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.

 Yonan wrote:

LordSolar wrote:
I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products

You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.

I know, its a problem for everyone. But people could be happier that its not worse than what they currently have

 Yonan wrote:

LordSolar wrote:
I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products

You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.

Well it diminishes it slightly

 Throt wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:

2. the material or monetary worth of something.

So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.

The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.

Yes, you are right on 1 of 7 definitions of the word value. And even then you are only half right.
The material value of the object is low, as is most every product sold. That is how you make profit on a sold item.
The monetary value or market value is the $35 that it sells for because people pay $35 for it.
If half of 1 definition is good enough for you, then yes you are right.

Your statement "The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them." Therefore that is the subjective or perceived value of the item to you.
Your next statement "Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5" is not irrelevant that shows that the value of that item is subjective..i.e.. entirely up to you.
We haven't been discussing business practice. At this point we are discussing value.

So does that make others the black night with nothing more than a dislike and disdain for most things GW?
The context of complaint (using the eyes example) is that GW didn't give a specific rule addressing no eyes. Something that most gamers simply work out.
I am accused of nit picking on value, yet the black nights are nit picking that they have to make a decision on there own. Hi pot my name is kettle...
I have said from the beginning, and what I look for, is the acknowledgement that all these problems are subjective. They are a problem if you choose to make them one.
The game plays, you may not like parts of it but it works. the 'if you disagree, roll a 4+" but it will solve everything. So there is not a single broken rule in the game.
Every rule works by definition. Though you may not like it, it is a design decision. Black knights have tons of assumptions based on their dislike for particular parts of the game. They are just opinions about the game
And this, as I have always said, is fine, but to blame GW for how you play the game is disingenuous at the least. There are many ways they could balance the game but the closer to absolute balance you get the more similar the armies will become.

Value in this context is how much product you are getting for your dollar. You are getting considerably less now because of the reduction of included miniatures without reducing the price to compensate. Market value is irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about how Games Workshop is fleecing their consumers which is directly related to the monetary value of their products. I really don't understand how someone would claim that a hard, easy to prove decrease in monetary value of a product is an opinion when you are talking about the poor monetary value of Games Workshop products.

 Lobomalo wrote:

X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.

Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!

But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.

Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!

But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?

Because 40k has large battles and WMH is small skirmishes

WayneTheGame wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.

Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!

But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?

Because 40k has large battles and WMH is small skirmishes

Notsureifserious?

How does the number of models on the table have any impact on the amount of choices you have? Even more, how does the amount of models on the table have any impact on rules balance?

Because that is the only difference between both games when you are talking about "large battles" and "small skirmishes", because if you compare the two games in terms of unit activations, then they are basically the same...

Case in point, my current 50pt Cygnar army has 10 unit activations:

eStryker3
- Squire
- Hammersmith
- Ol' Rowdy
Storm Lances (max)
Horgenhold Forge Guard (max)
- Captain Jonas Murdoch
Trencher Infantry (min)
- 1x Trencher Infantry Grenadier
Alain Runewood
Captain Maxwell Finn
Rhupert Carvolo, Piper of Ord

The 1850pts 40k army that won Adepticon this year, had the same 10 unit activations:



In fact, when I look at that same army I even begin to question why people consider 40k a "large battle" system! That army has 37 models, my army has 30... That is a huge difference between a "large battle" system and "skirmish" system?!

Was being sarcastic as that's typically the response you get why 40k can't be balanced or why WMH can be. Everyone always says 40k has so many more options due to bring a large scale game.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Was being sarcastic as that's typically the response you get why 40k can't be balanced or why WMH can be. Everyone always says 40k has so many more options due to bring a large scale game.

Its Monday morning, so my sarcasm detector is broken.

Also, in Warmachine you can use giant models with no problem. There's no refusal or accusations of "TFG." It's "Oh, cool! Nice paint job!" And you play. So in that regard Warmachine has more practical variety as well.

First, common sense should not apply to RULES, because all it takes is for one dude to point out at a tournament or similar that by the rules, a model with no eyes can't draw LOS; they might be a jerk, but it's in the rules so technically they are correct. Clear rules alleviate that issue entirely, so just saying "Apply common sense!" doesn't fix the fact that the rules are poor, because good rules don't need common sense applied. This argument seems to be the old "The rules aren't broken if you fix them yourself" argument which is complete bs, doubly so when you're paying $85 for those rules, more than everybody else charges for their rules. Charging more and giving less quality is a joke.

Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.

I was initially put off Warmachine because I wanted to run a Jack heavy Khardor list. Khardor being an infantry spam army I was very quickly told that is not how that army works.

After the first few replies however people actually began telling how to go about making that work.

The difference between it and 40k is night and day, when people say that a unit is not good what they mean is you have to build your list around it if you want to win in a tourney setting, not that bringing that unit puts you at an immediate (and sometimes serious) disadvantage.

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.

I was initially put off Warmachine because I wanted to run a Jack heavy Khardor list. Khardor being an infantry spam army I was very quickly told that is not how that army works.

After the first few replies however people actually began telling how to go about making that work.

