PDA

View Full Version : Band wagon Jumping: Good, bad or someone in between?



KronusDaSneaky
31-01-2013, 16:12
More out of curiosity then any other reason what is your position on joining the bandwagon

For the benefit of individuals unfamiliar to the term bandwagon jumping in 40k is the act of starting a new army for a codex just updated which you have expressed little to no interest in beforehand simply because its the fad at the time. It has a very slight negative connotation for its association with codex hopping to gain a perceived advantage and hints at faction disloyalty. For example a notable number of Grey Knight players would be considered band wagon jumpers (probably a majority of them if I am being honest) on the basis that daemonhunter players were practically non existent at one stage but post one slightly op dex and suddenly they were everywhere.
The same is true of a lot of daemons players post the WD update.

What I want to know is whether you think its a good or bad thing or just human nature?

Kijamon
31-01-2013, 16:16
I think it's a bad thing in the most part. It makes for a self fulfilling prophecy.

Go to tournament, play with your list, get tanked by a grey knights player twice out of five games. Get pissed off so you buy yourself an army similar to the one that beat you. You then go to a tournament, play with your list, tank a few players, who join in the buy a grey knights army.

This was particularly true of a Tau player I destroyed in a fairly odds stacked against him campaign game. We had infinite troops till the game was over, I had Space Wolves and I had drop pods. So I dropped right next to his big hitting units, wiped them out then meat ground his troops till I won something stupid like 16-2. He looked so disappointed. The next year I went back and he was rocking Grey Knights. The Tau were sold.

This then encourages GW to make the next codex ridiculous so that the players who fall for this trap buy the next one and it ruins the game for those of us who do enjoy picking blood claws and other crappy units that no one seems to believe exist.

I've been quite unfortunate over the years, I bought long fangs with missile launchers because I wanted the flexibility. I've bought an all nurgle chaos army and I've bought an all bike ork army. All of which have been considered good builds over the years. It's not deliberate I swear!

NemoSD
31-01-2013, 16:26
More out of curiosity then any other reason what is your position on joining the bandwagon

For the benefit of individuals unfamiliar to the term bandwagon jumping in 40k is the act of starting a new army for a codex just updated which you have expressed little to no interest in beforehand simply because its the fad at the time. It has a very slight negative connotation for its association with codex hopping to gain a perceived advantage and hints at faction disloyalty. For example a notable number of Grey Knight players would be considered band wagon jumpers (probably a majority of them if I am being honest) on the basis that daemonhunter players were practically non existent at one stage but post one slightly op dex and suddenly they were everywhere.
The same is true of a lot of daemons players post the WD update.

What I want to know is whether you think its a good or bad thing or just human nature?

40k has three groups of players. The group that is very much into the fluff, thus pick an army they like and stick to it, no matter how bitter its mistreatment causes them to be, See Sisters of Battle, and the slowly dissolving psyche of the Eldar player.

Second group are where most players sit, where they want an army they enjoy, but will shelve a grossly under performing army, IE players who have sisters or Eldar, but have the shelved in the idea that one day that army will be 'good' again.

Third group is the group who want to win always, and have the most competitive killy lists possible, nevermind fairplay, fluff, or community respect! (Yes I know this is a bit of hyperbole.) These are the guys who show up with net lists, spam lists, lucky to see the models primed, and rarely do we see a model with two colors or more, and if they are painted, someone else painted them/they were bought painted and the army rarely matches.

Yes generalizations, but the bandwagoneers sit in group 2 and 3... a group 2er might switch to a new powerful codex when getting a new army because they are tired of being the under performing underdog. Group 3 are your most frequent jumpers.

It is annoying though, because many of the bandwagoneers try to avoid the label, and are like, "Well I have played DA since 199! whipper snapper, oh why did I have to buy a whole new army and havn't even bothered to paint them yet? Well I play lots of SM chapters, so I want to make sure I can move them back and forth! Oh, you play Dark Angels too, jumping on the bandwagon aint ya..."

It is also annoying to me for another reason. I want from being a snowflake in my local area as the ONLY active Dark Angel player, which made starting a DA army a bitch because I had no one to get advice from, and now I am one of at least 20 and counting. Looking forward to the next codex, then I will be one of five or so :-p

IcedCrow
31-01-2013, 16:26
Band wagoning is largely human nature and is also largely responsible for keeping GW in business.

MarshalFaust
31-01-2013, 16:29
I think bandwagonning is more of a perceived internet problem rather than a real problem people are experiencing in their game clubs. Do most people really have the kind of cash to just buy a new army every time the new hot codex lands?

TheRaven
31-01-2013, 16:33
It’s a tough one, because in the end it is good for sales.

Think about it, if we all only had one army we’d only be spending a significant amount of money on models once every 5-10 years. GW needs far more income in order to afford the design/modeling/painting/publication team that they have. The more people spend on the hobby, the more money GW takes in and the better they can afford to continue a large scale operation. A sign of a “Bandwagon” jump is sometimes a sign of great models.

But I do think that it is detrimental when the armies aren’t balanced. While having more people buying more models because they are great models and we just can’t restrain ourselves form painting and playing with them is a positive. Watching it happen to an army that is so broken makes gaming events horrible. When one army comes out that’s head and shoulders above everyone in power level and everyone is playing it just to win, it’s just boring. You also see people painting to a much lower standard because they’re just playing to exploit the cheesiest rules.

So if people start a new army because they love the feel of the army and can’t resist the new models and want a diverse option of armies, it’s good. Show’s that every army release is of high quality and that GW is putting out good products. But if armies are overpowered and we see the same army, with crappy 3 color paint schemes taken by 80% of the field leading to un-compative and un-fun games against the same army every single time, it’s not a good thing.

If I remember correctly back in 2008 the UK masters had 8 of their top 10 as deamon armies (With the other 2 being dark elves….). THAT kind of bandwagon jumping was terrible for the game….. Took us a while to recover from “The Great Balance Massacre of 08”.

Chrysalis
31-01-2013, 16:37
To my mind, Grey Knights were a special case because players didn't need that much models to build an efficient army. Today, if you want to field 3 x helldrakes, how many CSM units do you have to buy/paint to have a competitive force?

BasetheRuin
31-01-2013, 16:43
Well, In my experience repeatedly jumping on the band wagon is almost impossible to do. That is IF you want to have a nicely painted army. It takes a good year to paint a sizable army to a decent standard, by wich time the initial euforia of starting something new is long gone. Then it comes down to dedication and sometimes plain boring work.

So either you keep switching to the flavour of the month and end up having very new painted minis OR you get stuck in and have a nice looking army at the end.

Gungo
31-01-2013, 16:49
I would say due to the cost and time associated with 40k army a typical bandwagon player is unable to switch on a whim everytime something new comes up. Of course there are always those who brake the mold. In general this game survives based on new players and people supporting the hobby and buying new models. So it behoves the game for people to collect and spend more. Bandwagoning is actually good for the game overall. Now if only the armies were more balanced it wouldnt be such an issue =p

Iball17
31-01-2013, 17:00
When people buy the new models and at least prime them it is ok. Because in the long run it will cost them a arm and a leg but what annoys the hell out of me is people that use a generic space marine army as any of the space marine armys. Im sorry I know your saving money but where would you stop, why even use gw minis if your doing that. Thats how I feel on this even if it is wysiwyg you cant play SW, BA, C:SM, DA, BT, and CSM without having some different models and chapter specific stuff or if you do stick with it quit jumping around when the next power codex comes out or you have a list from every codex to combat specific army. This is a trend im seeing and it really makes me wonder why even play DA and paint them as they should be when I just use my same stuff for any codex that comes out. Your your marines as you like but they would be normal marines from C:SM. It really takes away from the hobby aspect of the game for people to allow play as-armys/proxy armys people as theres a diffence but there isnt. But that my opinion on bandwagon jumpers. Shell out the cash and by all means.

IcedCrow
31-01-2013, 17:05
I think bandwagonning is more of a perceived internet problem rather than a real problem people are experiencing in their game clubs. Do most people really have the kind of cash to just buy a new army every time the new hot codex lands?

