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.

Carmanchu>  I think I forgot to turn on the "sarcasm" tags.  But the point is moot, since GWs ruleswriting team and FAQ writing team could stand some improvement.

Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 9:44 AM

More than that. Depends on whether you play 500, 1000, or even 1500pt games. YOu can have 1, 2, even 3 casters in the mix.

PLus you can have an epic merc with Hordes....

I noticed you didnt include how many 40K has. Because It sure isnt 53 in 40k. YOu have the big 5 for marines(standard, BA, DA, SW, BT), 2 eldar books, tau, IG, ork, necron, WH, DH, Tyranid.

Did I miss any? 14 army books. I'd say the combination is a bit smaller for 40k. And fantasy.(what 15 different armies?)

And considering hordes and warmachine cant play against each other.....while fntasy and 40k cant, I'd say your blowing smoke out your rear.

Sure, then I can count all the possible combinations of Traits in the Marine Dex as 'armies' or 'varients'.  I think that's more than 53.  Not including Armaggedon lists, Chapter Approved (some of which are still 'official'), back of codex/army book variants, etc.  Or, I could argue that just using a Librarian rather than a Commander as a HQ makes my army 'different'.

Nope, no smoke, just an opinion, but its obvious I'm just wrong because I disagree.

well then, my bad....

you would of course, be wrong.

First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with.

Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats.

Third, both the feats and spell lists are different.

So yes, they do play differently.

Cruentus: 

Well, the two systems can not be directly comparable, since PPs system is fully designed around having a mandatory HQs who have fairly different (battle affecting) skillsets.  One may be a beatstick and another may be a support character.  Nothing in 40k has this kind of continuous in-game effect.  The closest analogies are:  Farsight Enclave (different force org, and perfered enemy orks) and the trait/doctrine system.

While 40k has more variant lists based off the sheer number of permutations available due to Traits, Doctrines, Chaos Legions, Campaign sub-lists... this is no justification for having a rules package written as loosely as it is now.  A few things jump out immediately:

1.  Wounding with ordinance.
2.  LOS for fury of the ancients. - This is just assinine, it either does, or it doesn't.  All it takes is a single sentence in the codex to fix it.
3.  Tau pathfinders and scout.

None of these needed to be ambigious.  These should not require a FAQ to fix, unlike bizzaro rules issues like:  Are warlocks taken as a seperate HQ choice.

Finally, would it kill GW to not keep issuing updated books without version numbers?  The Chaos codex is a notable example, with AV13-12-10 predators, T1 thrall wizards, multiple versions of doom-siren etc.  Its one thing to produce a book full of errors, but another thing altogether to issue an update on the sly.

Don't get me wrong, GW does lots of things right.  Rules aren't one of them.

Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 7:30 AM
To put bluntly:

THey dont care much about the ruless, because their not trying to sell rules. THey only want to sell models. Thats where the effort is.

I beleive a GW higher up once said something very very similar to this.

Something akin to:

"We dont  make models for the rules, we make rules for the models". or something quite close to that.

That has been over 5 years ago this was said and it shows in the rules we have today. I love the game, I hate the rules. I wont stop playing but I have stopped buying. Quite recemtly my models have not been citadel in purchase, but things alot better looking and more vlaue.

I too am turning over to the warmachine fold.
After visiting their forums, they take an active, organized role in their support of their games. the models arent the best, but there are plenty of companies that have great models to stand in for the rules.

I am very glad that I am making the change. A painless transition, becuase GW basically forced my hand to do so.

Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM

but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker

you would of course, be wrong.

First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with.

Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats.

Third, both the feats and spell lists are different.

So yes, they do play differently.

Play differently, yes.  Does that make them a different faction?  500 points of Empire plays a lot differently than 2250 points.  Ultramarines led by Marneus play a lot differently than Ultramarines led by a force commander.  They are still Ultramarines. Cygnar is still Cygnar.  Menoth is Menoth.

Posted By blue loki on 12/20/2006 8:36 AM
No, you're right.

