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.

 bomtek80 wrote:
I mean, seriously, just how many figs can GW sell to people who don't bother playing the game?

Quite a lot. You can check out ebay to see people selling armies that have never been played, they kept them just for display. The stores near me keep display armies in the cases, I just purchased an unplayed WoC army two weeks ago from someone, and we have several painters and model kitbashers who are purely into the aesthetics. The game itself is like the Internet around here: Great for laugh but not to be taken seriously.

Remember too that anyone who doesn't play the game isn't going to have much of a presence in your store community. We have a ton of guys at ours who I've never met and almost never see but the owner says they stop buy once a month and pick up a bunch of new boxes to paint. These types of guys stay home and paint models, they don't come to the store to socialize over beer and pretzels. It's kind of like how you'll only ever see a few hundred to a few thousand people in your MMO server community yet there's actually tens of thousands of casuals whose presence may seem small yet actually make up the majority of the playerbase.

Let's not try to analyze that "collecting and painting" statement too much. Remember that the context of it is a legal case where GW's IP defense involved an argument that their products deserve the stricter IP protection of works of art rather than the weaker standard for toys and games. Even if GW understands perfectly well that most of their customers use their stuff to play games they still have legal incentive to put up giant signs saying "THIS IS ABOUT COLLECTING ART".

 Vector Strike wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, AoS works with keywords a lot

AoS gets it really wrong though. They took a step forwards by using keywords so that people know what is a Daemon, what is Undead, what is a Cavalry, ect. But I still saw an argument over what a 'casualty' is the other day because while you assume it is a model that is killed, it never tells you if a summoned model counts as one for the purposes of seeing who inflicted the most casualties on the other. The rules themselves don't have the keywords, just the unit entries to tell you what they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

 bomtek80 wrote:
I mean, seriously, just how many figs can GW sell to people who don't bother playing the game?

Quite a lot. You can check out ebay to see people selling armies that have never been played, they kept them just for display. The stores near me keep display armies in the cases, I just purchased an unplayed WoC army two weeks ago from someone, and we have several painters and model kitbashers who are purely into the aesthetics. The game itself is like the Internet around here: Great for laugh but not to be taken seriously.

Remember too that anyone who doesn't play the game isn't going to have much of a presence in your store community. We have a ton of guys at ours who I've never met and almost never see but the owner says they stop buy once a month and pick up a bunch of new boxes to paint. These types of guys stay home and paint models, they don't come to the store to socialize over beer and pretzels. It's kind of like how you'll only ever see a few hundred to a few thousand people in your MMO server community yet there's actually tens of thousands of casuals whose presence may seem small yet actually make up the majority of the playerbase.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page

Nearly 300 replies, only 11% of people wouldn't change their buying habits if there was no game to go with GW models, and a whopping 59% would stop buying entirely if there was no game to play.

At my local flgs, there are several greybeards who collect to paint and dont play. Only 2 out of the 8 greybeards occasionally play a game. They all say the same thing. "I enjoy modeling and painting, i dont care for the game. If i do play, I want to roll dice and have fun and drink a tasty beverage (beer)."

Although that is the spirit of WH40k, it is toxic. As toxic as feminist blaming all their problems back onto masculine toxicity poisoning society.

The younger generation (kids) read and study the rules from the rule book amd codex to play. The older greybeards read the same rule book amd codex for the fluffy lore. Because these greybeards have more money from retirement, they can waste it on the special edition codex and rule books. The kids, they group up and pitch in for the main rule book to share and may even split the cost of codex and models with siblings. They all share the models or make photo copies of the book.

GW only sees the number of sales, not who buys it. And if they did see who bought it, it would be mostly the greybeards doing all the buying and conclude once again their target audience are casual players.

If you dont boycott the sales of their horribly written codex and rules then they will just keep selling it ad nauseam. You, we have to put our foot down and show them we will not stand for ambiguities and the difference between English and English! Write the rules better and dont stuff it with fluff!

