused on the hobby aspect. 

[Kramer]

25 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:

re are only so many "everything's great" posts you can make but infinite complaints

 

[Kramer]

5 hours ago, Shadowcortax said:

That's the kinda thing I'm talking/asking about. But most of the time I've seen someone try to do that in the treads and forum that need it most people respond 1 of 4 ways: 

Ignore them and keep driving their point.

Say something like "you don't know what you're talking about".

Immediately verbally abuse/assault them. 

Accept the advice either willingly or grudgingly, but this happen so very little it's disappointing.

Its one of the hardest things to learn. Being accountable. Plenty of people shift blame coming from disappointment to others. And in doing so justifying their behaviour. 
so 1 out of 4 ain’t bad.  

[Gorthor21]

If someone threatened to bust up my experience Nagash model I would threaten them right back by saying I would bust their whole army and laugh.  
he is probably just playing with you in a brusque way, my friend I got into the hobby was always like that and I got used to it very quickly.  He also had a tendency to cheat with dice rolls and won every game we ever played to the point that if I killed just a few dwarf warriors he would get mad and want to quit the game.   It’s really a matter of if your relationship with that person is more important than sweating the small stuff like that and trying to be friendly with them despite all the negative.

[Shearl]

I think it mostly comes down to one of two things.

1. I think overly negative members of this hobby are something of a vocal minority. Most of the people I play with are pretty positive and are looking to have fun. The internet allows unhappy people to complain to a wide audience.

2. Like most hobbies, many involved in GW products (or any wargaming for that matter) form a deep emotional attachment to their armies. The planning, building, hours of painting and playing cause people to become quite fond and protective of their armies. When their army falls behind the curve competitively it is easy to become disheartened watching this army you labored over becoming less effective on the table. It’s not simply a matter of beastmen (just a random example) becoming less effective, but instead MY beastmen are losing. And new armies which seem stronger or bring new tools to the table might seem like another even larger hurdle for your army. Now my Doombull, Gnashhorn Examplesmasher is getting punked by new Aelves or Skelemen.

The solution to both points I think is to find a good group of people to play with, and not take the competitive side super seriously. While there’s nothing wrong with competitive play, the shifting balance of power is an ever present factor, and with it, a greater opportunity for salt.  

[Thamalys]

I would also add that, compared the overwhelming majority of forums dealing with any game, from tabletop gaming to online gaming, I found this place to be characterised by a very positive, very respectful attitude, with most of the complaints being thrown at GW as opposed to any actual player.

And even then,  while there might be things that we are presently frowning upon in terms of specific factions and game balance, I think it is fair to say that most of us acknowledge the fact that, overall, GW us giving us a fantastic, ever-changing game, supported by an incredibly friendly community.

My experience ranges from friends to the local shop and included tournaments as well: some of the players I came across might be moaning about their factions (I am one of them when it comes to Nighthaunt) but I don’t think that makes them or me a negative presence in this forum or indeed elsewhere.

Suggestion: when a given thread gets bogged into some pessimism, try to lift it up by either some banter or a fresh topic: some of us might be a tad bit grumpy, but we are always ready to jump in the banter/hype train in no time.

Unless we’re talking Nighthaunt, of course - in that case, the grumpiness is justified 😜

[Kramer]

53 minutes ago, Thamalys said:

Suggestion: when a given thread gets bogged into some pessimism, try to lift it up by either some banter

 

53 minutes ago, Thamalys said:

Unless we’re talking Nighthaunt, of course - in that case, the grumpiness is justified 😜

I see what you did there. Joking about that op faction. 

[Erosharcos]

On 9/19/2020 at 2:03 AM, Shadowcortax said:

I'm fairly new to aos, only really played a few games with friends.  But why whenever I try to look up the answer to a question I have in the forums, most of what I see is just people ranting about, "this faction needs to be nerfed", "this army should never have been made", "ability is too overpowered", "that character needs to be nerfed". And then a few threads later I see, "why did they need this", "my army can't beat that army because I got nerfed", "if this is how GW is gonna do things then I'm out". And most of the time the reason that I see people complaining is because they are having a bit of trouble winning against a certain army, but the reason they are having trouble is because their army got nerfed, so now they want to nerf another army.  I was told when I started this hobby that the community was supportive, but more than half of what I see and find is people complaining, and when someone offers advice most people either ignore it or respond with something like "well have YOU ever face them", or "you have no idea what you're talking about". And then there are the things I see and here about people being bullied away from certain armies because the community decided that if you play that armies your either a noob or a 'meta-chaser' or a bad person in general. 