Minions don't have a Warlock, and might not ever if you trust the rumor mill.

So it's 9 factions....

....unless you count Magnus + Skorne as a 10th...

Nope, it's ten. Four Warmachine factions, four Hordes factions, two Mercenary factions.

Technically there are more than 2 mercenary ones: 5 star, Highborn, Seaforge and Magnus.....each one plays differently.

The internet has several locations where online petitions can be put together.

Has anyone here ever thought about doing something like that? Putting one of those together, and just hitting all the forums with it, getting all of the gamers to sign it. You'd probably come up with a good couple thousand signatures pretty easily. If this where forwarded up to GW, I bet it would possibly raise a few eye brows.

Address certain things like the wanton raising of prices. The total lack of support for rule fixes. The anger about Marine after Marine after Marine release.

Of course, it might not get a single thing accomplished, but it's certainly better then sitting here flailing at your keyboard accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Petitions are useless because we are not GW's core market. 

Changing the Warcaster/Warlock of a faction provides a comparible amount of diversity to the different sub-codexes in 40k. You get different rules and skills that provide a different playstyle when using the same models

These obvoiusly don't compare one for one, but as an example:
Cygnar w/Haley -> Codex Marines
Cygnar w/Striker -> DA
Cygnar w/Darius -> BA
etc...

So basically you're left with:
1. Marines, SM variants, and =I= MEQs
2. IG and =I= non-MEQs
3. Tyranids
4. Necrons
5. Eldar
6. Tau
7. Chaos
8. Orks

VS

1. Cygnar
2. Khador
3. Menoth
4. Cryx
5. Mercs
6. Circle
7. Trollbloods
8. Legion
9. Skorne


Looks pretty even to me.

http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html

If someone wants to set it up, I'll sign it, but I'm not "disgruntled" enough (ie. I'm one of those beer and nuts players), to go about and do it myself.  But sitting back and saying it'll be worthless only shows that your never going to take any stance to try to get GW to change it's policy.  You could post this here, Librarium, Warseer, and any other forums you all know about, and hundreds to thousands of people will sign it.  If that doesn't cover the "Core group" then nothing will.

Posted By djones520 on 12/20/2006 12:31 PM
 But sitting back and saying it'll be worthless only shows that your never going to take any stance to try to get GW to change it's policy. 

...or simply that you've seen these petitions crop up countless times over the last 15 years, and they have never actually amounted to anything.


Companies don't tend to pay a great deal of attention to online petitions. They're too easy to set up, and don't cover a particularly thorough cross-section of the market.

With a company like GW, who has shown repeatedly that they have very little interest in the opinion of the internet community, an internet petition is going to get far less of a result than writing actual letters... which would also get an extremely limited response (usually just a form-letter saying 'Thanks for your feedback. Hey, did you know that we have new Empire models out?'


There are ways to make a point (stop buying, being the most effective) but internet petitions are most definitely not one of them.

Posted By blue loki on 12/20/2006 12:27 PM
Changing the Warcaster/Warlock of a faction provides a comparible amount of diversity to the different sub-codexes in 40k. You get different rules and skills that provide a different playstyle when using the same models

These obvoiusly don't compare one for one, but as an example:
Cygnar w/Haley -> Codex Marines
Cygnar w/Striker -> DA
Cygnar w/Darius -> BA
etc...

So basically you're left with:
1. Marines, SM variants, and =I= MEQs
2. IG and =I= non-MEQs
3. Tyranids
4. Necrons
5. Eldar
6. Tau
7. Chaos
8. Orks

VS

1. Cygnar
2. Khador
3. Menoth
4. Cryx
5. Mercs
6. Circle
7. Trollbloods
8. Legion
9. Skorne


Looks pretty even to me.

Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....

djones: 

I've bought at least $1.5k for Warmachine/Hordes in the last year, with 300-1700+ points in 5 factions, four of them playable at 500 point tournament size.  I've spent about $50 on GW product - and only because the old stormtroopers are out of production.  If that isn't taking a stand against GW, I don't know what is.