The difference between it and 40k is night and day, when people say that a unit is not good what they mean is you have to build your list around it if you want to win in a tourney setting, not that bringing that unit puts you at an immediate (and sometimes serious) disadvantage.

Exactly. You *can* run jack-heavy Khador, it's just not the best option, but it's not "That unit sucks, don't ever take it, take Y instead" like with 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Also, in Warmachine you can use giant models with no problem. There's no refusal or accusations of "TFG." It's "Oh, cool! Nice paint job!" And you play. So in that regard Warmachine has more practical variety as well.

Stop lying.

No one in Warmachine paints.

WayneTheGame wrote:
First, common sense should not apply to RULES, because all it takes is for one dude to point out at a tournament or similar that by the rules, a model with no eyes can't draw LOS; they might be a jerk, but it's in the rules so technically they are correct. Clear rules alleviate that issue entirely, so just saying "Apply common sense!" doesn't fix the fact that the rules are poor, because good rules don't need common sense applied. This argument seems to be the old "The rules aren't broken if you fix them yourself" argument which is complete bs, doubly so when you're paying $85 for those rules, more than everybody else charges for their rules. Charging more and giving less quality is a joke.

Funnily enough, I took everyone's advice and read up on Warmachine. Then I realised that Deathrippers from Cryx didn't have shoulders. So no front arc for it?

Basically what I'm saying is, common sense can be applied without meaning the rules are broken.

 milkboy wrote:

Funnily enough, I took everyone's advice and read up on Warmachine. Then I realised that Deathrippers from Cryx didn't have shoulders. So no front arc for it?

Basically what I'm saying is, common sense can be applied without meaning the rules are broken.

"If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a 360 degree front arc, you must mark it's base or discuss its facing with your opponent before the game starts."
-Warmachine MkII, Pg 37, end of paragraph on bottom left.

So basically, you're saying Warmachine is a superior rules system because they leave nothing to the moronic depths of interpretation we all have to assume at a basic level to play Warhammer 40k, right?

No, did I say that?

 milkboy wrote:
No, did I say that?

Sure implied it when you quoted a rule and forgot the back half of it that clarified the rule further in the event when it couldn't be applied.

Unlike many rules in Warhammer 40k. How many editions did it take to fix eyes + line of site?

Seriously, don't pad for Games Workshop. The rules are awful in comparison to any other product on the market. Add in the cost and you have the worst value, too.

 milkboy wrote:
No, did I say that?

You seemed to hint that Warmachine required common sense as well, the difference is that Warmachine is explicit about what to do, while 40k leaves it up to interpreation - TFG would argue "No eyes, no LOS!" and that would be a valid conclusion (although still makes him TFG) as would "how about we measure from his head?". The difference there is you could end up with an argument or dice-off to determine it (and sucks for you if TFG wins) because the rules don't state what to do.

I'm just trying to be fair to both and am not trying to be argumentative.

Honestly, I just want a polite discussion, like the one we are having now, Wayne without any implied comment, words put into my mouth etc.

Can I clarify then, does the rule book give clearer description of the front arc? Since the size of shoulder varies and the quick start rules did not mention from which point of the shoulder to which point of the shoulder.

If so, then I think common sense will dictate you either choose the widest portion of the shoulder or mark out on the base where the front arc is. I wouldn't go so far as to say Warmachine has lousy rules for front arc.

 milkboy wrote:
I'm just trying to be fair to both and am not trying to be argumentative.

Honestly, I just want a polite discussion, like the one we are having now, Wayne without any implied comment, words put into my mouth etc.

Can I clarify then, does the rule book give clearer description of the front arc? Since the size of shoulder varies and the quick start rules did not mention from which point of the shoulder to which point of the shoulder.

If so, then I think common sense will dictate you either choose the widest portion of the shoulder or mark out on the base where the front arc is. I wouldn't go so far as to say Warmachine has lousy rules for front arc.

Size of the shoulder? Size of the shoulder shouldn't interfere with anything, since all you are doing here is determining the facing.

Here is the full rule:

Facing
A model’s facing is determined by its shoulder orientation.
The 180° arc in the direction its shoulders face defines the
model’s front arc; the opposite 180° defines its back arc. You
may also make two small marks on either side of each of
your models’ bases to indicate where the front arc ends and
the back arc begins instead of relying on the positioning of
its shoulder. If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a
360° front arc, you must mark its base or discuss its facing
with your opponent before the game starts.

What part of it don't you understand?

Can anyone batting for GW and supporting the current approach explain to me how it is good business sense not to maximise sales by ensuring that every product you make appeals to as many potential purchasers as possible?

For instance, as a daemon player, I love the Bloodcrusher models, but if I was playing exclusively to win, there's no way I'd entertain playing (and therefore purchasing) any thanks to the presence of Fleshounds. If Bloodcrushers offered something that Hounds didn't, beyond AP3 which is largely offset by the greater number of attacks per point that Hounds offer, then I'd have a compelling reason to own both. As it is, they're more points, less durable and don't really offer much more offensively.

