So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SKR.HH**

Well, I assume that releases like the GSC and deathwatch *do* indicate the direction in which 8th edition will go. So for example formations and fliers (for DW) are included in them so I won't expect them to be gone.

Considering that many complain about them they *are* going to be disappointed again.

**Ruin**

SKR.HH wrote:
Well, I assume that releases like the GSC and deathwatch *do* indicate the direction in which 8th edition will go. So for example formations and fliers (for DW) are included in them so I won't expect them to be gone.

Considering that many complain about them they *are* going to be disappointed again.

I forsee many YouTube videos of melted armies if that is the case.

**Davor**

Thairne wrote:
They are working on an 8th edition for all the rumors we heard. They regarded 7th as a failed edition.

I thought 6th edition was the failed edition. Since 7th edition is has been out twice as long as 6th edition, I wouldn't say that 7th edition is the "failed" edition. Maybe you are thinking of how GW thinks 7th edition is a "lame duck" as was mentioned a few months ago? That doesn't mean it's failed, that it's just no longer viable now where it was once before it was.

**Ruin**

Davor wrote:
Thairne wrote:
They are working on an 8th edition for all the rumors we heard. They regarded 7th as a failed edition.

I thought 6th edition was the failed edition. Since 7th edition is has been out twice as long as 6th edition, I wouldn't say that 7th edition is the "failed" edition. Maybe you are thinking of how GW thinks 7th edition is a "lame duck" as was mentioned a few months ago? That doesn't mean it's failed, that it's just no longer viable now where it was once before it was.

Dunno where you're getting that from. Both editions have been out for the same length of time (2 years) as of right now.

**Davor**

Wow you are right Ruin. It just seemed so long ago that 6th edition came out. I guess I was thinking by the time 8th edition came out 7th edition would be a lot longer than 6th. 6th is what 18 months, by the time 7th edition comes out it will be 3 years, so almost double the time was my thinking.

Thanks for the clarification.

**Ruin**

Davor wrote:
Wow you are right Ruin. It just seemed so long ago that 6th edition came out. I guess I was thinking by the time 8th edition came out 7th edition would be a lot longer than 6th. 6th is what 18 months, by the time 7th edition comes out it will be 3 years, so almost double the time was my thinking.

Thanks for the clarification.

No worries. I did have to check myself to make sure I was correct. 6th came out June 2012 and 7th was in May 2014.

**Mario**

Thairne wrote:

This kind of thinking really starts to bug me. Being a software dev, I know that things take time. Developing a new ruleset or a new big feature for your software are somewhat comparable.
If you criticize GW for something, think about it a few seconds. Is what you want even possible or are you just being a negative nancy because you're so bitter and disappointed with the past?

The ruleset is still based on the big 3rd edition rewrite. They are not making completely new rules but updating them. That's, at best, like going from version 3.5.6 to 3.6.0 (and not 4.0) every few years while leaving people with old codex books for a lot of the factions. The problem is that things are not really improving and it looks like GW doesn't know what they want their rules to be.

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

**AllSeeingSkink**

Davor wrote:
Thairne wrote:
They are working on an 8th edition for all the rumors we heard. They regarded 7th as a failed edition.

I thought 6th edition was the failed edition. Since 7th edition is has been out twice as long as 6th edition, I wouldn't say that 7th edition is the "failed" edition. Maybe you are thinking of how GW thinks 7th edition is a "lame duck" as was mentioned a few months ago? That doesn't mean it's failed, that it's just no longer viable now where it was once before it was.

I think the best indication that 7th failed is the financial reports. Each year a new edition comes out comes with an uptick in revenue. Coming out of the LotR bubble bursting, 5th edition was big boost. When 6th came along, it was a boost again, not as big as 5th though. The year 7th came out was a year that revenue actually dropped, as was the subsequent year.

I think 7th was released because GW thought, "oh, people always buy the new edition and we need money, lets release a new edition now!". Except a lot of customers just went "What is this gak?" and left for one of the many other games that are on the market.

**SKR.HH**

Mario wrote:
Thairne wrote:

This kind of thinking really starts to bug me. Being a software dev, I know that things take time. Developing a new ruleset or a new big feature for your software are somewhat comparable.
If you criticize GW for something, think about it a few seconds. Is what you want even possible or are you just being a negative nancy because you're so bitter and disappointed with the past?

The ruleset is still based on the big 3rd edition rewrite. They are not making completely new rules but updating them. That's, at best, like going from version 3.5.6 to 3.6.0 (and not 4.0) every few years while leaving people with old codex books for a lot of the factions. The problem is that things are not really improving and it looks like GW doesn't know what they want their rules to be.

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

You don't develop software, do you? Because that is exactly how it works in our company as well. We do have a system that is close to
20 years old and we are working on it on a daily basis.

**Crispy78**

Mario wrote:

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

MS Office says hi...