I can't speak for the world but I know a good half dozen guys that do this.

Lath-rael
31-01-2013, 17:45
If GW acted more as a miniature company, this power creep issue could be eased a bit (more frequent and better miniaute updates). But it involes with more work, so they choose the lazy path.

Archibald_TK
31-01-2013, 18:00
What I want to know is whether you think its a good or bad thing or just human nature?
It's the whole point of the system. If people were not jumping on new armies with each new releases despite already owning ones then there would be far less money to do with these, probably to the point that there would be no purpose actually selling GW products. Imagine someone sticking to only one army, imagine how much money they would invest in the hobby during all of these years separating them from their Codex being updated.

Hopefully when something new and cool is released, people who want it freely chose to buy it. It may irks those who were already playing that army through harder times and sticking to it, but I see no reason why the others shall care as it was the these players choice to do so, not theirs. Also, I don't think that loyalty toward plastic toy soldiers painted in a certain color is a valued quality in the real world.

BrainFireBob
31-01-2013, 18:36
It's the implied disrespect of constant poor proxy that has tainted new army enthusiasm with bandwagoning. "These unpainted Grey Hunters are Grey Hunters- I'll add arms later."
Two years later: "Now they're still unpainted, the same models, but are BA assault marines- except the guys with topknots in their own unit."
Later still:"Now they're GK!"
That guy is disrespecting the time and dedication everyone else puts in just to win at toy soldiers.
Mind, proxies are fine. Painting slowly is fine. Refusing to commit because you know the instant something better comes up you're swapping? Disrespectful.

Spiney Norman
31-01-2013, 19:00
More out of curiosity then any other reason what is your position on joining the bandwagon

For the benefit of individuals unfamiliar to the term bandwagon jumping in 40k is the act of starting a new army for a codex just updated which you have expressed little to no interest in beforehand simply because its the fad at the time. It has a very slight negative connotation for its association with codex hopping to gain a perceived advantage and hints at faction disloyalty. For example a notable number of Grey Knight players would be considered band wagon jumpers (probably a majority of them if I am being honest) on the basis that daemonhunter players were practically non existent at one stage but post one slightly op dex and suddenly they were everywhere.
The same is true of a lot of daemons players post the WD update.

What I want to know is whether you think its a good or bad thing or just human nature?

I'm not sure really, there are a number of reasons why people might start an army that has just been released. They tend to have the most visually stunning models for example you might look at the chaos hell drake and think "wow that's awesome", whereas I don't see anything in the Tau or Eldar ranges which is likely to provoke that kind of response.

I might be considered a 'bandwagoner' for starting Dark Angels this time around, I've not played a marine army before, but the reality is I've wanted to for a while, and the DV models gave me a cheapish way into a marine army, so when the new codex came out I duly dropped a pile of cash on the new shinies to fill out my force.

MarshalFaust
31-01-2013, 19:03
If you get really wound up about what space marine codex other people choose to play their plastic toy space marine soldiers with maybe its time for a bit of self reflection. Especially with space marines! they all have the same wargear and power armor is power armor.

fluffymcfluff
31-01-2013, 19:05
The whole bandwagon thing is not really a problem in my area. However I personally don't care for it, I put counts as armies in the same boat. When I play everything is strictly WYSIWYG, and I expect the same courtesy from whoever I am playing. They don't have to be painted, if your going to use BA then buy the BA, don't tell me your basic marines with no chapter markings are BA, because their not.

I have been accused of bandwagon jumping with my Daemons, even though I started the army during 5th, have none of the updated units and play mono khorne. It's because I use FMC's. At the local tournaments I have placed 1st or 2nd every month in the last year. I love hearing that my Daemons are broken from GK, SW, BA, IG, and necron players.

AngryAngel
31-01-2013, 19:11
I don't mind if people bandwagon jump and actually buy the army to do it. Especially from the store in our local area. Its when they just swap their models around, make it confussing that I tend to view it poorly. I hold nothing against someone jumping the bandwagon if he truely does so. Being proxied into death by a WAAC player I don't tolerate, by tolerate I mean play with or not belittle it.

Inquisitor Shego
31-01-2013, 19:16
I did Guard for a while but grew bored of gunlines and refused to go Mech.
I did Alpha Legion for a while, until Codex Renegades mk 1 and mk 2 turned me into a Red Corsair.
I did Dark Eldar, and will always be Dark Eldar until I die :) 3rd-6th Ed

AngryAngel
31-01-2013, 19:21
I did perhaps about a year later DE bandwagon jump. As I said I'd start their army when their models weren't pants, and thats just what I did.

Hrw-Amen
31-01-2013, 19:30
Well I am not sure, although I am mainly a IG or SOB collector I do have a small Dark Eldar force and also a massive Ork, Chaos Marine and ordinary Marine armies as well running to several thousands points each. I was tempted by Necrons but don't really like the new take. Never really liked the style of Eldar or Nids to be honest so never tempted by them. Have not bought anything since the disappointment of the WD SOB farce with no new models. So I would not describe myself as a band wagoner. I do intend in the future to get more units for my existing forces but only when I see something that catches my eye rather than being just new. Personnaly whilst i can see it is in human nature to do this I think it is a bad thing but probably something that GW like as it keeps sales rolling in.

paqman
31-01-2013, 19:41
Tale of an mmo altoholic.


I started playing WH40K 14 months ago and fell deeply in love with the game. I would consider myself obsessed with this game. I initially started with the assault on black reach box and tried both the orks and the Ultramarines. I instantly felt drawn to the ultras. I really like the color and play style of the space marines. So I started collecting them with what I found on ebay and local trading sites.


When I had about 3500 pts of SM, I started playing the orks and really liked the killa kan wall pattern. So I started adding second hand boyz (120) and killa kans that I found on ebay . Then... I wanted to come back to the marines but my son in law had the blood angels codex, so I read it and thought, damn, these look cool! So I started playing them (and adding blood angels specific models and vehicles to my collection). Then 6th came around. I still liked my blood angels but felt a huge attraction to get back to my utra marines and my orks.


Later on, the dark angels rumor were coming in, so I thought, Hey, what a great opportunity to play my ultra marines with a space marine codex built for the sixth edition. But when I read the codex I thought, damn, these guys represents what knights in a sci-fi setting would look like. So I really liked them and added 12 bikes and 15 terminators to my current collection of power armor based armies.


I am a wysiwyg kind of player. I like to just look at my model and see that I have to roll for, say, 8 bolters, a pistol and a missile launcher without thinking about: what is that proxied guy already!?


Everything is at least base coated with blue, black, white or green with all my initial 30 ultramarine power armor painted to table top quality. All vehicles are fully painted (about 20 all in all)


You see, in MMOs, I am the kind of guy who plays all classes to maximum level. I am an altoholic and I now realize that I have the same disease with WH40k. I really like a lot of the armies (basically all humans based armies and the orks)... an I would be right in the targeted customer base for Games Workshop... if I bought all my stuff new.


So, all that to say that I do not jump armies because I want the ultimate power, I change armies because I like a lot of play styles. I want to play them all and, to my wallet's dismay, I buy and buy and buy... thanks to ebay to provide me with lower prices. ... so what's my next army? Eldars look cool! ;)

TheDungen
31-01-2013, 20:13
i think it great people with too much money buy the newest army from gw at a high price then sell it on ebay when they decide they'd rather play the next newest army. I can then buy all my minis cheaper than gw price.

Suckers.

AmBlam
31-01-2013, 20:38
How many times can people band wagon jump before they get bored.

Playing an under performing army can be fun.

dean
31-01-2013, 20:50
Playing an under performing army can be fun.

How am I going to be Draigo today?...

I quite like my underperforming (until this month) army and have not put it on the shelf untill it gets good... I occasionally play guard but I got tired of all the bandwaggoners who picked it up. GK didnt quite draw the number of people around here that the Ork codex did... Tournys were half SM half Ork around that time....