Why? What happened? And why do I feel like everyone has it out for the death faction, and by extension me a death player?

So, if people are treating YOU poorly, then they need to play in the middle of the highway, as they are not good members of the community, nor are they desired. 
 

As for the bitterness from people over rules/factions, that’s totally justified and IMO a very good thing. 
 

I’ve been wargaming for four years now, shorter than most, but competitively gaming since I was a teenager (in my mid 20’s now) and critiques of the competitive state of a game trying to be competitive are healthy not only for the growth of the game but for the state of it as well. Conversations about the game, positive or negative, mean people are invested in it at some level, which is good for us! 
 
AoS tries to be a competitive game with its matched play rules and FAQs, etc., but it is fundamentally a non-competitive, fundamentally imbalanced game. I’ll say again, Age of Sigmar is fundamentally unbalanced. And I personally don’t think the design team tries to make it perfectly balanced. I say this because in the 4 years I’ve played AoS, mostly competitively, there have been many changes to various units, buffs and nerfs, and sometimes, the decisions and matched play points outcomes just don’t make sense. 
 

Some units do jack shite and cost a lot of points, and others do a waaaay too much for the points they cost. You can find tons of discussions on points analysis around the web, I won’t get into it here. 

So when a game that spends a lot of time Making a system for competitive play, which should be more about the general/player than the models(newer models tend to get better rules overalls) and publications purchased(codex creep), produces a product that is clearly and consistently unbalanced, shouldn’t the community invested have the right the be upset? 

Fundamentally , AoS is a bad competitive game, due to its natural imbalance, and seemingly it’s dedicated to power-creep of new models. I think this is a very bad thing for the game itself too, as it creates bitterness within the community and buyers remorse.  Matched play points are the easiest way for players to quickly build a seemingly equal force and play the game. GW would be wise to acknowledge this and make attempts at pure balance. Seemingly, the power creep explains the mentality that GW tailors it’s rules to sales and marketing goals, whether by intention or accident, it clearly happens based on how new models obviously get better rules than old ones. 
 

Age of Sigmar is much more fun when you focus more on open and narrative play, and use it as a social device, with shared story-telling. My group was super competitive with Age of Sigmar for a while, we all grew insanely disenfranchised with matched play, and then have had much more fun playing narrative and open play. You can tell from the warscrolls and tomes that most units and armies are given a theme, flavor, etc., and are intended to feel cool or true to lore rather than fulfill a competitive need. 
 

My advice, play this game purely for fun and enjoyment, don’t bother with it competitively, and enjoy the company of the many good people in the warhammer community. 

[Kramer]

28 minutes ago, Erosharcos said:

Fundamentally , AoS is a bad competitive gam

Fundamentally AoS is a models first game. *
so to expect a game to be competitive rules first is a misappropriation as well. 

I agree with most of your post. But felt I should point this out. As it’s what you are talking about. Expectation and disappointment of it not being met. 
GW at its core do not treat their games as games first. It’s models first rules second. 
 

* just to add the source. At the start of AoS they communicated it very often. Less so now though. I’m curious if that’s a shift in communication strategy or maybe even internally wanting to bring up the rules to the same importance... or just the chance of me missing them talking about it recently 😅

Edited September 22, 2020 by Kramer

[Fairbanks]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

Fundamentally AoS is a models first game. *

...

* just to add the source. At the start of AoS they communicated it very often. Less so now though. I’m curious if that’s a shift in communication strategy or maybe even internally wanting to bring up the rules to the same importance... or just the chance of me missing them talking about it recently 😅

But it's not that either; It's a however the frick you wanna play it game.