 JamesY wrote:

 eskimo wrote:
I see no reason currently why this isn't a quality idea.

I think GWs problem is different writers are used at the same time. Someone picks up the rule writing monday morning after the other guy dropped it friday afternoon.

Not the case with 7th. Cruddace wrote the rule book (or re-edited the 6th ed book, if you prefer).

And here you have the problem. Only re-editing the existing text leads into those unclear sentences or different usage of the terms because they don't read it again.
(my very first VWA I had to write in school had the same problem. Because I didn't read it again after I finished it, all the re-editing during writing process leads into complicate sentences and/or unclear wording)

I can concede all of your points about certain "greybeards" who only collect them to paint and model but I know I could never stand to paint up an entire army and then just let them collect dust on a shelf. Hell, I find even having to paint them is an onerous and task and not all that fun. I do get a certain sense of satisfaction in getting my paint jobs done and having decent looking models to field, but without playing them on the field of fake battle then what's the point?

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page
Nearly 300 replies, only 11% of people wouldn't change their buying habits if there was no game to go with GW models, and a whopping 59% would stop buying entirely if there was no game to play.

It's also a poll taken on dakka and housed in the general discussion area which is predominantly centered around discussing the game. It only indicates the type of community this site draws. Remember that the modellers and painters aren't exactly itching to chat about the latest rules on these boards, discuss army lists, or heck discuss much of anything. You might see photos posted or viewed in lurking status. It's a fairly expensive game, it's not that expensive of a painting hobby. Heck, you can even make money off it. Says a lot when someone is willing to pay $300 for your beautifully painted model rather than buying a new one for $70 or a half-assed tabletop standard someone is selling on ebay for even less.

Personally I've spent over $10,000 already on my army's paint jobs because having good looking models is very much a part of the hobby.

If you're just in it for the game, play the "Grey" Knights. Standard plastic marines.

OP here - trying to steer this ship back on course!

Discussing alternative rules (e.g. using D10s) and discussing the sometimes 'interesting' business practice of GW are both great, but I think they deserve their own threads.

This thread was not intended to discuss new game mechanics, but rather how to better explain the existing mechanics in the rules.

Although I like the symbol system in some other games, other posters comments about there being too many are right. It would become cluttered and confusing. As someone has said, keywords, that are clearly defined, should work.

We actually already have that in some places. For example, the details for my Space Marines Tac unit don't specify "these models can shoot up to 24" at strength 4, unless the target is within 12" in which case they can shoot twice (at the same unit). The target can only take a save if their saving throw is 4+ or better. The unit cannot assault if it has fired". Instead, we have the Bolter weapon profile. A clearly defined Range, Strength, AP, Type and Special Rules. This is all defined so we know what those values mean and relate to.

So what we need is that clarity elsewhere. So when a rule applies when charging, we need a definition for what that means - e.g. "When charging, during the charge sub-phase, but not if a disordered charge" etc. Then any rule that applies when charging, uses that definition. Rather than every rule explaining whether it applies under condition X or Y. And make it clear when using a keyword. Maybe put it in bold. I've seen discussions over where a rule uses Wound and wound, with one being the definition of the in game wound and the other not. That's too subtle, and nowhere is it defined (just implied).

It's still going to be quite detailed, but if we get all the definitions right and in one place, then any new rule, for any unit, in any codex, must fit within those definitions.

 Arkaine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page
Nearly 300 replies, only 11% of people wouldn't change their buying habits if there was no game to go with GW models, and a whopping 59% would stop buying entirely if there was no game to play.

It's also a poll taken on dakka and housed in the general discussion area which is predominantly centered around discussing the game. It only indicates the type of community this site draws. Remember that the modellers and painters aren't exactly itching to chat about the latest rules on these boards, discuss army lists, or heck discuss much of anything. You might see photos posted or viewed in lurking status. It's a fairly expensive game, it's not that expensive of a painting hobby. Heck, you can even make money off it. Says a lot when someone is willing to pay $300 for your beautifully painted model rather than buying a new one for $70 or a half-assed tabletop standard someone is selling on ebay for even less.