It does get tiresome... "oh look, another 4 battlewagon list. Which one has the big mek with field?"

Grocklock
31-01-2013, 22:02
I used to get up in arms about bandwagon jumping until I realised that there is nothing wrong with wanting to have the latest army. We all like different parts of the hobby, if someone enjoys buying the latest thing and playing with it, what's the problem with that.

My personal experience with this term is when the guard book dropped. I had always shared a guard army but never got round to doing it. It was not till 3 mouths before it dropped that I decided now was a good a time as ever. I then preorder the book 2 battle forces and other trinkets, such as master of the forge, Valkyrie.

I enjoyed playing the army at the club until I went to a tournament. I played a game agains a daemon player and after a slightly one sided game where my dice where really good. I won as we packed away the player turned to me and said "I cannot stand bandwagon jumpers". That one comment put a damper on the whole day.

NemoSD
31-01-2013, 22:22
I used to get up in arms about bandwagon jumping until I realised that there is nothing wrong with wanting to have the latest army. We all like different parts of the hobby, if someone enjoys buying the latest thing and playing with it, what's the problem with that.

My personal experience with this term is when the guard book dropped. I had always shared a guard army but never got round to doing it. It was not till 3 mouths before it dropped that I decided now was a good a time as ever. I then preorder the book 2 battle forces and other trinkets, such as master of the forge, Valkyrie.

I enjoyed playing the army at the club until I went to a tournament. I played a game agains a daemon player and after a slightly one sided game where my dice where really good. I won as we packed away the player turned to me and said "I cannot stand bandwagon jumpers". That one comment put a damper on the whole day.

It could be worse. My first experience with 40k was Dawn of War, and I fell in love with the Guard... It wouldn't be until 2009 that I finally was in a place where I could afford to get my army, and my very first game I was told that I was a crap gamer because I couldn't even win taking the OP guard. (I would get vindicated a few years later when this player swaps out his entire Ork army that he claims to have been playing since, and I quote, "Before even Rogue Trader," (When queried, he thinks the Rogue Trader RPG is THE Rogue Trader.) and switches to the brand new GK army and then raged after losing 2 of 5 games.)

Some people just like to feel better about themselves, and it is them I dislike when they bandwagon jump, because they have to make everyone else feel bad for bandwagoning, because they are above such petty things, and they need to make it clear that they have played X army since day one.

When people see my set up my Dark Angels, and ask if I got it for this codex, I ask, "Does it matter?" And move on. It is a stupid conversation and has no meaning. Let the jumpers jump. My earlier post was just me posting observations, but in the end, I don't care how you collect and play your army, why should I?

The issue people has is to many people validate themselves from an external locus, and the easiest way to be validated is to place yourself above and seperate, so the "I can not stand bandwagon jumpers," guy Grocklock mentioned was not insulting Grocklock because he really thought bandwagoning was bad, but that he was mad he lost, and by shifting the blame to the other player being 'cheap' erases the slight against his own skills, thus validating himself. It is how a lot of people function, and why some the harshest critics of people tend to be the people who seem to have the least going for them, because they have always been critical of others to justify their own lack of effort.

Kaldor Draigo
31-01-2013, 22:33
It's the implied disrespect of constant poor proxy that has tainted new army enthusiasm with bandwagoning. "These unpainted Grey Hunters are Grey Hunters- I'll add arms later."
Two years later: "Now they're still unpainted, the same models, but are BA assault marines- except the guys with topknots in their own unit."
Later still:"Now they're GK!"
That guy is disrespecting the time and dedication everyone else puts in just to win at toy soldiers.
Mind, proxies are fine. Painting slowly is fine. Refusing to commit because you know the instant something better comes up you're swapping? Disrespectful.

While I agree with you 100%, I think this is a different issue to band-wagoning. Using your same army to count as multiple different codexes is just plain wrong, and I call that 'codex hopping'. But band-wagoning, to me, is just starting a new army when the codex comes out. While it can be a little frustrating, I don't really see anything wrong with it. The newest codexes often have the best models and the coolest rules.

lordreaven448
31-01-2013, 22:40
I think it would be funny if the next Daemon Codex was the next best thing. Most people wanting to jump over with unpainted Marines will be forced to actually commit to Daemons. And it shall be glorious.

m1acca1551
01-02-2013, 00:16
It's good for business, bad for tournament play and i don't really care so somewhere in between due to being a hobbyist not a gamer.

It does really p*** me off going into a store and seeing 2-3 unpainted GK armies that all feature the same build trampling over someone's army that looks gorgeous with beautiful painting and loads of characters. I have saved a few people from quitting the hobby after their army was trampled by band wagon players, but that is not really the point of this topic.

I actually like the people who do this, as TheDungeon said once they have had enough or and errata has taken away there OP'ness or the latest more super powerful dex of doom has been released, ebay is a wash with so many unpainted un primed armies for cheap.

Gungo
01-02-2013, 00:40
I enjoyed playing the army at the club until I went to a tournament. I played a game agains a daemon player and after a slightly one sided game where my dice where really good. I won as we packed away the player turned to me and said "I cannot stand bandwagon jumpers". That one comment put a damper on the whole day.

This is the point where i take out my IG codex's pull out my 2d edition codex and say ya i can't stand sore losers either.

Maybe next time i will play him with the tiny metal ork army with my tiny metal ork buggies, metal war tracks, metal scorchas, small metal kans and tiny warbikes and war truks instead. If he wants to complain about old skool cheese.

Hellebore
01-02-2013, 01:23
While I agree with you 100%, I think this is a different issue to band-wagoning. Using your same army to count as multiple different codexes is just plain wrong, and I call that 'codex hopping'. But band-wagoning, to me, is just starting a new army when the codex comes out. While it can be a little frustrating, I don't really see anything wrong with it. The newest codexes often have the best models and the coolest rules.

Which means that only people with enough money to buy each army get to enjoy playing with each army. Which I emphatically disagree with. There is no difference between a person using their unpainted blood angels as space wolves and a person who buys an unpainted second hand space wolves force after selling their blood angels to pay for it. Or a guy who can just drop a thousand bucks on every new thing that comes out.

Owning the plastic representation of GW's latest subjective set of rules no more validates using those numerical mechanics than painting it a certain colour does. Now I'm envisioning a set of space wolf plastics painted in blood angels colours. When is the miniature the 'correct' miniature for a set of rules and when isn't it? All miniatures are proxies for rules and all rules are subjective and prone to GW changing them anyway.

By your logic every time a new version of a codex comes out we would have to buy an entirely new force to represent that specific codex, because the old miniatures were only used to represent the old rules, which are no longer valid.

I enjoy the roleplaying and atmosphere of wargaming. But it's also a game and there are people that enjoy the gaming aspect, being able to play in different ways and use different mechanics/combos. Why should I enforce my preferred way of playing on others? My preferred way doesn't cost thousands because I stick with one army and develop it over time, but in order for someone else to play to enjoy multiple different types of army and composition, we are telling them they have to spend 5x more than me to get the same level of enjoyment out of it.

Then of course there's the 'balance' issue. If the latest codex is broken, then it doesn't matter what manner of plastic token or colour scheme you use to represent it - it's still broken. If it's not broken, then no manner of plastic token or colour scheme will break it...

Hellebore

m1acca1551
01-02-2013, 01:24
I used to get up in arms about bandwagon jumping until I realised that there is nothing wrong with wanting to have the latest army. We all like different parts of the hobby, if someone enjoys buying the latest thing and playing with it, what's the problem with that.

My personal experience with this term is when the guard book dropped. I had always shared a guard army but never got round to doing it. It was not till 3 mouths before it dropped that I decided now was a good a time as ever. I then preorder the book 2 battle forces and other trinkets, such as master of the forge, Valkyrie.

I enjoyed playing the army at the club until I went to a tournament. I played a game agains a daemon player and after a slightly one sided game where my dice where really good. I won as we packed away the player turned to me and said "I cannot stand bandwagon jumpers". That one comment put a damper on the whole day.