Disclaimer: 

5000+ of Eldar, 3000+ of Chaos, 1000+ of Tau, 2000+ of Space Marines, 1000+ of Dark Eldar, 1000+ of Sisters of Battle, 2000+ of Empire.

Posted By IGfan on 12/20/2006 12:59 PM

Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....

Not that it has any bearing on FAQ writing, but...

IGFan:  Here, I fixed your post for you:

Games Workshop Factions

MEQ
non MEQ
Fantasy
BLOODBOWL
Necromunda
Battlefleet Gothic
Inquisitor
MAN O WAR

Privateer Press Factions

Warmachine
Hordes

OMGWTFBBQ!  GW wins!  (In before lock).

Is anyone even suprised anymore? After the debacle with the 40k FAQs, I know a few of the WFB players were thinking, "at least we have better rules." It now appears that limited attention to rules is a company policy, not merely a 40k aberation.

I see two possible courses for gamers to go through:

1) boycott GW, and stop buying their models. Hit them where it hurts. Play other games, coast along with the armies you have, buy second hand, etc.

2) Do what GW wants, and simply come up with a list of house rules. Use these for Stores, home play, RTTs, indy GTs, etc. It's what's effectivly happening anyway. Tweak the rules so the game is fun, challenging, and tight, and then run with it. People will say we're doing GW's job for it, and I'll agree. But it's the only way to play a tight game of warhammer.

what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?

I think we'd all feel pretty bad...

Posted By IGfan on 12/20/2006 12:59 PM


Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....

Didn't pay attention to the rest of the thread did you?

Reread my post and the ones before it.

 

The point is that while GK, DA, BA, SW, and CM all play very differently, they are pretty much made up of the same units with different special rules thrown into the mix.

Warmachine/Hordes is constructed very similarly. When you switch out the Warcaster/Warlock in a faction most of the models remain the same, but just about EVERYTHING else changes.

Circle with Kaya and Circle with Krueger play extremely differently and yet they are made up of primarily the same models, just like DA and BA.

Actually we'd be hoping for someone more competent to buy the licenses. GW may die, but the IP is too much of a cash cow to disappear.

I always wondered if the rules aren't tightened for the sole purpose of giving you a reason to buy the next edition ruleset. I mean if GW put out a perfect ruleset than you wouldn't need to make a new version of the game every few years. New versions build hype for new models, etc.

Just a little conspiracy theory.

GW's FAQ mentality is really but an outgrowth of their ridiculous corporate culture that revolves around excessive arrogance based on their overrated sense of self worth, contempt for their customers and general laziness and apathy.

In particular, it seems obvious to me that they have decided their target audience is 12 year olds who only care about Kewl Toyz, SPace MariNez and Big GUnz!!!! LOL! and couldn't care less about the rules. This is borne out in everything they do: an ever decreasing quality in miniatures, rules that are poorly written and any errata being applied in as flippant a manner as possible, and generally alienating anyone old enough to know better (and likely to be paying for this on their own dime, instead of mommy & daddy's.

The older market? What do they care, they have your money (at least that's what they think), and they keep on trucking. This lets them get lazier every year with the rest of their "customer support" (which has turned to utter gak the past few years, mail order/product replacement excepted, and that is just standard). The company is rotten at the core and anyone who stood up to Kirby & co has long since been fired, left, shuttled to the side or bought out (ie: Jervis's pathetic comments in WD).

And guess what, it's showing! Sales have been dropping like a rock for the last two years and yet they continue with this mad path they are on! I can't wait until the end of January (or is it early February?) when the mid-year financials come out. I'm positive they are going to be bad. My great hope for 2007 is that the stock holders will finally get rid of Kirby & co, put competent people in place and get the company turned around. But I doubt it will happen and we'll see GW either get snapped up by Hasbro (or similar) or turn into a complete caricature of itself as a kiddie game toy company.