Personally I've spent over $10,000 already on my army's paint jobs because having good looking models is very much a part of the hobby.

If you're just in it for the game, play the "Grey" Knights. Standard plastic marines.

Sorry, but you realy think that the majority of GW income from selling models is generated by painters ?

Whittlesey40k wrote:OP here - trying to steer this ship back on course!

Discussing alternative rules (e.g. using D10s) and discussing the sometimes 'interesting' business practice of GW are both great, but I think they deserve their own threads.

Makumba wrote:Sorry, but you realy think that the majority of GW income from selling models is generated by painters ?

Thanks buddy

 Arkaine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page
Nearly 300 replies, only 11% of people wouldn't change their buying habits if there was no game to go with GW models, and a whopping 59% would stop buying entirely if there was no game to play.

It's also a poll taken on dakka and housed in the general discussion area which is predominantly centered around discussing the game. It only indicates the type of community this site draws. Remember that the modellers and painters aren't exactly itching to chat about the latest rules on these boards, discuss army lists, or heck discuss much of anything.

My sample size is still 300 larger than yours

Seriously though it is all well and good to say 'it's just dakka, it doesn't represent the community' but Dakka is the largest online gaming community and covers the whole world, not just your local area. I think to say 'Dakka is the best representation of the community we can find' has exactly as much merit behind it as the opposing argument. You can say it doesn't represent the community but that is an opinion only backed up by anecdotal evidence, as my statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:
Sorry, but you realy think that the majority of GW income from selling models is generated by painters ?

GW themselves state that they believe only 20% of their customers ever play any games.

Not that only 20% are competitive players, but only 20% will ever play a game.

They are also a company that thinks market research is 'otiose' so they have no way of actually knowing that.

Just think about that for a minute, how many of us can name 4 people who buy but never play for every 1 person we know who does play games (even if it is rarely and extremely casually)?

 Filch wrote:

Although that is the spirit of WH40k, it is toxic. As toxic as feminist blaming all their problems back onto masculine toxicity poisoning society.

And the award for "most random metaphor" goes to....

Can't fix stupid mate. Even if you just walk over to someone and say hi... You will get some problems.

Just think about that for a minute, how many of us can name 4 people who buy but never play for every 1 person we know who does play games (even if it is rarely and extremely casually)?

That is why I was asking. I understand that in different countries it can be different. Where I live the only people that paint models and not play the game are those who have paint studios. Am not an economic major, but still sometimes I think that the owners of GW just want to cash in as much as they can before they get a pension or the company goes down.

Elemental wrote:

 Filch wrote:

Although that is the spirit of WH40k, it is toxic. As toxic as feminist blaming all their problems back onto masculine toxicity poisoning society.

And the award for "most random metaphor" goes to....

Can you please share a better metaphor on how enthusastic people who pay big money support the hobby but actually hurt the game?

I recently wrote a college paper and this came to mind regarding the situation on this thread. Masculine Toxicity is the ideal that men need to be strong, emotionless, hard working and sacrifice themselves for their country and women and children. This is the detriment of men and ti the benefit of 3rd wave feminists blaming other people instead of accepting that they are part of the problem and need to make the change not change other people. Tying this back to the topic, good men who trh to do good things end up making society worse because masculine toxicity.

OgreChubbs wrote:Can't fix stupid mate. Even if you just walk over to someone and say hi... You will get some problems.

Thats just rude

GW definitely have a lot of problems with rules writing. They're arguably bad rules, but I think it's far less subjective that they're most definitely badly written. They often use sentence structures that are ambiguous, they don't bother properly defining words and sometimes they use words in a specific context and other times they'll use the same word with a more general connotation. Sometimes they just word a rule so poorly that the meaning isn't conveyed.