With comments like that you have to realise that they are in the hobby for the wrong reasons, i've often heard comments similar when i have stomped power builds with soft lists by applying clever tactics etc i just usually turn around and say when you grow up i will be happy to game again with you, or why do you think that? and then go on to explain what i did and how they went wrong.

Works sometimes :P

m1acca1551
01-02-2013, 01:26
Which means that only people with enough money to buy each army get to enjoy playing with each army. Which I emphatically disagree with. There is no difference between a person using their unpainted blood angels as space wolves and a person who buys an unpainted second hand space wolves force after selling their blood angels to pay for it. Or a guy who can just drop a thousand bucks on every new thing that comes out.

Owning the plastic representation of GW's latest subjective set of rules no more validates using those numerical mechanics than painting it a certain colour does. Now I'm envisioning a set of space wolf plastics painted in blood angels colours. When is the miniature the 'correct' miniature for a set of rules and when isn't it? All miniatures are proxies for rules and all rules are subjective and prone to GW changing them anyway.

By your logic every time a new version of a codex comes out we would have to buy an entirely new force to represent that specific codex, because the old miniatures were only used to represent the old rules, which are no longer valid.

I enjoy the roleplaying and atmosphere of wargaming. But it's also a game and there are people that enjoy the gaming aspect, being able to play in different ways and use different mechanics/combos. Why should I enforce my preferred way of playing on others? My preferred way doesn't cost thousands because I stick with one army and develop it over time, but in order for someone else to play to enjoy multiple different types of army and composition, we are telling them they have to spend 5x more than me to get the same level of enjoyment out of it.

Then of course there's the 'balance' issue. If the latest codex is broken, then it doesn't matter what manner of plastic token or colour scheme you use to represent it - it's still broken. If it's not broken, then no manner of plastic token or colour scheme will break it...

Hellebore

Damn it we really need a like button!

Voss
01-02-2013, 02:13
More out of curiosity then any other reason what is your position on joining the bandwagon

Inevitable and irrelevant.

Only meaningful effect is it generates sales and that keeps the game around.

IcedCrow
01-02-2013, 02:56
Yeah people seem to forget that if we dont' buy the new stuff and use things like the china guy to get forge world casts, that that means we may not have any new stuff soon.

Hellebore
01-02-2013, 03:14
So we are to make judgement calls on who to play based on their level of financial support for the company? How are we to determine this exactly, by snap judgements based on the army they brought to games club?

Hellebore

Gungo
01-02-2013, 04:37
So we are to make judgement calls on who to play based on their level of financial support for the company? How are we to determine this exactly, by snap judgements based on the army they brought to games club?

Hellebore

Ironically enough tournaments tend to validate models. Random game clubs and different games and models depend on your flgs rules.
But for instance when i am making a conversion character i try to use a GW model as my base so that it is legal when i do plan on using it for a tourny.

Misfratz
01-02-2013, 06:12
I think that if people are excited by a new release then I should be happy for them, and complaining that they are bandwagon jumping because I think the rules are a bit off is sour grapes.

Imperialis_Dominatus
01-02-2013, 07:30
The better gamer will often win more games.

The better hobbyist plays the game with a painted army.

The richer of either can afford to buy a new army all the time.

Most of us... can't.

Play any and all books that make you happy. Use models that make sense. Try to paint them (I know, its hard). That's all that really matters.

If you feel up in arms about someone using a Red Marine to represent a Green Marine or a Spiky Marine to represent a Furry Marine, I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a snob I ain't one.

omgadinosaur
01-02-2013, 07:59
I don't really care if they are a bandwagoners, I just want a little paint on an army. Plastic is just so...boring!

AngryAngel
01-02-2013, 09:47
Whatever happend with being happy with what you have ? So because an older marine book is not top dog or shiney and new, we feel the need to codex hop ? Yeah to some people its fine, I'm not one. Its not a matter of being a snob its a matter of making a choice. Considering all marine books are roughly as competitive, is there any reason I need to constantly wonder which marine fuzzy, furry, red, green, blue whatever marine represents today ?

It's highly annoying, if you wanna treat and annoy me with all the fresh new books, I can request it at least be the model and not proxy counts as hell.

Hellebore
01-02-2013, 10:20
I don't really care if they are a bandwagoners, I just want a little paint on an army. Plastic is just so...boring!

Unfortunately this is actually encouraged by the snobs that require your army colour match the army list you use. if I keep my army unpainted or just undercoated, you can't whinge it's the 'wrong' colour can you?

Hellebore

eldargal
01-02-2013, 10:51
Complaining about people jumping on the bandwagon is snobbery, pure and simple. No one has the right to criticise how anyone enjoys their hobby even if it annoys you.

I had absolutely zero interest in Vampire Counts until January of last year. Then when I saw the Coven Throne and Isabella von Carstein models I fell completely in love and started playing with Vampire Counts. I now have something like 6000pts worth, mostly painted. How is this in anyway a bad thing? Likewise when DE rere revamped we saw huge numbers of people jumping on the bandwagon and ensuring the release was a success for GW and hopefully making them consider such revamps a good thing to do. How is this a bad thing? I'm tempted to start a WoC army because I love the Valkia model (and her eponymous novel) and I reall like the war shrine, mutalith and dragon ogres. My best friend fell completely in love with the new Necron kits and she promptly started a new Necron army and does very well in tournaments, why is this a bad thing?

If someone uses the same models but with different codices frequently that really is another issue. I find it particularly annoying but I'm not going to condemn someone for doing it, I just won't play them.

IcedCrow
01-02-2013, 12:35
Complaining about people jumping on the bandwagon is snobbery, pure and simple. No one has the right to criticise how anyone enjoys their hobby even if it annoys you.

I had absolutely zero interest in Vampire Counts until January of last year. Then when I saw the Coven Throne and Isabella von Carstein models I fell completely in love and started playing with Vampire Counts. I now have something like 6000pts worth, mostly painted. How is this in anyway a bad thing? Likewise when DE rere revamped we saw huge numbers of people jumping on the bandwagon and ensuring the release was a success for GW and hopefully making them consider such revamps a good thing to do. How is this a bad thing? I'm tempted to start a WoC army because I love the Valkia model (and her eponymous novel) and I reall like the war shrine, mutalith and dragon ogres. My best friend fell completely in love with the new Necron kits and she promptly started a new Necron army and does very well in tournaments, why is this a bad thing?

If someone uses the same models but with different codices frequently that really is another issue. I find it particularly annoying but I'm not going to condemn someone for doing it, I just won't play them.

Yes to this. Again, band wagoning is what keeps the hobby going and keeps the company making new things and selling them. Without it there would be no hobby.

Codex flipping with an unpainted marine army to be the best marine codex out there is as many have said another thing entirely.

totgeboren
01-02-2013, 12:51
Unfortunately this is actually encouraged by the snobs that require your army colour match the army list you use. if I keep my army unpainted or just undercoated, you can't whinge it's the 'wrong' colour can you?

Hellebore

I'm with omgadinosaur on this. As long as they are (well) painted and wysiwyg I don't care if it's a netlist, bandwagon army or if I lose the game.
I primarily get my enjoyment from the visuals of the battle, and bandwagoners tend to only spray or not even fully assemble their models. I simply don't think battles against such armies are particularity fun. Ok, I don't play often (once a month if that), so I tend to have time to paint my new stuff up before the battle. If I was playing every week, I would simply not have time to paint. I have even declined a game to instead paint, so I could have a painted army when I did get around to playing.

Though it must be said about the GKs, they seem to be somewhat of an anomaly, in that they made quite a few people I know who wanted an army but had none start an army. Maybe because you could make a force using just a handful of models? I mean, the Ork or IG codex didn't make anyone I know of who were not into the hobby at the time start a new army.

dean
01-02-2013, 13:30
I'm with omgadinosaur on this. As long as they are (well) painted and wysiwyg I don't care if it's a netlist, bandwagon army or if I lose the game.