[Erosharcos]

3 hours ago, Kramer said:

Fundamentally AoS is a models first game. *
so to expect a game to be competitive rules first is a misappropriation as well. 

I agree with most of your post. But felt I should point this out. As it’s what you are talking about. Expectation and disappointment of it not being met. 
GW at its core do not treat their games as games first. It’s models first rules second. 
 

* just to add the source. At the start of AoS they communicated it very often. Less so now though. I’m curious if that’s a shift in communication strategy or maybe even internally wanting to bring up the rules to the same importance... or just the chance of me missing them talking about it recently 😅

Then why have a matched play system? Why pay people to make something for competitive purposes when it’s inherently not a competitive game? GW makes great models and they have said what you’re talking about, but my take on matched play is and the game system in general is still valid and cogent. 
 

29 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

But it's not that either; It's a however the frick you wanna play it game.

I whole heartedly agree with this, but the competitive system of AoS is mathematically not balanced, and therefore a flawed competitive game. The point of my post wasn’t to discourage fun or choice, but really to critique the state of the competitive, matched play mode of the game. In narrative or open play, players decide what is balanced for them, or what is fun for them. It can be with the matched play points GW sets out, it can be matched points but the “weaker army” has more points than the “stronger and OP army” or it can be something entirely new and unique to the group playing, like making up your own battletome and rules for those models you spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours painting and modeling. 
 

Regardless, I think my take is a hot one. AoS is not a competitive game, and if you want a competitive experience you’ll be better served by using your own imagination and ingenuity to determine balance with your FLGS and play groups.

[Beliman]

7 minutes ago, Erosharcos said:

I whole heartedly agree with this, but the competitive system of AoS is mathematically not balanced, and therefore a flawed competitive game.

I agree with that, but you don't need a perfectly balanced game to be competitive. 

 

[Kramer]

2 hours ago, Fairbanks said:

But it's not that either; It's a however the frick you wanna play it game.

Well you can fricking play it like you want

and that philosophy, again not my opinion it’s what they communicate, is at the core of what they do. 

they designed cool little warbands, made warhammer underworlds to play with it. 
again their words, not mine. 

so if that’s how they function they will always prioritise funding towards creating models, not creating the most balanced game. 

 

2 hours ago, Erosharcos said:

Then why have a matched play system? Why pay people to make something for competitive purposes when it’s inherently not a competitive game? GW makes great models and they have said what you’re talking about, but my take on matched play is and the game system in general is still valid and cogent. 

I never said your take isn’t valid, I literally said: I agree with most of your post. Just felt it was relevant information to what you were saying  

I think I didn’t get my point across in my previous post. I have my opinion but I wasn’t arguing Against you. If anything what I added, is probably the reason for what you are arguing. 

as you say, it’s not the best competitive game out there. And they could invest more resources into making it the best. They apparently don’t think it’s worth it compared to investing those resources into other things. And that’s where there ‘we’re a model company first philosophy probably comes into play. 

[Popisdead]

There are a few things I feel going on

1. the hobby has a portion strictly dedicated to arguing about it.  rules, balance, dice rolls, whatever

2. The Internet 

3. power/WAAC/whatever you call them gamers.  They hit a army thread hard, then get really caustic about other options for the army and then push away people who generally like the model range.  They speak down to people trying different or new things.  I've watched it in BoC, Slaanesh, CoS, Sylvaneth (all the armies I play).  Then they abandon the threads for whatever else will go 5-0 leaving a small trail of waste.  They are good for the threads and bad for "community relations" if that makes sense.  Cause they can find unique combos and rules people can often miss that more causal players can learn from.  

[tripchimeras]

I think at the end of the day the hobby is about a lot of different things, and there are different people involved in the hobby for varying reasons.  This can cause vastly different expectations between types of hobbyists and end in misunderstanding and conflict.  I think most often this is why things like what the OP described happen.  Gamers who have unwritten rules strangers couldn't possibly know; stuff like that.  I do think there are elements here like any community that are toxic and negative, and purely bad.  But generally speaking most of this stuff is just someone having a bad day, or the result of people not communicating expectations to one another.  Its a social hobby and ultimately it is all about establishing clear expectations, cultivating a group of like minded players, and trying to be understanding and recognize where people are coming from.  There is no one right way to enjoy the AoS hobby.  I think where we all can get into trouble is where you assume the way you enjoy AoS is the RIGHT way to enjoy it.  That is when you see some of the behavior being described in this thread. 

