Has the internet ruined 40K? Can it save it?

[Kahoolin]

The only thing that worries me about the internet's role in 40k is the effect it has on new players, particularly young ones.

Kids today (I can't believe I just said that...) spend a hell of a lot of time online and so they are going to quite reasonably assume that everyone who plays 40k is also on a message board talking about it, like they are. I've abandoned a few forums over the years because they wold start to develop "styles" of list or tactic particular to that forum as a result of more respected/high posting members believing it was the best list. Anyone who disagrees was told (sometimes very bluntly) that they were wrong by the popular member's lackeys, or the member themselves. This is not a good thing. New players can easily be influenced by these little fashions and misled into thinking they have to buy certain models or they will have zero chance of ever winning a game.

Say for example you're a 14 year old just getting into the hobby. You visit a forum to get a feel for it, you read everyone loudly saying guard is a strong army and all guard armies need multiple vets with meltas in a transport. So you go and buy exactly that. Where was your choice? Do you even like Guard? Even if you liked the look of Eldar better, you now have Guard because you believed the hype.

I guess my point is statements like this damage the hobby:

"Tau are fail"
"Put 3 meltas in a chimera, rinse and repeat."
"Only an idiot would field ogryns."

Just because something is a popular viewpoint doesn't mean it's correct, and I think that's the biggest danger of the net. Individual thought gets swamped by fashion.

Sorry for the long post, I've thought about this a lot.

[Levitas]

If you really believe there are auto-win lists, maybe you should go back to tiddlywinks.

The internet is a great place for butthurt casuals to cry about their last beating and how cheesy the attractive and successful tournament players are.

See, I can make sweeping blanket generalizations too.

the internet has made mass communication people to one can find people to identify with anywhere. It's no longer the lone fluff player in the lion's den of competitive players or the ostracized competitive player looking for a challenge in Jervis's "you're doing it wrong" utopia. People can share ideas and improve their enjoyment of the game. People who like to play competitively can find like-minded people and organize challenging games while fluff players can exchange ideas.

The game was actually built on casuals. Having been around for Rogue Trader that's just what the game was - casual.

I've played in several tournaments, and they are fun. I like competitive play as much as the next man. But my issue is that it is starting to dominate and influence younger gamers, who will miss out on what made Rogue Trader great in the first place. Players picking lists because they know they will win, not because they like any other part of that army.

Agree that there is a place for everyone, its just that some places are getting bigger and more dominating than others. I am in no way generalizing or saying that one mans way of enjoying the hobby is bad, I just think there needs to be balance.

The internet is a great place, opening up to all aspects of the game. Thats not at fault, the division between casual and competitive is. I wonder what would happen if 40k split off into 2 separate ways of playing, and 2 different books. Have a tournament edition, with tighter rules and an open edition that restricts the more powerful tools/lists.

[vman]

like tekken newbies who pick Eddy and mash buttons. Frustrating, but unstoppable.

I actually laughed when i read this... its so true

I hate Eddie Gordo and Christie Montero! Urggghh sif thats martial arts... more like a panzy dance but yes i hate it with a passion

[DevilUknow]

I don't think its a good idea to split the community into lowly lol-casuals and the lions that eat them when there's not enough GT happening.

I'm not convinced that just providing MORE tournament play will offset the lost revenue from people quitting because tournament play doesn't interest them (even hardcore players aren't going to buy and build a new army for every event they attend if they're going to something new every other month).

Not saying that there SHOULDN'T be tournament play, just that there should be something else to hook people long enough to want to try the tournament scene.

[Psyberwolfe]

...I guess my point is statements like this damage the hobby:

"Tau are fail"
"Put 3 meltas in a chimera, rinse and repeat."
"Only an idiot would field ogryns."

Just because something is a popular viewpoint doesn't mean it's correct, and I think that's the biggest danger of the net. Individual thought gets swamped by fashion...

Not Really.

Tau aren't fail, but I failed to see any Tau playing at BoLS con. I comment on your first "quote" because these comments don't come about because there is a myth surrounding them. There are reasons and evidence as to why they are being said. You state that comments and ideas such as you presented are damaging. How? To me, the idea of damaging commentary is commentary that would cause people to not play.

Much of what is said by "hardcore gamers" is plain fact. Certain builds will just perform better, but a string of bad dice rolls will hurt them just as much. Also if they are facing a more capable player the uber build will also fall apart.

[Heroka Vendile]

They will go on doing whatever will line their shareholders' pockets

That is something GW hasn't been able to do very well (or at all) for the past few years, they've had a lot of ups and downs and their only really recovering properly now.

[Kahoolin]

Tau aren't fail, but I failed to see any Tau playing at BoLS con. I comment on your first "quote" because these comments don't come about because there is a myth surrounding them. There are reasons and evidence as to why they are being said. You state that comments and ideas such as you presented are damaging. How? To me, the idea of damaging commentary is commentary that would cause people to not play.

Much of what is said by "hardcore gamers" is plain fact. Certain builds will just perform better, but a string of bad dice rolls will hurt them just as much. Also if they are facing a more capable player the uber build will also fall apart.