I'm more interested in a good game, if my opponent is someone I can have a laugh with. Bandwagoners tend to be WAAC and/or rules lawyers and those games just drag me down...

And a couple year old pic of 80% of my last 18 years in the hobby...

68 Deathwing, Belial, TDA libby, TDA chappie
120 Power Armored DA, Plus 5 captains, 3 Librarians, 4 Chappies, 3 Techies, Apoth, Zeke, Azzy, Asmodai, Naaman & 9 scouts
9 bikes, 1 Attack bike, 3 metal speeders

Partial pic:
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w20/fred40k2002/Dark%20Angels/Assault8018.jpg

The hazzards of collecting one army for 18 years... (well, two armies... The guard is around 2/3rds of this army)

totgeboren
01-02-2013, 13:43
I'm more interested in a good game, if my opponent is someone I can have a laugh with.

Well that's the best game of course, but I have been surprised at how much more forgiving I become when the army arrayed against me is pretty. :)

I guess it's like chicks, if they are gorgeous you enjoy playing with them even if they are stupid or arrogant.

atlantis
01-02-2013, 13:47
i get a few people say i just play with the 'bandwagon' armys despite playing them for years (old BA which needed the SM codex and the daemon hunter's) with me i jsut play armys i like (which also inclused IG, my orignal army and Tau, mostly cos i like mecha stuff) so i think it is a bare in mind why do they have them in the 1st place, cos there are some ppl out there who may have the 'meta' armys but not have cos they are meta

RobPro
01-02-2013, 14:54
The only issue I have with "bandwagoners" is they are the least likely to actually know their rules. I shouldn't have to memorize your codex to correct you because you just skimmed the rules for a few units you thought looked cool without really figuring out how they work. It's just common courtesy.

I hate playing a game where we spend 1/3-1/2 the time looking up rules like "Gee, I don't know if my guys have fleet or what toughness this unit is or bla bla." That's the kind of stuff you should have a pretty good feel for. It's understandable if you're new or you were granted fleet or +1T from some weird ability that only happened this game, but for the most part it's people who've been playing for years that switch armies every 6 months.

TheDungen
01-02-2013, 15:21
the only people not benefiting from the bandwagon are the people on it.

budman
01-02-2013, 15:23
as an anti-wagon jumper I have been able to pick up cheap nids on eaby for a fraction of the price....
And gw gets to sell minis to players that want the new hotness and stay in business

Win-win

omgadinosaur
01-02-2013, 15:28
Unfortunately this is actually encouraged by the snobs that require your army colour match the army list you use. if I keep my army unpainted or just undercoated, you can't whinge it's the 'wrong' colour can you?

Hellebore

I can totally still whine. Blood angels/ultramarines/ dark angels/ space wolves / (insert chapter here) aren't supposed to be plastic colored.;)

But this is getting off topic. :cool:

TheDungen
01-02-2013, 18:33
as an anti-wagon jumper I have been able to pick up cheap nids on eaby for a fraction of the price....
And gw gets to sell minis to players that want the new hotness and stay in business

Win-win

short term of course they risk overflowing the market, having to compete with their own second hand sales. again gw need to think over its long term business strategy. but meanwhile I'm with you i save money this way so what's to complain about.

Midvalley
01-02-2013, 20:38
I'm with omgadinosaur on this. As long as they are (well) painted and wysiwyg I don't care if it's a netlist, bandwagon army or if I lose the game.
I primarily get my enjoyment from the visuals of the battle, and bandwagoners tend to only spray or not even fully assemble their models.

So, while I'm not new, I am trying to return to the game after a many (8ish) year absence. This thread and particularly this attitude I find strange and disheartening. I hate painting. I mean really hate it. I'll do it (slowly) but when given the opportunity to find cheap second hand pre-painted models on ebay, I snatch that opportunity and generally only paint what I can't find at a reasonable price. That often means my armies are mismatched in color scheme and vary widely in quality. I do make sure that everything is modeled (assuming a model actually exists) but I don't have the pretty armies a hobbyist might. I play this game because I enjoy playing this game. I do appreciate the look of a well painted army and in no way begrudge people who enjoy painting their enjoyment, but that's not for me. If I had the cash to do so, I'd certainly buy sufficient beautifully painted armies to constantly field a well painted and effective force. Not for the "new hotness" but for effectiveness.

Unassembled models are one thing but (unless there are tournament/store rules otherwise) bare plastic or just primed models are as acceptable as beautifully painted ones. A lot of people seem to complain about playing games with people that have bland looking armies, but few people seem to complain about playing against boring lists that present no challenge. To me, as a gamer and not a hobbyist, I play for challenge. I assume I'm just as underwhelmed by playing a horribly put together list (for fluff or any other reason) as a hobbyist is by playing a bare plastic army. I don't complain about my unchallenging games however because the other person is supporting a hobby I like, participating for reasons that they enjoy, and hopefully having fun. It takes all kinds, but it is just striking to me that the general thrust here is that it is acceptable to mock people with bare plastic armies, but not ones that play horribly or write garbage lists. Why not accept that they are all equally valuable?

This is not to the quote above, but to a lot of the other sentiments expressed here - if you don't care about being competitive or the "gamer" side of the hobby, then who cares what cutting edge players are jumping to a new list? If it makes someone feel un-special to have new players flock to an army that they liked just because it wasn't the "cool kids army" and now it is isn't it really their issue, not an issue with the people making the change?

AngryAngel
01-02-2013, 21:24
Complaining about people jumping on the bandwagon is snobbery, pure and simple. No one has the right to criticise how anyone enjoys their hobby even if it annoys you.

I had absolutely zero interest in Vampire Counts until January of last year. Then when I saw the Coven Throne and Isabella von Carstein models I fell completely in love and started playing with Vampire Counts. I now have something like 6000pts worth, mostly painted. How is this in anyway a bad thing? Likewise when DE rere revamped we saw huge numbers of people jumping on the bandwagon and ensuring the release was a success for GW and hopefully making them consider such revamps a good thing to do. How is this a bad thing? I'm tempted to start a WoC army because I love the Valkia model (and her eponymous novel) and I reall like the war shrine, mutalith and dragon ogres. My best friend fell completely in love with the new Necron kits and she promptly started a new Necron army and does very well in tournaments, why is this a bad thing?

If someone uses the same models but with different codices frequently that really is another issue. I find it particularly annoying but I'm not going to condemn someone for doing it, I just won't play them.

I love that and Im all for people playing the armies they like. Its your time, your money and you game, so why not get a new army when you wish it ? I'm not again codex hopping then bandwagoning. I like bandwagoning as it spurs sales for local stores and keeps armys rotating around. Not to mention you can benefit if the bandwagon leaves and the players wish to get out of the army cheap.

I started vampire counts during their last release as I loved the visual of the corpsecart and I love me some zombies.

Glad your also anti codex hopping though.

ColShaw
01-02-2013, 21:28
I pay no attention whatsoever to what's currently popular. I build armies slowly, often over several years, generally spanning editions of the game. If I start a new one, it's because I have a firm idea of composition, theme, and color scheme.

If there's a "flavor of the month" that's popular, I just try to figure out how to beat it with what I have.

omgadinosaur
01-02-2013, 23:09
So, while I'm not new, I am trying to return to the game after a many (8ish) year absence. This thread and particularly this attitude I find strange and disheartening. I hate painting. I mean really hate it. I'll do it (slowly) but when given the opportunity to find cheap second hand pre-painted models on ebay, I snatch that opportunity and generally only paint what I can't find at a reasonable price. That often means my armies are mismatched in color scheme and vary widely in quality. I do make sure that everything is modeled (assuming a model actually exists) but I don't have the pretty armies a hobbyist might. I play this game because I enjoy playing this game. I do appreciate the look of a well painted army and in no way begrudge people who enjoy painting their enjoyment, but that's not for me. If I had the cash to do so, I'd certainly buy sufficient beautifully painted armies to constantly field a well painted and effective force. Not for the "new hotness" but for effectiveness.