There is nothing wrong with power gaming or competitive AoS despite the obvious flaws with AoS as a competitive game.  There is also nothing wrong with thinking GW can make their game better and encouraging to do so.   What gets the power gaming community into trouble is when expectations are not clearly defined and when people lose perspective.  As someone who kinda falls into this category myself, I think it is very easy to get into the weeds when discussing the game, especially on the internet with strangers.  When someone asks a question or relates an experience, it is only natural that a competitive gamer is instinctualy going to approach that topic from a competitive perspective.  We are usually coming from a good place of helping someone get better at the game, but it is very easy for comments like this to come off as either A. Condescending or B. Discouraging. Not everyone is trying to be competitive, and not everyone is meta chasing.  Very important to be clear about your intent and what you mean.  I know I struggle with that sometimes.

This extends to everyone though.  If you are a casual gamer who just wants to push models around.  Establish that upfront.  Both online when discussing the game and in person before playing a stranger.  As a competitive gamer I can tell you right now I get nothing out of bringing my best comp list to a game against a thematic khorne demon army and ending the game t1.  I learned nothing and feel bad, and your day has been made a little worse.  If you say upfront you just like to play casual and have fun, I know to bring a different list, maybe play a bit looser, make some thematic and "epic" choices to encourage fun encounters that might not be the best decision.  We will both have more fun.  And there is never anything wrong with telling someone "Oh I really don't want to play ObR right now.  Haven't figured them out yet and not ready for a rematch."  No reasonable person will ever be mad about that.   

All of this pertains to online forums just as much as in person games.  If your perspective is coming from a place of modest competition, where you are mostly casual and just want to pick up a tip or two, if you lead with that, 90% of responses (especially on this forum) are going to respect that and try to engage with you from that level.  That being said, this is the internet.  There are toxic people, and even for the rest of us we all have bad days, and the internet can be a far too attractive place to vent our frustrations.  Best we can do is try to be understanding and move on; easier said then done I know.  
 

Edited September 22, 2020 by tripchimeras

[Shadowcortax]

3 hours ago, Popisdead said:

There are a few things I feel going on

1. the hobby has a portion strictly dedicated to arguing about it.  rules, balance, dice rolls, whatever

2. The Internet 

3. power/WAAC/whatever you call them gamers.  They hit a army thread hard, then get really caustic about other options for the army and then push away people who generally like the model range.  They speak down to people trying different or new things.  I've watched it in BoC, Slaanesh, CoS, Sylvaneth (all the armies I play).  Then they abandon the threads for whatever else will go 5-0 leaving a small trail of waste.  They are good for the threads and bad for "community relations" if that makes sense.  Cause they can find unique combos and rules people can often miss that more causal players can learn from.  

#3 is partially what I'm talking about. I read some abilities in my battletomes that make sense from a lore point of view and I would love to play them or try them out. But then I saw some threads bashing a specific list combo that abused them and took advantage of loopholes. 1 of the people in my group insists we have to play with the most current errata/rules, and because tournament players were a bit overzealous in taking advantage of a certain combo, GW hit most things in that list with a huge nerf bat and now they say I'm not allowed to use those abilities or warscroll because they are FAQed out.

So what do I do about this?

Last time I asked someone this they said, " oh well, get over it or don't play. Current up to date rules are the only thing your allowed  to use.". Which kinda came off as dismissive and cold.

[Overread]

@Shadowcortax I think we can all sympathise with seeing something cool and wanting to do it and then not getting too. That said I think its important to separate yourself a little from the rules. Many of us have seen games change edition to edition; cool things vanish and cool things appear and shift and change all the time. You can also find other cool things within the army to do and often as not a nerf isn't a "nerf" its just a slight adjustment. The ability is still strong its just not "broken" as much as it was before. 