**Wayniac**

SKR.HH wrote:
Mario wrote:
Thairne wrote:

This kind of thinking really starts to bug me. Being a software dev, I know that things take time. Developing a new ruleset or a new big feature for your software are somewhat comparable.
If you criticize GW for something, think about it a few seconds. Is what you want even possible or are you just being a negative nancy because you're so bitter and disappointed with the past?

The ruleset is still based on the big 3rd edition rewrite. They are not making completely new rules but updating them. That's, at best, like going from version 3.5.6 to 3.6.0 (and not 4.0) every few years while leaving people with old codex books for a lot of the factions. The problem is that things are not really improving and it looks like GW doesn't know what they want their rules to be.

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

You don't develop software, do you? Because that is exactly how it works in our company as well. We do have a system that is close to
20 years old and we are working on it on a daily basis.

I am a software developer too and I find this mentality to be ultimately destructive because you are never actually fixing stuff because nobody seems to understand that it does not really work

**hobojebus**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Davor wrote:
Thairne wrote:
They are working on an 8th edition for all the rumors we heard. They regarded 7th as a failed edition.

I thought 6th edition was the failed edition. Since 7th edition is has been out twice as long as 6th edition, I wouldn't say that 7th edition is the "failed" edition. Maybe you are thinking of how GW thinks 7th edition is a "lame duck" as was mentioned a few months ago? That doesn't mean it's failed, that it's just no longer viable now where it was once before it was.
I think the best indication that 7th failed is the financial reports. Each year a new edition comes out comes with an uptick in revenue. Coming out of the LotR bubble bursting, 5th edition was big boost. When 6th came along, it was a boost again, not as big as 5th though. The year 7th came out was a year that revenue actually dropped, as was the subsequent year.

I think 7th was released because GW thought, "oh, people always buy the new edition and we need money, lets release a new edition now!". Except a lot of customers just went "What is this gak?" and left for one of the many other games that are on the market.

That was my exact reaction I saw how incredibly lazy 7th was and stopped playing GW products, stopped all spending then played a bunch of other games.

Briefly tried AoS with stuff I already owned then went back to x-wing.

**SKR.HH**

Wayniac wrote:
SKR.HH wrote:
Mario wrote:
Thairne wrote:

This kind of thinking really starts to bug me. Being a software dev, I know that things take time. Developing a new ruleset or a new big feature for your software are somewhat comparable.
If you criticize GW for something, think about it a few seconds. Is what you want even possible or are you just being a negative nancy because you're so bitter and disappointed with the past?

The ruleset is still based on the big 3rd edition rewrite. They are not making completely new rules but updating them. That's, at best, like going from version 3.5.6 to 3.6.0 (and not 4.0) every few years while leaving people with old codex books for a lot of the factions. The problem is that things are not really improving and it looks like GW doesn't know what they want their rules to be.

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

You don't develop software, do you? Because that is exactly how it works in our company as well. We do have a system that is close to
20 years old and we are working on it on a daily basis.

I am a software developer too and I find this mentality to be ultimately destructive because you are never actually fixing stuff because nobody seems to understand that it does not really work

No, everybody sees that it does not work properly but they arrange with it. Building these things new from scratch is a) risky and b) high invest.

Quite similar here. People expecting to have a change from IGOUGO to something else are ignoring that this is not in the DNA of the game and the game developers. But I don't get it why people for example are still complaining that they are forced to have larger armies because the points per mini dropped. Why don't play "smaller" games instead? Why not play 1000 or 1500 points?

**Slayer-Fan123**

Davor wrote:
Harriticus wrote:I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.

Better yes, but now I believe GW is still the same old same old. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's the illusion that they have changed but they are still the same.

On the gameplay/codex front, I think they've done a good job introducing new armies. Mechanicus (despite being unnecessarily split up into 2 codex's), Genestealer Cult, and Deathwatch codex's have all been solid releases.

Here is proof. How do you put in a negative when praising for something good they did? Right there the Mechanicus being split up is showing GW hasn't changed.

On the modelling front, I think they've also improved in the last year. The new models for stuff like Skitarii and Genestealers fit their themes quite well and get the job done without being overly complicated. It's a far cry from disasters like the Taurox. They're also giving fans what they want with regards to models: minis like Primarchs and plastic sisters. The "made to order" concept has fans quite happy, though of course cautious about the limitations of it.

Minis were always improving even under GW of old. As for Primarchs, plastic sisters and "made to order" it's a bit premature with that. Wait till it actually happens. Saying something how good something is before it happens is not a good debate.

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

On the lore front, GW has finally acceded to fan demands and started progressing the story. Though the actual events have been lackluster, I think there's a sense that gak is finally going down in 999999.M41.