Unassembled models are one thing but (unless there are tournament/store rules otherwise) bare plastic or just primed models are as acceptable as beautifully painted ones. A lot of people seem to complain about playing games with people that have bland looking armies, but few people seem to complain about playing against boring lists that present no challenge. To me, as a gamer and not a hobbyist, I play for challenge. I assume I'm just as underwhelmed by playing a horribly put together list (for fluff or any other reason) as a hobbyist is by playing a bare plastic army. I don't complain about my unchallenging games however because the other person is supporting a hobby I like, participating for reasons that they enjoy, and hopefully having fun. It takes all kinds, but it is just striking to me that the general thrust here is that it is acceptable to mock people with bare plastic armies, but not ones that play horribly or write garbage lists. Why not accept that they are all equally valuable?

This is not to the quote above, but to a lot of the other sentiments expressed here - if you don't care about being competitive or the "gamer" side of the hobby, then who cares what cutting edge players are jumping to a new list? If it makes someone feel un-special to have new players flock to an army that they liked just because it wasn't the "cool kids army" and now it is isn't it really their issue, not an issue with the people making the change?

In case I contributed to your disheartening, I apologize and hope it grows back soon.

I also wanted to say that I can sympathize with not liking to paint. Painting takes a significant amount of time and energy. I understand if someone takes a long time to paint there army, i am still working on bringing my tyranids to table-top quality because I am a slow painted and have other obligations that eat away my time.

However, I think that the hobby is part of the game. When I began playing with a group of friends in high school, only a couple of us bought models and attempted to paint them. I can assure you it's disheartening to see your dragon (we played fantasy) that invested lots of time and money on blown up by an N64 cartridge to signify a cannon. While I enjoyed the games because they were my friends, I felt like my time and energy were undermined by my opponents lack. Thus, I feel like the more someone works on their army the higher enjoyment of the game for all. Therefore, if you were a regular at my club, I would appreciate that, despite your hatred of painting, you still slowly painted your army.

While I never think that someone's army should be mocked, I think that painting your army is a gesture of respect for the hobby. I would much rather be stomped by Draigo in silver power armor then Draigo in finecast grey. I think that the aesthetics help to build the world we try to emulate when we play.


TL;DR: No one should be mocked for paint or lack there of. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I just think paint look prettier.

Eldartank
01-02-2013, 23:25
I generally stick with the armies I have, regardless of what the current or new codex is like, because I am more interested in the army appearance/storyline and collecting/painting than I am in playing. But I must admit that even I like winning a game every once in a while. A typical game for me is my opponent admiring and complementing my models as he is wiping me off the table. I had Grey Knights since the Daemonhunters codex, so I definitely wasn't jumping the bandwagon when the new Grey Knights codex came out - I already had a playable army.

I DID start a new army when the Chaos Daemons codex came out, but that was because I really liked the idea of an all-daemon army (I never played anything chaos before), and I was particularly attracted to the idea of a mostly Khorne army. There's just something cool about an army full of angry red monsters, and red happens to be my favorite color. I also like the idea of having an antagonist counter to my Grey Knights. I don't know if my starting a Chaos Daemons army counts as bandwagon jumping, though.

Kaldor Draigo
02-02-2013, 01:33
All miniatures are proxies for rules and all rules are subjective

Two points:

If you don't care about the aesthetic of the game, which is what I take away from a comment like 'all miniatures are proxies for rules' then why bother using miniatures at all?

Secondly, certain rules are associated with certain models. If you take your ultramarines, which have a certain set of rules, and start using them as blood angels, which have another set of rules, that is confusing and discourteous to your opponent.


I play this game because I enjoy playing this game

I don't mean to be snappy or snobbish here, but why would you get into a hobby that involves painting, if you don't like painting?

I mean, the mechanics of the game are clunky, complicated without being complex, outdated, counter-intuitive and very poorly balanced. If it's game-play you enjoy, there are much, much better games out there that also don't require collecting and painting expensive models.

To me it's like saying you really hate walking and being outdoors, but you love playing golf. Well, maybe golf isn't for you? Maybe try mini-golf or bowling or something?

Midvalley
02-02-2013, 02:10
However, I think that the hobby is part of the game. When I began playing with a group of friends in high school, only a couple of us bought models and attempted to paint them. I can assure you it's disheartening to see your dragon (we played fantasy) that invested lots of time and money on blown up by an N64 cartridge to signify a cannon. While I enjoyed the games because they were my friends, I felt like my time and energy were undermined by my opponents lack. Thus, I feel like the more someone works on their army the higher enjoyment of the game for all. Therefore, if you were a regular at my club, I would appreciate that, despite your hatred of painting, you still slowly painted your army.

While I never think that someone's army should be mocked, I think that painting your army is a gesture of respect for the hobby. I would much rather be stomped by Draigo in silver power armor then Draigo in finecast grey. I think that the aesthetics help to build the world we try to emulate when we play.

So my feelings certainly aren't hurt, but I think the issue here is that people are conflating proxying with either "bandwagoning" or playing with unpainted models. I personally at least prime and generally base coat anything I'm playing with. And beyond that I won't proxy anything at all unless I'm playtesting at home. I also would be extremely reluctant to play with someone that regularly or often proxied models. So, I agree, I couldn't stand seeing an N64 controller on the table, that would also make me want to pack it in. With friends a "counts as" from time to time is fine to test potential purchases before taking the plunge, but even then I'd expect them to use something similar (or at least on the same sized base). But, assuming the model is the correct model, I don't mind if someone has the bare plastic/resin/metal even if I do prefer looking at painted models.



I don't mean to be snappy or snobbish here, but why would you get into a hobby that involves painting, if you don't like painting?

I mean, the mechanics of the game are clunky, complicated without being complex, outdated, counter-intuitive and very poorly balanced. If it's game-play you enjoy, there are much, much better games out there that also don't require collecting and painting expensive models.

To me it's like saying you really hate walking and being outdoors, but you love playing golf. Well, maybe golf isn't for you? Maybe try mini-golf or bowling or something?

You are, in fact, being both snappy and snobbish. I like playing as I stated. You are stating your opinion (regarding the quality of the game rules) as if it was fact. You personally may find the rules clunky, counter-intuitive, or unenjoyable, but I, obviously, do not. I've taken a look at a lot of other tabletop wargames (including Warmachine, Malifaux, the various Clix, Dust, etc.) and I greatly prefer Warhammer 40k as a game. I like that people can enjoy painting. I personally do not. But I do like the rules regardless of what snobby people might say about their quality. I'm happy that people that hate the rules can still enjoy the hobby via painting/building/converting. Just like I'm happy I can enjoy the rules while hating painting. To use your golf analogy - you can walk, I can ride a cart, and we both are playing golf while I get to avoid my hated walking.

Kaldor Draigo
02-02-2013, 03:03
You are, in fact, being both snappy and snobbish

Sorry if I came across that way, I'm just asking an honest question.


You are stating your opinion (regarding the quality of the game rules) as if it was fact. You personally may find the rules clunky, counter-intuitive, or unenjoyable, but I, obviously, do not.

Sadly, no. By any objective measure, 40K is a bad game. The rules are clunky, and counter intuitive. You may enjoy them. You may even enjoy them because of their failings. But that doesn't make them good rules, and just further piques my curiosity.

Midvalley
02-02-2013, 03:16
Sadly, no. By any objective measure, 40K is a bad game. The rules are clunky, and counter intuitive. You may enjoy them. You may even enjoy them because of their failings. But that doesn't make them good rules, and just further piques my curiosity.

The quality of a game is, necessarily, a subjective measure. Clunky is another term that is both subjective and relative. I cannot objectively evaluate the counter-intuitive quality of the rules since I've known 40k for so long. I don't claim that the rules are "objectively superior" to some other wargame, as that would be false objectivity. I do claim that I enjoy them more than other wargames I have tried - I do not find them clunky or counter-intuitive and they, in fact, allow me to play tabletop wargames in a manner I find pleasurable where rules that many who dislike 40k rules prefer I find significantly less pleasing, interesting, and engaging.