Which, before anyone jumps all over me, is not me saying they're "useless" it is me saying they're objectively less good. I've run Bloodcrushers with some success on occasion, but then I don't play all out to win every game. If I did, they'd be useless to me.

So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area.

This is not nit picking because the same happens in 40k. Where does the Wave Serpent front arc end and the side arc start? That I have not managed to find a good answer.

 milkboy wrote:
So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?

I don't play the game, but reading the rule as posted above, the only leeway for a model with shoulders is how accurately you can determine the line of the shoulders to determine the facing. If you had a model with no shoulders, there is no leeway, as you aren't following the rules if you don't mark the base or discuss with your opponent for a model without shoulders.

 milkboy wrote:
So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?

Possibly, just as there's slight leeway in measuring any distance or blast scatter directions in a tabletop game - people are human after all. You can work it close enough to be practicable, and a mm here or there generally doesn't make a difference to 99.9% of games played anyway.

But there's a difference between minutae like that (and I'll include absurd arguments like the no-eyes LOS issue for 40k as Minutae) and the very regular arguments that occur around 40k, in which both sides may have a very reasonable argument for their view, due to lax wording. Whatever someone's thoughts on gameplay or style, Privateer Press has set the bar for having a tight rules set and (importantly) maintaining it through consise errata and continuous community rules support.

Going back to the main topic though, I'll say GW could easily score a "win" for itself by emulating some or all of PPs rules support strategies - that's not saying they should turn 40k into warmachine, but that they could have a method to answer regular questions from players on a consistent basis, and to learn how to use key-words and precise wording for their rule sets.

 milkboy wrote:

Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .

The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).

PhantomViper wrote:

 milkboy wrote:

Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .

The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).

But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!

Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.

 Klerych wrote:
But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!

Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.

... already answered twice a couple posts above.

If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a
360° front arc, you must mark its base or discuss its facing
with your opponent before the game starts.

You were saying something about nit picking?

 milkboy wrote:
So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area.

This is not nit picking because the same happens in 40k. Where does the Wave Serpent front arc end and the side arc start? That I have not managed to find a good answer.

It's infrequent that the precise facing matters. The most common time is when a model is moving around another model's side and leaving its melee range, which prompts a free attack against the model leaving. That tends to be pretty unambiguous. In other cases, the facing must be a certain way - for example, when a model charges another model it ends its charge facing the other model directly.

There are some models where the shoulder rule isn't great, and for that reason many players who want it to be very accurate will mark their bases to show where the front arc begins and ends. Most of the time, it's a good enough approximation, which is its purpose. I don't think you'll find many players who don't agree that marking the bases is optimal for gameplay.

On the largest models, the ones around the size of a Wave Serpent, the arcs are actually moulded onto the edges of the bases themselves.

With respect to the main topic, a lot of the things that seem like double binds aren't. People want rules to be corrected with more frequency, but that doesn't mean they want a reprinting of the whole book to buy. They mainly want clarifications and fixes for rules that are broken, or for codices to not be editions out of date. With White Dwarf, people want to be able to access the rules. They don't want them to be lost in the mists of time. Letting them get them on back order or digitally is a great way to fix that while still putting cool stuff in White Dwarf.

There's also the thing that if your goal in business is to have nobody ever suggest any way your product could be better then you probably shouldn't be in business to begin with.

 Klerych wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 milkboy wrote:

Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .

The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).

But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!

Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.

Hey, the Warmachine community nitpicks constantly. Like, seriously, non-stop. But when you nitpick in Warmachine, one of two things will happen:

1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
2. you post on their rules forums and if the community can't answer the question then their special rules people will ask the developers how it should be played and relay it back, after which it becomes generally binding in rules disputes.

It's not community, it's how the game is written (precisely) and how it's supported (actively and comprehensively).

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.

This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.

Seriously, never had so much drama over a game until I joined these forums lol, says more about the community than it does the game if you look at it objectively

 Maddermax wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?

Possibly, just as there's slight leeway in measuring any distance or blast scatter directions in a tabletop game - people are human after all. You can work it close enough to be practicable, and a mm here or there generally doesn't make a difference to 99.9% of games played anyway.

But there's a difference between minutae like that (and I'll include absurd arguments like the no-eyes LOS issue for 40k as Minutae) and the very regular arguments that occur around 40k, in which both sides may have a very reasonable argument for their view, due to lax wording. Whatever someone's thoughts on gameplay or style, Privateer Press has set the bar for having a tight rules set and (importantly) maintaining it through consise errata and continuous community rules support.

Yep I agree that there can be some flexibility and leeway. Like what another poster said, common sense it and play. Like the eye thing, it is manageable.

An even tighter rule would be mandatory base markings. Because a 5 degree in interpretation with 25mm base is approx 0.17 mm at the base edge but 3.5mm at 8 inches. But like scatter, it's a small thing.

It is the amount of fuss over the eye thing which makes me think GW can never win. Like the guy exposed for cheating at the tournament who has realised his folly and the previously trollish poster now matured, GW has run out of goodwill and some will be much less likely to believe they can do any good.