A lot of this stuff should be caught by any decent editor before the books go to print. What makes it worse is some stuff carried over from 6th to 7th and still wasn't fixed, that's just flat out laziness or stupidness, one or the other.

You can argue about the direction that the rules should take (like D6 vs D10 or whatever) but there are also a lot of writing issues that really should be caught by an editor if not caught by the community and then fixed for the next edition.

 bomtek80 wrote:
In all my time playing 40k, I have not once run into anyone at a game store or through casual acquaintance that purchases GW or FW minis just because they enjoy painting and modeling them but don't play the game.

Just because you haven't run in to one doesn't mean they don't exist. They might very well be the people who walk in for 10 minutes every few weeks, pick up a few boxes and walk out without starting a conversation with anyone.

I've met a handful of such people who paint at the painting tables at the local GW but don't actually play the games, I'm sure there's a whole lot more I've never met because they don't bother to hang around.

If got the feeling we get side tracked here.

Regarding the rules. it would realy help if every rule get rewritten. with a preset frame of defonded key words. so that every existing rule is brought back into a well definded area.
thus there will be much much discussions about the RAI of a rule and hopefully none or just a few RAW discussions.

There shouldn't even be "RAI" arguments or "RAW" arguments. English can be written in a vague fashion with multiple interpretations, but it can also be written in an unambiguous manner. Proper writing and editing would go a long way.

If the rules were properly written any rules question would just come down to people not understanding English, misreading a rule or looking in the wrong place (stuff that can be solved in a few seconds).

To sell new models, like the ghost keel formation, they invent new key words like wall of mirrors for shooting rear armor shenanigans. They do this all the time and it causes rules arguments because its a new interpretation that needs to get errata.

there are just so many special rules.

In what way does wall of mirriors invent a new key word?
rear armor did always exist. so whats the new part here?

RAI / RAW : And there the key words come in. If every action and value is well defined there is no discussion whitch /what / or who is affected by any rule. the rest is only self discipline while writing the rules. thats very comparable to programming.

I don't see how a casual game requires poor rules writing. You're making stuff up.

 _ghost_ wrote:
In what way does wall of mirriors invent a new key word?
rear armor did always exist. so whats the new part here?

RAI / RAW : And there the key words come in. If every action and value is well defined there is no discussion whitch /what / or who is affected by any rule. the rest is only self discipline while writing the rules. thats very comparable to programming.

there was a thread discussing IK ion shield facing vs tau optimized stealth suit. In the end the IK had to put the shield facing on rear and moon walk due to the wall of mirrors or if it faced forward and put its shield in front it will get penetrated in the rear.

I know that. But this does not answer my question. what is the new key word you are implying here?
why would anyone make a moonwalk with said knight? How stupid can someone be to deny himself to shoot with sid knight? just for a save? this seems not a good solution at all. and again. where is the new keyword?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
GW definitely have a lot of problems with rules writing. They're arguably bad rules, but I think it's far less subjective that they're most definitely badly written. They often use sentence structures that are ambiguous, they don't bother properly defining words and sometimes they use words in a specific context and other times they'll use the same word with a more general connotation. Sometimes they just word a rule so poorly that the meaning isn't conveyed.

A lot of this stuff should be caught by any decent editor before the books go to print. What makes it worse is some stuff carried over from 6th to 7th and still wasn't fixed, that's just flat out laziness or stupidness, one or the other.

You can argue about the direction that the rules should take (like D6 vs D10 or whatever) but there are also a lot of writing issues that really should be caught by an editor if not caught by the community and then fixed for the next edition.

 bomtek80 wrote:
In all my time playing 40k, I have not once run into anyone at a game store or through casual acquaintance that purchases GW or FW minis just because they enjoy painting and modeling them but don't play the game.