Ronin_eX
02-02-2013, 03:18
You see, this is one thing that I despise about gamers. They can't just be content to enjoy their own thing they always have to make sure people know that the game they enjoy is objectively bad and that they should play something else (where something else = whatever their favourite system is).

I'll level with ya. I have been wargaming for close to twenty years. In this time I have played dozens of different games. Some simple and elegant, some byzantine and complex. Some of them had balance issues that could sink ships, and some seemed to strike a balance so perfect that you could use it as a level. But I also found out that all of that means jack squat, and that for everything a game might do right, it is never perfect. And for all my playing other systems, I can certainly say that 40k has its own features that no game I have ever played quite matches. It has things that it does infinitely better than some of my other favourites. And that it has blemishes doesn't detract from the fun. I can make a list of all my favourite games, and for each one, I can tell you 4-5 things they do horribly wrong. Having clunky bits doesn't make a game bad, it just means a human designed it. 40k really isn't an objectively bad game and after years of playing other games, I can list a myriad of reasons why I continue to enjoy several editions of it.

So can we please not start pulling the "nuh-uh it is objectively bad and wrong, sorry, science says so" card? It is more than a little juvenile. People enjoy what they enjoy, the objective of a game should be to provide fun for its players, if 40k does this for people then it is a good game for them. And if having flaws disqualifies it from being good, then even Chess (let alone every other war game in history) has some 'splainin to do. Not saying it couldn't improve, but even my favourite game, Infinity, is guilty of needing a score of different improvements.

Kaldor Draigo
02-02-2013, 03:49
The quality of a game is, necessarily, a subjective measure. Clunky is another term that is both subjective and relative. I cannot objectively evaluate the counter-intuitive quality of the rules since I've known 40k for so long. I don't claim that the rules are "objectively superior" to some other wargame, as that would be false objectivity. I do claim that I enjoy them more than other wargames I have tried - I do not find them clunky or counter-intuitive and they, in fact, allow me to play tabletop wargames in a manner I find pleasurable where rules that many who dislike 40k rules prefer I find significantly less pleasing, interesting, and engaging.

I never said the 40K rules were objectively bad. I said by any objective measure, they are bad. By which I mean that by almost any objective measuring stick you care to use, 40K will rank very poorly. Elegance of system, concise wording, balance, player involvement, turn length, complexity, complication, need for FAQs and Errata, the list goes on. Many games are simply better in any way that it is possible to measure.

Now, on your subjective measuring stick it seems to rank very highly, and that makes me curious. I mean, what is it about the 40K rules that attracts you? I love 40K, and it's probably one of my favourite games. But that's because of the IP and the models, and frankly nothing to do with the mechanics at all.


You see, this is one thing that I despise about gamers.

Hyperbole much?

eldargal
02-02-2013, 06:50
I don't see anything particularly hyperbolic about someone despising gamers' tendency towards partisanship in subjective matters. I find it quite irritating myself but I despise the relentless negativity more.

Also of the thingsyou cite only 'concise wording' and 'need for FAQs' are particularly objective and even then you are stretching it with FAQs and errata as much of that can come down to proofreading and editing rather than game mechanics.

xxRavenxx
02-02-2013, 09:03
It takes a good year to paint a sizable army to a decent standard

A decent painter, who has say... 5 hours? of free time per day, can finish a none horde army (no nids, no orks...) in a week to a high tabletop standard.

I'm 90% confident that for some armies (Greyknights...) I could personally get 1500pts built and painted for tabletop use in one day. I wouldn't. But I could :)

OuroborosTriumphant
02-02-2013, 13:06
It's a symptom, not a problem in itself.

I really don't give a damn if your blue/red/grey marines use Codex: Dark Angels, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Chaos Space Marines or Codex: Space Wolves. Even Codex: Grey Knights if I can see the Storm Bolters and Force Weapons on the model. In a well-designed game, it wouldn't make a huge difference to how powerful your army was. In practice it really does, but responsibility for that lies with GW, not the codex-jumpers.

I *think* (and hope) that codex creep is on the down-turn, however. There doesn't seem to be huge power incentive to jump between Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves, Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Chaos Space Marines. If Black Templars and Vanilla Marines end up at roughly the same power-level, we should hopefully see relatively little codex-jumping going forward.

(Obvious, if you want to run Ultramarine First Company and use Codex: DA or want to run a Raven Guard Assault Company and use Codex Blood Angels, that is a slightly different thing. I am mostly referring to a Tactical Marine-centered force leaping from Codex to Codex.)

club_death
03-02-2013, 22:23
I have a friend, earns quite a bit more than me, and he got accused of bandwagon jumping when he rocked up to our lgs with a newly bought imperial guard army 2 weeks after 6e hit. I've known him since we were wee children & both of us have been dying to build a large guard regiment, but because he only recently bought it and the models weren't all painted (or fully built, he was also playtesting) he got accused of essentially cheating.

Of course since then he and I have both been coming in and using spam-lists like crazy (my ultrasmurfs became c:ba, GK, c:sw then c:da each week, my dark eldar suddenly stopped having 'sub-optimal units' etc.) until we thought our store-opponents learnt their lesson...

I don't know where I'm going with this but I will say sometimes people go for FotM because its a good excuse to do something new.

Except daemons. Those things are eeeeevill.

Chuck777
04-02-2013, 01:18
There's noting wrong with bandwagoning, so long as everything is WYSIWYG and the bandwagoner buys his/her models from their FLGS.

thrawn
04-02-2013, 01:27
i don't think it's fair to say this though.

if toyota designs a new car that really appeals to you, even if you are a ford fan, there's nothing wrong with switching. it's your right, as it's your money, to buy/switch to what you want when you want.

it's also a testament to GW advertising ability.

Luigi
04-02-2013, 01:56
[...] why even use gw minis if your doing that?

:confused::shifty::confused:

Ruination Drinker
04-02-2013, 01:57
If you have guys in PA, feel free to use any codex until GW actively discourages it by making the PA armies radically different looking. I don't ever see this happening.

-Totenkopf-
04-02-2013, 03:31
I have a tendency to go for the most unpopular armies and win with the fluffiest lists... A well balanced list has a chance to win any game... I try to prove that as much as possible.. I also tend to like units that get no web love, like stalkers for my tomb kings and guardians for my eldar. They always surprise people..

Hellebore
04-02-2013, 03:39
Two points:

If you don't care about the aesthetic of the game, which is what I take away from a comment like 'all miniatures are proxies for rules' then why bother using miniatures at all?


I never said I don't. But I'm not going to begrudge someone else the right not to. The indisputible fact is that miniatures ARE proxies for rules. There are no universal truths that associate a set of abstracts maths with a bit of coloured plastic.



Secondly, certain rules are associated with certain models. If you take your ultramarines, which have a certain set of rules, and start using them as blood angels, which have another set of rules, that is confusing and discourteous to your opponent.


They are temporally associated, but you cannot say they are 'supposed' to be associated with them. GW will change what rules are associated with what models whenever they feel like it, removing any sense that a set of rules 'should' belong to any set of miniatures. The justifications GW use to support why one set of abstract mechanics apply to one set of plastic tokens are still completely subjective. There is no reason they can't be applied to different armies.

Your argument also presupposes that the opponent actually KNOWS the difference between red space marines and blue space marines. Unless all players know all armies, they are not going to know when an army is using the 'right' mechanics and when they 'aren't'.

Against an eldar player can many people tell the difference between starcannons, scatter lasers and brightlances or eldar missile launchers? And even if they could, would they be able associate the specific rules mechanics of each weapon with its name and miniature representation?

The only people that get offended at blue marines using red marine rules are those people who have memorised enough of the army lists to actually KNOW when an army isn't using the rules a codex ascribed to it.

What's disrespectful is you demanding your opponent play the way you want them to. They have broken no game rules, they are using a codex published and endorsed by GW. If you consider it broken, ban the codex. The colour of the army changes none of the rules.