Perhaps I'm just being optimistic, but I do think that this is a problem that will solve itself. I've stopped buying, as have many people I know. A general culture of disrespect for GW seems to result in a lot less company loyalty - I hear more and more about people only buying models secondhand and just pirating the rules online. The stock is still doing miserably, and there's nothing like the prospect of another LotR boost again. GW will change or die, and, if it dies, the IP is going to someone who will be better able to deal with it. While econ isn't my field, what I've gathered from others on this board is that Kirby's even gathering stock with the likely intention of guaranteeing a nice golden parachute, which would imply that the company will be sold soon (or that Kirby thinks that the stock is about to go way up, which would indicate good things by itself).

And, of course, there's the increased pressure from games like Warmachine.  I'd guess that, within a few years, GW will have major competition.

Anyone who complains about the impossibility of a tight ruleset made for a tournament game either hasn't played Magic TCG, any worthwhile PC game (and you'll hear a lot more whining, with bonus technical jargon, from intertron nerds on the Blizz forums), or is one of those sophomoric students who just got out of phil class and can't distinguish between optimal and practical theories.



Hasbro Golden Age, Hasbro Golden Age, Hasbro Golden Age, no whammy no whammy no whammy!

Posted By rryannn on 12/20/2006 1:12 PM
what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?

I think we'd all feel pretty bad...

I don't think the people who stopped buying would feel bad. I think
that the company would change long before it kicked the bucket, though.

I think we've got a couple of different issues here, at least vis-a-vis GW:

1. Quality of publications (e.g. editing, proofreading)
2. Quality of intellectual product (rules)
3. Goals/Outcome (are they a game company or a miniature company?)

The quality thing is something that, seemingly, all the big companies are suffering from. Look at WOTC/Hasbro. The core D&D books are pretty tight, but get into the supplements (the 'complete' series, for example) and you find horrendous typos and print errors, contradictory special rules with the same name, unclear special rules, etc.). To Wizard's credit, they do try to fix things and get FAQs out in a timely manner, and do let a certain amount of grumbling on their boards.

The Goals piece is what's more troubling. It suggests that the rules are, like White Dwarf, really just an advertisement for the minis. If that's the case, they might be better off licensing the games out and letting a dedicated team really work on the rules in a coherent fashion.

As for the boycott: dude, that get's proposed about once a year, and while many vets are, in fact, no longer buying GW products (at least on the boards), there are plenty more who can't kick it.

I don't get it. Why do so many people get so angry at Games Workshop for writing rules that are imperfect? It is still a fun game, and it is not like an imperfect FAQ should somehow ruin your day unless you are a fool. Then again, maybe I am a fool for contributing to this "discussion".

Hordes and Warmachine have just as many problems as the Warhammer games, what with certain casters and units being grossly overpowered (e.g. Sorscha, Bane Knights) and others being grossly underpowered (e.g. Nemo, the Devil Dogs). And just because the rules for Warmachine are clear, it doesn't make them great.

P.S. I wouldn't say that Warhammer Ancient Battles is less complicated than WFB. The rules for drilled movement, Byzantine cavalry, Roman Maniples, Fall Back In Good Order, and Chinese Ruses to name a few, are just as complicated as anything in WFB. And since most of the rules involve manuvering, I think they add more complexity to the game than simply another magic item or a unit with killing blow.

I think peopel are angry over imperfect rules because the amount of investment we have in our armies. When you consider the time, energy, money, and emotion that go into building and playing an army, it's easy to get upset when the company seems less than interested in making sure you have a good time.

And it's not like the demands peole have are ridiculous. It would cost very little to put out good FAQs.

People are angry because lots of rules problems would be fixed or avoided if GW would

1. Define their terms. (Like player turn/game turn/turn)
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Give clear explanations with step-through examples which worked. (Wounding with mixed armour/toughness models inclkuding multiple wound models.)
4. Use a bit of clear thinking to ensure new units and powers fitted properly into the existing structure. (Tau Piranha drones.)

That would still leave the problems of overlapping special powers and stuff but it would solve the major everyday issues immediately. It would not be hard to do.