GW has made several good decisions with its IP in the last few years. Warhammer Total War and Dawn of War 3 being the best examples. 40K comics by a third party are also returning, indicating they're a bit less paranoid about what is published in their name now. GW is also no longer attacking smaller companies with petty copyright claims, instead renaming their own mini's. While this is still juvenile overly paranoid protection of their IP, I think it's a step in the right direction.

You are forgetting 40K Plant vs Zomibes. For every good IP decisions there are many poor ones. Funny you don't talk about them. Leaving out facts doesn't make GW any better, just your argument false.

Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop

So you find Age of Sigmar to be awful prices to high should show you that GW hasn't changed at all then. So your are proving yourself wrong in your debate.

With that said, 2016 has been the most I have spent money on GW. I haven't spent this much on GW in a few years so this smoke and mirrors approach is working at least on me. Will it last? I don't think so. I see GW of old creeping back in. To keep playing GW is just the same. Prices are even getting higher. Only one buzz saw in a pack for genestealers cult sprues when the rules can have 2 in a unit? So it's back to same old GW where placing only one bit in a box but rules tell you can use a many.

Wayniac wrote:Better? Yes. But there was also no place to go but up from what they were doing before. However the proof will be in the pudding of how they actually want to fix things and they've shown zero desire so far to actually fix the mess that 40K is in, in fact they seem to want to do the opposite by putting out more and more stuff to increase the bloat and make it that much harder to fix later.

I agree. It will be the new 40K edition to see if GW has changed at all or not. Sadly still under a year away. Why wait? Right there should raise up RED FLAGS. Why wait over a year to fix their mess?

Bartali wrote:
On the gameplay/codex front, I think they've done a good job introducing new armies. Mechanicus (despite being unnecessarily split up into 2 codex's), Genestealer Cult, and Deathwatch codex's have all been solid releases.

Whilst on the flip side both Angels Blade and Kill Team have been lazy re-hashes.

I think a lot of people are waiting on 8th ed 40K before judging 'new' GW.

See perfect response right here. GW had a chance to fix the game but yet still does old GW tactics.

So while I Like the illusion that GW is putting out, it's all smoke and mirrors and GW is really the same old same old.

Joyboozer wrote:When those warhammer tv videos make a joke about the price they're charging for Kharn the Betrayer I'll agree with you.

What did they say? I missed it.

Speaking for myself I'm glad they split up Skitarii and Cult. I don't want their rules and therefore the book was cheaper to acquire.

**Chapter Master Angelos**

You know, Day in day out I hear people complain that the core rules are so horrid the game can barely function, but at the same time, 30K/HH runs off the same core rules and runs like a dream (in my opinion).

I am starting to get the feeling that the issue isn't with the core rules at all but with the Codexes and Player base..

**Mario**

Crispy78 wrote:
Mario wrote:

Would you, as a software dev, accept an application that stagnates over a decade (removing and adding bugs at random, with questionable usability, and new features that demand even more expensive upgrades) while expecting you to pay for a new version every three to four years without perceivable progress? Wouldn't you be miffed too?

MS Office says hi...

Proving my point

**Chikout**

I think the best way to look at the changes to GW in the last couple of years.
Two years ago GW was supporting 4 games systems, though the support of Lotr was dying.
They had gotten rid of the majority of the battle force sets.
They had 0 board games available to buy
They had no social media presence at all.

By the end of 2016 they will have released 4 major boardgames (with 2 more form last year still available) , 2 mini boardgames and 2 mini tabletop games.
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k, Lotr and blood bowl with 2 more next year. They also have 2 new ways of playing 40k in killteam and battle for vedros.
The discount sets are back and they are back on social media.

The fundamental change that really effects people is that GW has greatly increased the options available to play their games.
2 years ago you could by big expensive armies to play on big 6 by 4 tables or nothing.
Now there are many options available for those with limited money or space.
Living in Japan the second option is very important for me.
It seems undeniable that this is a change to the core business and not just smoke and mirrors. The social media stuff is just a nice bonus.

**BobtheInquisitor**

It's tempting to say GW is just as bad--their prices are still high, their fluff still mutilated, but damn if I'm not getting plastic Custodes and Sisters. Between this box and the Genestealers, I'm buying more GW than I have in years, even at the expense of all the non-GW stuff I would have bought otherwise.

jah-joshua wrote:
the only thing that GW has ever done that turned me off, was release Finecast....
that made me miss out on at least a dozen minis that i really, really wanted...
i am happy to see that they are not doing any new releases in that rubbish "resin"...
so, yeah, GW has gotten better in my eyes...
plastics are so much better to work with

cheers
jah

While we agree on plastic, I had the opposite experience with Finecast. If the prices had been less bananas, I would have bought buckets full.