And your attitude simply encourages people not to paint their armies. If one colour prevents me ever using a different set of abstract rules, why the hell should I paint them at all? The argument is utterly meaningless.

When is it the 'wrong' colour and when is it a 'successor chapter'? I have an army painted blue with ultramarines markings... but when I use the blood angels codex they become the 'Ultra Angels' a genetic successor of the Blood Angels who are a ideological successor of the Ultramarines, believing that by following their example they will rid themselves of the red thirst and be redeemed.

This sort of thing exposes arguments like yours as the subjective opinions they are and reveals just how meaningless positions on 'fluff vs rules' really are.

Hellebore

-Totenkopf-
04-02-2013, 03:45
A decent painter, who has say... 5 hours? of free time per day, can finish a none horde army (no nids, no orks...) in a week to a high tabletop standard.

I'm 90% confident that for some armies (Greyknights...) I could personally get 1500pts built and painted for tabletop use in one day. I wouldn't. But I could :)


Who has 5 free hours a day??? I'm lucky to get that in a week! and I'm talking free hours.. outside of work, wife kid and life obligations. Factor in other hobbies, sports, passtimes and not to mention playing a game every now and then and it's impressive how quickly I can get a decent sized army painted... not in a day though.. that's insane..

Balerion
04-02-2013, 04:33
I guess I have a different conception of "bandwagon jumper" than the one most people conveyed in this thread.

I've always associated the term with someone who sells/trades their old stuff and jumps wholesale into a new book.

I would never think to apply the term to a person who is simply starting to collect a newly-released army. That's the whole point of releasing them, isn't it?

Kaldor Draigo
04-02-2013, 06:37
What's disrespectful is you demanding your opponent play the way you want them to.

No.

There are certain social contracts that we abide by when we play. Some are more universal than others, but it is never disrespectful to ask your opponent to abide by the contracts you wish to use. These might include simple, basic ones:

Not playing when drunk.
Not playing when naked.
Being respectful to other peoples property.
Not swearing.
Using basic hygiene.

And they might include some more specific ones:

Having a properly written list.
Only using painted miniatures.
Being clear and concise with your opponent about moves.
Using the rules associated with your miniatures.

As you said, certain rules are associated with certain miniatures. A Space Wolf has Acute Senses, Blood Angels have the Red Thirst, Ultramarines have Combat Tactics. Their wargear is different, and many contain different units. Taking models commonly associated with one set of rules and using them as another set of rules is discourteous to your opponent. Some people will get all bent out of shape about it, and some won't, but it's still something to be avoided in polite company.

Imperialis_Dominatus
04-02-2013, 06:59
Honestly, the fourth item on your second list seems like it will vary from opponent to opponent such that it's not really fair to list it alongside properly written lists and playing while clothed, and listing it as such seems more a rhetorical browbeating than anything else. If that's a personal convention you insist on, so be it, but I really wouldn't expect the rest of the world to share your extreme concern when a Spiky Marine is used to represent a Furry Marine or variants thereof.

NemoSD
04-02-2013, 07:25
No.
Not playing when naked.


Wait... this is wrong? Damn, me and my fiancee play wrong a lot! (Strip Warhammer... we both play Guard, who ever gets naked first fires second :-p

HBT
04-02-2013, 09:32
No.

There are certain social contracts that we abide by when we play. Some are more universal than others, but it is never disrespectful to ask your opponent to abide by the contracts you wish to use. These might include simple, basic ones:

Not playing when drunk. - Boo, hiss, boo
Not playing when naked. - Unless I'm playing the opposite sex at Strip 40k ~ Not that this has ever happened I'm saddened to say, but one day...
Not swearing. - That's me @*&^#~. ...

The rest of your rules are perfectly acceptable.

As to jumping on the bandwagon? I collect, paint (slowly and badly) and play Space Marines, and have done for quite a while. Some of the newer models coming out for the new codices are beautifully made and fantastic to look at when painted by people who know what they're doing. Would I buy them? Not if they don't fit in my army. But IMHO that doesn't mean to say that the folks who do so are in the wrong. And if they choose to build a newer army based on a newer codex? Then that's up to them.

I know my wallet couldn't take the hit, but why should I judge those whose wallets can?

As far as I can see, the whole bandwagon jumping hate thing is down to one basic human emotion - jealousy.

Cheers

TheDungen
04-02-2013, 14:00
I guess I have a different conception of "bandwagon jumper" than the one most people conveyed in this thread.

I've always associated the term with someone who sells/trades their old stuff and jumps wholesale into a new book.

I would never think to apply the term to a person who is simply starting to collect a newly-released army. That's the whole point of releasing them, isn't it?

There are people that care so little for money? Why cant there be more of them?

Eldartank
05-02-2013, 00:02
Hmmm... I just thought of something. I think I may be able to do the "codex jumping/bandwagon" thing, with a fully painted army, with complete impunity and without even violating the "proper colors of the codex" rule. I currently have a large collection of Terminators, a Land Raider and a Dreadnought painted in my own color scheme and chapter symbol which I call the "Black Omega Chapter." For a few years I have been playing them as a Dark Angels Successor Chapter (lots of Terminators makes for a perfect Deathwing army). I am in the process of adding some more new Terminator models, and I want to assemble my space Commander mini and a couple other power-armored units (2 Tactical Squads, an Assault Squad and a Devastator Squad). I just realized that if I get enough various Space Marine minis and Vehicles, all fully painted in my "Black Omega" colors, I can play them as any Chapter I want, all fully painted and 100% properly represented, no matter which codex I use. One day I could pull out some of those minis and play a fully painted and WYSIWYG Blood Angels Successor army. The next day I could use those same minis with some variation to play a Dark Angels Successor amy the same way. Then a Black Templars variant the next day, maybe a Space Wolves variant the next day, some vanilla chapter the next day, and then maybe back to the Blood Angels variant the day after that. If I really wanted to, I could annoy the ever-living heck out of the "proper codex color nazis" and be totally, absolutely, 100% game and codex legal, incuding absolute 100% WYSIWYG representation on all my models in every game. It could be an odd sort of fun, always being able to "codex hop" and "jump bandwagons" at any time with complete impunity. ;)

Amusing as that idea sounds, I have no real intention of actually doing that, even as I do add some power-armored guys to my "Black Omega" Dark Angels Successor army. I kind of have a bit of attachment to the storyline I invented for my Dark Angels Successor Chapter. I'm also attached to the memory of that day I looked at that rediculously excessive amount of Terminator models I had lying around and came up with the idea of making my own Dark Angels Successor Deathwing army. I should also add that I have my decently-painted Crimson Fists army for playing Vanilla Marines, and I rather like their storyline, too.

totgeboren
05-02-2013, 10:21
Not playing when drunk.
Not playing when naked.
Being respectful to other peoples property.
Not swearing.
Using basic hygiene.

And they might include some more specific ones:

Having a properly written list.
Only using painted miniatures.
Being clear and concise with your opponent about moves.
Using the rules associated with your miniatures.


These examples clearly show how specific these social contracts are to the individual. Ok, not showing up drunk for a game is common courtesy, but by the last turn, both players tend to be at least a bit tipsy in my experience. And swearing... of course not at each other, but at your own models for failing to do anything remotely useful! :P
Someone having a unit not properly painted is not a big breach of etiquette, but absolutely, it is much appreciated if they do have everything painted. I have never asked anyone to show me their list, so having a properly written list or a sloppily written list makes little difference to me. If they want to cheat they will cheat.
But I agree with your last one. Proxying is one thing, but using grey hunters as a GK strike squad for a few games, then suddenly they turn into BA marines is not really cool. It ruins the other players immersion a bit, as it reduces the game to simply 'a game', where the story gets lost.

But clearing out what people are expecting from their games before the game can be great for both players. A few months ago I faced a new guy who has moved to town, and it was just the two of us. The funny thing was none of us had beer or anything, and halfway through the battle I said "It feels a bit strange to play this focused. Usually the ones I play with drink beer and go at this a bit more relaxed..." and he said "Me too!" and after that we both play in a way that we both are most comfortable with.