Just because you haven't run in to one doesn't mean they don't exist. They might very well be the people who walk in for 10 minutes every few weeks, pick up a few boxes and walk out without starting a conversation with anyone.

I've met a handful of such people who paint at the painting tables at the local GW but don't actually play the games, I'm sure there's a whole lot more I've never met because they don't bother to hang around.

I wasn't trying to argue that those people don't exist, but for GW to claim that only a very small fraction of their customers play the game as opposed to painters and modelers only makes me wonder what crack they're smoking?

 jonolikespie wrote:
My sample size is still 300 larger than yours

It's actually not given how many folks purchase in our area and the sales we see between the stores and GW shops. Which is surprising considering you've had a year and a half to collect the data from players all over the world.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just think about that for a minute, how many of us can name 4 people who buy but never play for every 1 person we know who does play games (even if it is rarely and extremely casually)?
You can say it doesn't represent the community but that is an opinion only backed up by anecdotal evidence, as my statement.

They're not the sort you meet or talk to since they never show up to game night and purchase models from the store owner only. This doesn't even count the number who purchase models directly from GW. In fact, your statement is the perfect example of misleading forum polls. It is akin to polling the World of Warcraft boards, getting 300 people to vote on whether Rogues should be nerfed, then pointing to 56% of players agreeing that they are overpowered, nevermind that you posted it in the Warlock forum where it's predominantly occupied by Rogue haters and doesn't represent an unbiased sample of anything.

It's about as valid as asking all of the people at a Warhammer 40k tournament whether they'd be okay buying the models and not playing the game.... if you can't understand that, your loss. I'd rather get reliable info directly from the companies and stores that actually sell the product.

Makumba wrote:
Sorry, but you realy think that the majority of GW income from selling models is generated by painters ?

Yes actually, talk to your local GW reps and store owners sometime. There's a horde of guys who BUY models that you'll almost never see again. Likewise, there's an entire secondary market of sellers and buyers that GW never sees a dime from. People who are only interested in PLAYING the game can go on ebay and pick up a fully painted Space Marine army and start right away. GW sells quite a lot of unpainted and unassembled parts to painters who aren't interested in the secondary market.

 bomtek80 wrote:
I wasn't trying to argue that those people don't exist, but for GW to claim that only a very small fraction of their customers play the game as opposed to painters and modelers only makes me wonder what crack they're smoking?

Bear in mind that GW has owned its own stores for many years with reps geared towards pushing more stuff on you. Codex sales are a thing too next to the hordes of models. But any good store manager relates with their customers and identifies potential repeat buyers and gamers to try to push more offers onto. When you have a store available for game space and the clients never or rarely show up, just what are they doing with all those models exactly? Some play at their local game store but even those places report mystery buyers who never show up at game night. Then there's the tournament scenes and their numbers, sample size information and data extrapolation, all determinable information that can lead to projected player counts yet don't come anywhere near the number of models sold.

Like any hardcore community, you're prone to think you're the only ones that exist and that casuals do NOT make up the majority of the playerbase when in fact they do. I've had endless discussions on boards of gamers who think that developers should cater to the most Hardcore fans, then are shocked to learn they make up only 2% of the total number of ACTIVE subscribing accounts. People get to be quite adamant in their belief that the casual crowd doesn't exist or is an irrelevant minority so it's not at all surprising that you don't believe in the existence of a larger pack of non-gamers who still pick up these models for other reasons. Personally I've witnessed that belief to be wrong far too often to lend credence to it now. Still, it's amusing to watch you guys go on about it!

 Arkaine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
My sample size is still 300 larger than yours

It's actually not given how many folks purchase in our area and the sales we see between the stores and GW shops. Which is surprising considering you've had a year and a half to collect the data from players all over the world.

So just to be clear you are saying that your anecdotal evidence of your local area does in fact trump my anecdotal evidence therefore your point of view should be taken as fact?