[Shadowcortax]

2 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

I think at the end of the day the hobby is about a lot of different things, and there are different people involved in the hobby for varying reasons.  This can cause vastly different expectations between types of hobbyists and end in misunderstanding and conflict.  I think most often this is why things like what the OP described happen.  Gamers who have unwritten rules strangers couldn't possibly know; stuff like that.  I do think there are elements here like any community that are toxic and negative, and purely bad.  But generally speaking most of this stuff is just someone having a bad day, or the result of people not communicating expectations to one another.  Its a social hobby and ultimately it is all about establishing clear expectations, cultivating a group of like minded players, and trying to be understanding and recognize where people are coming from.  There is no one right way to enjoy the AoS hobby.  I think where we all can get into trouble is where you assume the way you enjoy AoS is the RIGHT way to enjoy it.  That is when you see some of the behavior being described in this thread. 

There is nothing wrong with power gaming or competitive AoS despite the obvious flaws with AoS as a competitive game.  There is also nothing wrong with thinking GW can make their game better and encouraging to do so.   What gets the power gaming community into trouble is when expectations are not clearly defined and when people lose perspective.  As someone who kinda falls into this category myself, I think it is very easy to get into the weeds when discussing the game, especially on the internet with strangers.  When someone asks a question or relates an experience, it is only natural that a competitive gamer is instinctualy going to approach that topic from a competitive perspective.  We are usually coming from a good place of helping someone get better at the game, but it is very easy for comments like this to come off as either A. Condescending or B. Discouraging. Not everyone is trying to be competitive, and not everyone is meta chasing.  Very important to be clear about your intent and what you mean.  I know I struggle with that sometimes.

This extends to everyone though.  If you are a casual gamer who just wants to push models around.  Establish that upfront.  Both online when discussing the game and in person before playing a stranger.  As a competitive gamer I can tell you right now I get nothing out of bringing my best comp list to a game against a thematic khorne demon army and ending the game t1.  I learned nothing and feel bad, and your day has been made a little worse.  If you say upfront you just like to play casual and have fun, I know to bring a different list, maybe play a bit looser, make some thematic and "epic" choices to encourage fun encounters that might not be the best decision.  We will both have more fun.  And there is never anything wrong with telling someone "Oh I really don't want to play ObR right now.  Haven't figured them out yet and not ready for a rematch."  No reasonable person will ever be mad about that.   

All of this pertains to online forums just as much as in person games.  If your perspective is coming from a place of modest competition, where you are mostly casual and just want to pick up a tip or two, if you lead with that, 90% of responses (especially on this forum) are going to respect that and try to engage with you from that level.  That being said, this is the internet.  There are toxic people, and even for the rest of us we all have bad days, and the internet can be a far too attractive place to vent our frustrations.  Best we can do is try to be understanding and move on; easier said then done I know.  
 

I like to play for fun, casual, and lore. My most recent game (3rd or 4th honestly) was a Coalition of Death 4 player game 2500 pts a player. I played OBR with a SE teammate vs. Pestilens skaven and BoK/Archaon. I took out the skaven player bottom of turn 2 and the Khorne player turn 3. Not sure if it was overkill or if I did something wrong? They said they had fun, but it left me wondering feeling guilty and second guessing myself. It was my first game with OBR and I like them for the lore and look so.... 

To be fair most of the damage to the Khorne player was from my teammate (who was fielding that one super fire dwarf?) I just helped with clean up.

[Shadowcortax]

2 minutes ago, Overread said:

@Shadowcortax I think we can all sympathise with seeing something cool and wanting to do it and then not getting too. That said I think its important to separate yourself a little from the rules. Many of us have seen games change edition to edition; cool things vanish and cool things appear and shift and change all the time. You can also find other cool things within the army to do and often as not a nerf isn't a "nerf" its just a slight adjustment. The ability is still strong its just not "broken" as much as it was before. 

The main "nerf" I was talking about was nagash and arkhan losing the ability to know the spells of every death wizard on the field (made sense to me lore wise that they would) and neferata not being able turn heroes she kills into vampires (once again made sense to me lore wise that she could). I don't remember the others right now.