I get what you're saying, and I'm not arguing that some builds are better than others. What I'm saying is that new players who might be more into painting/modelling/fluff whatever (which no-one can deny are at least as much a part of the hobby as the actual game) might get the impression from the internet that these things are secondary to winning, and that if they don't choose an uber list from a powerful faction there's no point in them entering the hobby. That's just not true, it's a misrepresentation because hardcore gamers are the loudest and proudest GW gamers online. There's nothing wrong with the hardcore style, but if I was a new player going by what I could easily find on the internet I would think there was no other style.

Tau may very well suck BoLS but there are a lot of game groups where that doesn't matter at all. It shouldn't be a reason for a newbie player not to choose them if they like the look of them is all I'm saying.

Edit: Plus, every hard build is eventually invalidated by some sort of edition or codex change, or even just a change in the tournament meta-game. I just have this image of little Johnny buying a netlist he doesn't like because a bunch of people on the net told him the army he did like sucked, and then having it fail miserably sooner or later. It's one of those things where it's not the older more experienced gamers fault that happens, but I just wish sometimes we could all be a bit more responsible about how we talk to potential players online. I'm not saying BoLS is guilty of this in particular, I'm talking about net culture in general.

[imperialsavant]

I play 40k at my local wargames club and nowhere else. Playing 40k is supposed to be fun and if it ain't fun then I don't want to play.

I think the problem with the internet and sites like this is that many people like myself don't bother with them (Two of my regular opponents wouldn't dream of being on here) so you get a slightly biased view of the hobby from them.

I'm quite sure for every hard core tournament player on sites like this there are two or three 'fun' players keeping thier opinions to themselves and playing just for the enjoyment of the hobby.

I think that there are far more people like me then people would imagine and consequently the hobby is in safe hands.

The only "Tourny" I have played in after 8 years playing 40k was one our own Club organised locally.
I play for the "Fun" but do like to win when I can, however ALL my armies are built to a Theme & are very balanced & sometimes I restrict myself of more powerful entries if the "Fluff" requires it.
I play against some mates regularly & whoever is on for a game at the club.

I really enjoy Warhammer on line Groups like Yahoos IG, Battle Sisters & my own Black-Templar Group.
I think the BoLs Lounge is a great place to exchange ideas etc with other Gamers.
Go get those mates of yours to join up as Iam sure they will enjoy the experience

[Nabterayl]

Edit: Plus, every hard build is eventually invalidated by some sort of edition or codex change, or even just a change in the tournament meta-game. I just have this image of little Johnny buying a netlist he doesn't like because a bunch of people on the net told him the army he did like sucked, and then having it fail miserably sooner or later. It's one of those things where it's not the older more experienced gamers fault that happens, but I just wish sometimes we could all be a bit more responsible about how we talk to potential players online. I'm not saying BoLS is guilty of this in particular, I'm talking about net culture in general.

I second this. The trouble I have with discussions of lists and the meta-game online is that it tends (in my experience) to be dominated by discussions of math, either implicitly or explicitly. There's nothing wrong with 40K being an education in statistics (or heck, even in how to use Excel), but it's only one dimension of play. When people discuss tactics, they tend to pay lip service to it with vague statements like, "What matters is how well you know your army" or they discuss only very specific gimmicks.

There's nothing wrong with any of that as far as it goes, but I hate the thought of players not learning how to think about tactics in a systematic way (i.e., in a way that is transferable to other wargames that don't use the 40K rules) because he's too busy thinking about the theoryhammer and the tournament meta-game. More specifically, I hate the thought of players not having the intellectual toolkit to make the army of their choice work for them, or adapt to the next codex or meta-game wrinkle.

Isn't it a firm grasp of tactics, and the ability to apply that grasp to 40K (rather than a grasp of tactics that is limited to 40K, or worse, limited to one particular codex) that really makes a player we recognize as skilled? I know not everybody has a formal educations in tactics (I certainly don't), but not everybody is skilled at theoryhammer, either, and I see the internet educating a lot more people about theoryhammer than tactics.

[Norbu the Destroyer]

The internet only hurts the hobby to those who let it. People will post their opinions (X unit is the greatest/worst unit ever.) People read it and go "Jeez that person must know what they are talking about." Odds are its some kid in his basement who barely plays the game and just reads codexs with very little gaming experience.
I think the two lists that were posted by Jwolf that won 1st and 2nd at BOLSCon are perfect examples. Neither list looked particularly impressive to me. There are units I would have dropped in an instant. The players obviously used them in a certain manner that made the lists work. Had those lists been posted in some forum like this someone would have undoubtedly written comments like "Drop the hormagaunts, they suck take genestealers, or too many boyz in the ork list, you need more lootas, burnas, battlewagons, etc..." I think people need to play what works for them and not worry what everyone thinks of their list. Posting lists is only theoryhammer not warhammer. Part of gaming is the list but the rest is set-up, reaction to opponent, luck, staying focused on objectives, and a nice mix of offense and defense. These are the attributes that make a competetive army, the list is only part of it.
As far as tourneys, there are A LOT of *******s or cheaters at tournaments I agree, but there are good friendly players as well who enjoy the game. I think people who are overly competetive will be *******s with any game of 40k they play be it a thursday night or a saturday at a tourney. If you have a friendly store to play at with no *******s god bless ya, but the world is full of *******s be it stores or tourneys. I think the competition at the tourneys is fun but the beer and pretzels 40k is just as fun. I dont think the inernet has hurt the hobby at all. If anything it has strengthened play because people can discuss rule discrepencies of rules or get questions answered from a variety of opinions.