 Psienesis wrote:

You do know that half the models in the game in the early years were pre-printed cardboard cut-outs affixed to thin plastic bases, right?

When was that? The model range existed at the same time the first edition of 40K was released. The 2nd edition 40K starter set did include a cardboard dread but that was the exception rather than the rule.

It's always been model driven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
Yes actually, talk to your local GW reps and store owners sometime. There's a horde of guys who BUY models that you'll almost never see again. Likewise, there's an entire secondary market of sellers and buyers that GW never sees a dime from. People who are only interested in PLAYING the game can go on ebay and pick up a fully painted Space Marine army and start right away. GW sells quite a lot of unpainted and unassembled parts to painters who aren't interested in the secondary market.

How do they determine if someone isn't a player or simply doesn't play in store? In the UK in particular (which is the largest market) playing in stores is really quite an unusual thing to do.

Yes actually, talk to your local GW reps and store owners sometime. There's a horde of guys who BUY models that you'll almost never see again. Likewise, there's an entire secondary market of sellers and buyers that GW never sees a dime from. People who are only interested in PLAYING the game can go on ebay and pick up a fully painted Space Marine army and start right away. GW sells quite a lot of unpainted and unassembled parts to painters who aren't interested in the secondary market.

There is 1(one] GW show in my entire country. But there are more then a few game stores, and as far as those go, no one buys models just for their looks, and those that do buy models and not play them either do it to resell or they have a paint studio. And there is a finit number of paint studios in Poland, and no where near as big as the number of people playing the game. So unless in other countries there is an opposit trend, which I doubt, I don't see how GW models sells should be driven by painters and non gamers.

 bomtek80 wrote:
I wasn't trying to argue that those people don't exist, but for GW to claim that only a very small fraction of their customers play the game as opposed to painters and modelers only makes me wonder what crack they're smoking?

It'd be really interesting to know what % of sales go to people who never game. I could easily believe there's a greater proportion of people who don't game than do game. If you aren't playing the game you probably aren't hanging around gaming groups in the first place so your presence may go unnoticed.

I'm sure there's a very large portion of people who collect with the intention to play but never do, in which case GW just need to create the illusion of a game to drive them to buy.

I think there are a few problems with the gw rules team. The first is lack of consistency. There are many instances of rules that are identical in both wording and function but have different names depending on the book they appear in.

Next is bloat. Many rules are incredibly wordy for no apparent reason. Often the rule makes complete sense but then they go on layering more text until it's original meaning is highly debatable. How many paragraphs does it take to say feel no pain is not a save, is a 5+ and can't be taken when the wounds are caused by ID hits?

Next is the structure of the rulebook and codexes. For the longest time it seemed like they were doing their absolute best to hide how to actually play the game. 7th and the modern codexes are better in this regard but they still have a ways to go. I shouldn't have to look at 5 to 10 different pages just to figure out how a dark eldar reaver works. Or even monstrous creatures - how many special rules does mc confer again?

Along with this - there are way too many special rules. Shrouded/stealth are a prime example. Why do both of those exist? They could have just said shrouded(+1) or shrouded (+2), like how fnp has a default unless otherwise specified.

They need someone to be in charge of rule Wording. Essentially it'd be someone responsible to make sure that when a rules author comes up with that awesome idea of having special armor that can always provide protection and calls it a super armor spell that is always active, this person would make damn sure that rule is thrown out and just call it the invul save.

Moving on - shooting / save complexity. Having 3 different types of saves and various weapons that deny specific types is just needlessly complex. IMHO, a save a given model has should start with the armor save. I'd drop invul and cover saves entirely. I'd also drop to wound rolls. Basically one roll to see if you hit, modified by ballistic skill, cover. Then one roll by the defender to see if they lost a wound, modified by the weapon used. This alone would make the games ruin faster and make more sense.

There are. Quite a few areas they could revamp that would provide the same level of flexibility while making the rules less complex and more understandable. The question is whether current management has the foresight to do it.