[tripchimeras]

17 minutes ago, Shadowcortax said:

I like to play for fun, casual, and lore. My most recent game (3rd or 4th honestly) was a Coalition of Death 4 player game 2500 pts a player. I played OBR with a SE teammate vs. Pestilens skaven and BoK/Archaon. I took out the skaven player bottom of turn 2 and the Khorne player turn 3. Not sure if it was overkill or if I did something wrong? They said they had fun, but it left me wondering feeling guilty and second guessing myself. It was my first game with OBR and I like them for the lore and look so.... 

To be fair most of the damage to the Khorne player was from my teammate (who was fielding that one super fire dwarf?) I just helped with clean up.

Sometimes games end quick.  especially in team games synergies can be all over the place and if people aren't optimizing who knows how it works out.  You're going to play skill levels all over the map and different armies are strong vs different things.  As long as you are being a good sport and doing your best to have a fun game don't feel bad about it.  Especially in AoS games end t3 all the time, the best games go all 5 turns, but get the double turn at right moment, or kill their best unit early things can snowball fast.  Its a game next one might go till t5, or they win t2. 

If you play with the same group consistently and find yourself dominating and your friends are starting to have less fun, you can always tweak your lists a bit as you learn what is really hurting them.  Take a couple extra choices they can handle, etc.  Make sure its still a list you like aesthetically and thematically, but there are choices to be made to make things a little less strong in every book.  One other thing that I think can be really helpful is if you are close and feel comfortable with them handling your models is to switch armies for a game.  A. it can really give them some insights into why they are losing B. it might give you info on why they are losing to help them beat you in future and C. if they win with your army against you it can give them a moral boost, "oh I'm not completely garbage after all".  Could be a nice change of pace.  But at the end of the day, its a game of strategy and list building is part of that for better or worse.  Against strangers or acquaintances there isn't a ton you can do to change that dynamic.  But if its a consistent gaming group, just help others refine their lists and work together to see what it is that is causing you to win.  Are they playing push hammer?  Are they just in an unfortunate place where their book sucks?  There are things you guys can do to keep it fun.  As long as you are all playing with the same goals it shouldn't be an issue.  But don't feel bad because you happened to choose a decent book.  You are playing within the spirit you and your group enjoy, you aren't ****** anyone by playing an army you like and enjoy.

Edited September 22, 2020 by tripchimeras

[Scythian]

One may tend to lash out at socially inept introverted gamers and all that but in reality, people just like being jerks. Don’t allow their bad attitudes to scare you off.  There are hundreds of great people on the TGA forum that would gladly go out of their way to help a person in need. It’s just life, my friend. 

[Sttufe]

5 hours ago, Shadowcortax said:

The main "nerf" I was talking about was nagash and arkhan losing the ability to know the spells of every death wizard on the field (made sense to me lore wise that they would) and neferata not being able turn heroes she kills into vampires (once again made sense to me lore wise that she could). I don't remember the others right now.

Not to be insulting or anything but remember EVERYTHING is a matter of perspective. People can be hypocritical, and I am desperately trying to find the most thoughtful and polite way to phrase, but you are doing exactly what you said you didn't like people doing. i.e. complaining about GW, nerfs, whatever. Everybody does it, I certainly do it a lot, and more importantly it means you are invested in the game, which is a good thing, so just remember that something that may seem annoying, rude, or caustic, may not be intended as so, and might be influenced by your perspective. Not trying to call you out or anything, just keep perspective in mind

 

I'm not gonna lie, as a relatively young-ish member of this community, I have also found other various communities which are quite toxic, and if anything this hobby, even the competitive side, is the healthiest community i have ever seen, both in a broad snese of wargaming and Warhammer, as well as more narrow like TGA. I like participating in these communities because its so different than others I am used to, who will not help, hinder, and insult you at every opportunity, which leads me to the end of this long and winding road, remember to get some thick skin when you on the internet or just interacting with people. A lot of the time they don't mean what they said, I oftentimes sound caustic and long winded, but usually I am not trying to be. So just try to ignore some of their negative qualities and focus on the positives. Speaking from a younger standpoint, I never got into the hobby  a few years ago since most people in my local area and playing were years older than me, and I remember it was intimidating, and honestly a lot of the time I was very isolated from the rest, so if that is happening to you (I am not saying it is) than just try to stay in it, it can be intimidating, but after a while you can manage to catch up and participate in their jokes and clique. This ends my rant, in summary remember to have thick skin on and off the internet, as well as not to be intimidated by age or just being a different type of people (idk how best to say it).