**jah-joshua**

@Bob: you like bones, so that make sense...
i don't like any "restic" type material i've worked with...

i've only worked on Finecast for commissions, and every weapon, especially the blades have been horribly warped...
even the big stuff, like an Ogre sword, has waves in it, which are impossible to fix right...
the rest of the problems, like bubbles or the massive number of vents, are not a big deal, but the fact that Farsight's ankle cannot support the model for long is a deal breaker, no matter how much i love the sculpt...
even at 50% off i'm not buying it...
it's a shame, too, because i would like all three of the Ogre character, Farsight, and the three Space Wolves minis that came out after the switch :(

cheers
jah

**Dysartes**

Chikout wrote:
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k and blood bowl with 2 more next year.

Isn't that four, not five, or am I missing something?

**Chikout**

Dysartes wrote:
Chikout wrote:
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k and blood bowl with 2 more next year.

Isn't that four, not five, or am I missing something?

Oops forgot Lotr. The upcoming two are the confirmed Adeptus titanicus and the heavily rumoured Necromunda.

**Dysartes**

Chikout wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Chikout wrote:
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k and blood bowl with 2 more next year.

Isn't that four, not five, or am I missing something?

Oops forgot Lotr. The upcoming two are the confirmed Adeptus titanicus and the heavily rumoured Necromunda.

I suspect a lot of people forget LotR/WotR/whatever-it-is-called-this-week

Though there's an argument that Blood Bowl should be looked at closer to WHQ than 40k - it is a board game with miniatures, after all, as opposed to the full-on wargames that the other four would be.

...I may need to go and put my flame-retardant suit on after pointing that out, though.

**Chikout**

Dysartes wrote:
Chikout wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Chikout wrote:
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k and blood bowl with 2 more next year.

Isn't that four, not five, or am I missing something?

Oops forgot Lotr. The upcoming two are the confirmed Adeptus titanicus and the heavily rumoured Necromunda.

I suspect a lot of people forget LotR/WotR/whatever-it-is-called-this-week

Though there's an argument that Blood Bowl should be looked at closer to WHQ than 40k - it is a board game with miniatures, after all, as opposed to the full-on wargames that the other four would be.

...I may need to go and put my flame-retardant suit on after pointing that out, though.

I put it in the Wargame category because it will have ongoing support with new teams expansions etc. Warhammer quest has had new box sets but in terms of actually playing the game only the white dwarf is new.

**AllSeeingSkink**

I'd describe BB as an expandable board game rather than a wargame.

There's a lot of games I'd actually describe as board games or miniature games rather than wargames, wargames I traditionally only associate with games that let you play decent sized battles. WHFB, 40k, Epic, Warmaster, LotR, that sort of stuff.

**Wayniac**

Chapter Master Angelos wrote:
You know, Day in day out I hear people complain that the core rules are so horrid the game can barely function, but at the same time, 30K/HH runs off the same core rules and runs like a dream (in my opinion).

I am starting to get the feeling that the issue isn't with the core rules at all but with the Codexes and Player base..

It's more that 30k doesn't have formations, and its mainly marine vs. marine so less abuse. The biggest issue with the core rules are mainly a slew of random bullgak instead of player choice, and too many USRs. 30k fixes some of the abuse but its also the fact that a lot of people play 30k for the fluff/models, while there's still a good chunk of 40k players who are trying to play a competitive game with it.

**hobojebus**

Formations are of the devil.

**wuestenfux**

Chikout wrote:
I think the best way to look at the changes to GW in the last couple of years.
Two years ago GW was supporting 4 games systems, though the support of Lotr was dying.
They had gotten rid of the majority of the battle force sets.
They had 0 board games available to buy
They had no social media presence at all.

By the end of 2016 they will have released 4 major boardgames (with 2 more form last year still available) , 2 mini boardgames and 2 mini tabletop games.
They will be actively supporting 5 systems AOS, 40k, 30k, Lotr and blood bowl with 2 more next year. They also have 2 new ways of playing 40k in killteam and battle for vedros.
The discount sets are back and they are back on social media.

The fundamental change that really effects people is that GW has greatly increased the options available to play their games.
2 years ago you could by big expensive armies to play on big 6 by 4 tables or nothing.
Now there are many options available for those with limited money or space.
Living in Japan the second option is very important for me.
It seems undeniable that this is a change to the core business and not just smoke and mirrors. The social media stuff is just a nice bonus.

You summed it up nicely.
However, prices for regular units/models are still high and tend to go up steadily, like the new Kharn model.
Getting new (young) players into the game is still an illusion.

**Slayer-Fan123**

hobojebus wrote:
Formations are of the devil.

No they're not.

**RoninXiC**

Not in theory... but they released some which are just plain stupid and break the point system way too much without any form of a negative aspect of being limited.

**Zywus**

Perhaps not literally (although with GW not crediting their rules writes anymore, who knows?). They have made a complete mess out of 40K though and made it borderline unplayable so I'd agree with classifying them as of the devil.