Edited September 23, 2020 by Sttufe

[Shadowcortax]

3 hours ago, Sttufe said:

Not to be insulting or anything but remember EVERYTHING is a matter of perspective. People can be hypocritical, and I am desperately trying to find the most thoughtful and polite way to phrase, but you are doing exactly what you said you didn't like people doing. i.e. complaining about GW, nerfs, whatever. Everybody does it, I certainly do it a lot, and more importantly it means you are invested in the game, which is a good thing, so just remember that something that may seem annoying, rude, or caustic, may not be intended as so, and might be influenced by your perspective. Not trying to call you out or anything, just keep perspective in mind

 

I'm not gonna lie, as a relatively young-ish member of this community, I have also found other various communities which are quite toxic, and if anything this hobby, even the competitive side, is the healthiest community i have ever seen, both in a broad snese of wargaming and Warhammer, as well as more narrow like TGA. I like participating in these communities because its so different than others I am used to, who will not help, hinder, and insult you at every opportunity, which leads me to the end of this long and winding road, remember to get some thick skin when you on the internet or just interacting with people. A lot of the time they don't mean what they said, I oftentimes sound caustic and long winded, but usually I am not trying to be. So just try to ignore some of their negative qualities and focus on the positives. Speaking from a younger standpoint, I never got into the hobby  a few years ago since most people in my local area and playing were years older than me, and I remember it was intimidating, and honestly a lot of the time I was very isolated from the rest, so if that is happening to you (I am not saying it is) than just try to stay in it, it can be intimidating, but after a while you can manage to catch up and participate in their jokes and clique. This ends my rant, in summary remember to have thick skin on and off the internet, as well as not to be intimidated by age or just being a different type of people (idk how best to say it).

Thanks. I wasn't complaining just pointing out the "nerfs" I was talking about in an earlier post on this thread weren't a stat adjustment or something like arkhan's hand of dust no longer going off on 1's. It is more flavor and abilities being completely changed or removed and when I try to look up why, most of what I find is long threads bashing the army and people who play it, and any time someone speaks up for the army or players quite a few people jump down their throat. 

Am I disappointed that GW changed those characters and abilities before I had a chance to try them out?  Yes.

Is that what this thread is about or what I was referencing?  No.

I was merely pointing out which "nerfs" I came across threads of, that the behaviour this thread is discussing happened on so that other could look it up if they wanted.

(Not upset, just felt like I needed to clarify)

[Beastmaster]

14 hours ago, Popisdead said:

There are a few things I feel going on

1. the hobby has a portion strictly dedicated to arguing about it.  rules, balance, dice rolls, whatever

2. The Internet 

3. power/WAAC/whatever you call them gamers.  They hit a army thread hard, then get really caustic about other options for the army and then push away people who generally like the model range.  They speak down to people trying different or new things.  I've watched it in BoC, Slaanesh, CoS, Sylvaneth (all the armies I play).  Then they abandon the threads for whatever else will go 5-0 leaving a small trail of waste.  They are good for the threads and bad for "community relations" if that makes sense.  Cause they can find unique combos and rules people can often miss that more causal players can learn from.  

That’s actually a nice summary. What exacerbates this is the fact that miniature games are a huge investment in time and money to be even able to play. I can only imagine the frustration of someone who is mainly playing to win if he feels like his collection, in which he invested countless hours and dollars, is getting unfairly weaker than others, and there’s actually not much he can do about it.

Even from a narrative point of view, it’s not a nice story if your superhuman heroes just keep on losing. I really think that a more grimdark setting helps with this.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Beastmaster

[Pyrescribe]

My favorite is when someone tilts when losing to you because they KNOW that they're vastly more intelligent than you, but the dice bear out this terrible injustice upon their ego. I like a little salt with my sweet tear tea.