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.

stjohn70 wrote:Just a random thought...

Is it a coincidence that GW's past "tight rules" are for game systems that have essentially failed? Yes, I know people still play them... you get my point.

Depends on how you define "failure," I guess. I seem to recall that the last major Blood Bowl event that GW ran (some time in the last year, IIRC) attracted more players than any other GW before or since. So, that doesn't exactly sound like a failure.

Sales of Epic Armageddon products have consistantly exceeded GW's projections. Is that a failure?

Both of these have pretty tight rulesets compared to 40K. Blood Bowl, by its very design, doesn't encourage the purchase of large numbers of miniatures (you pretty much just need 1 box for a lifetime of gaming), and the Epic community at large has, from what I can tell, become rather disappointed with GW's shoddy rules and miniature support for their game.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. Replying to your random thought with a random answer, I guess.

Hope everyone's got their tickets? Let's go for a ride on the DD Inter-Argument Train Line!

JohnHwangDD wrote:You seem to think that rules don't take any effort to wrote, and you seem to think that the total volume of GW rules would fit on a single sheet of paper (it does NOT). With a dozen Codices modifying the rules, that's a lot of work to coordinate.

Welcome to Strawman Station. Nextstop - Red Herringville!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Players would love it if GW miniatures were FREE. That ain't happening either. GW has a business to run, and rules aren't worth the effort.

And here we are folks - beautiful sunny Red Herringville! Remember to respond to every point whilst staying in stunning Red Herringville, whether or not it has anything to do with the argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Given that GW sells way more minis than rules

Hope you enjoyed your time in Red Herringville, because we've got to leave now and head towards Tautology Central!

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'll bet that you've never bothered to play them, because if you did, I think you'd find that 2 or 3 squads of Possessed backed by a couple blocks of generic Daemons actually play pretty well, if you bother to learn how to use them effectively

Sorry folks, looks like the name of this station has been taken down. Although it seems someone has spay-painted 'Standard Warseer Argument' on all the walls? Curious...

If I didn't know any better, I'd say our next stop might just be 'Use Tacticsborough', assuming we've transferred to the Warseer Line.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, we're essentially in agreement

Next up, the mean streets of 'Golden Mean Junction'.

Well that brings our journey to an end... for the moment.

Hope y'all had fun!

JohnHwangDD wrote:This is news?

JohnHwangDD wrote:So what's the problem?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nope, I don't see any problem here

JohnHwangDD wrote:Hahaha.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.

Just so we're clear - you don't care about having a tight ruleset without too many ambiguities (as let's be honest, you can't get rid of all of them), or you don't want want a tight ruleset without too many ambiguities?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't foresee any rules issues cropping up

Then you obviously haven't been playing this game as long as you say you have?

Stu-Rat wrote:Personally, I am so sick of thise blurring of two completely separate types of people.

Are you kidding me? It's just the veritable 'get out of writing good rules' free card that GW needs. Just claim that everyone who wants a tight ruleset is an 'over-competative rules lawyer', force us to see that in a negative ligh (and how could you not?), and we can get back on to drawing pretty pictures of guns rather than explaining how they work. Easy!

BYE

LOL. Every time I almost give up on you, HBMC, you post something like this, and I fall in love with you all over again.

Personally, I find that the unclear and inconsistent rules aren't a big issue. Sure, they crop up every once in a while, but no biggie. We're all grown-ups (in my gaming circle, anyway.)

No, my problem is that the rules are BORING. There aren't enough thorny tactical choices to be made. I don't have to hardly think at ALL when I'm playing 40K. Now, EPIC, on the other hand, has a lot of neat tactical considerations. Here's hoping for 5th edition...

Another note: The same WD I quoted to start this thread has an article by Christian Byrne, who, it is emphised a half dozen times is very "beardy." The article is a tactica on how to build a powergamed CSM list. At the end, there's a disclaimer by the editor about how, if the article upset us with its beardiness, we can go to JJ's editorial, and feel better.

It's a strange set of datapoints to absorb.

On one hand, they're putting a powergaming article in WD. On the other, they're acting like it's poison to their fanbase to see something like that.

All in all, my perception is that they think their hobby is troubled by some sort of strife between "competitive" and "friendly" gamers. I find this odd, since the impression I get from Dakka is that nobody has any real problem with players of different style, but instead they have a problem with GW's failure to address all styles effectively.

When one considers the amount of real strategic direction exposed in a given issue of WD, it's really not all that much, but in the past issues it feels like Jervis is REALLY hung up on this issue of "competition" vs "friendly." I feel like he's actually pretty angry at "us" who he sees as "competitive."

Personally, I am so sick of thise blurring of two completely separate types of people.

I think Jervis is doing a lot of blurring. Not just the sort you mention, but I think he confuses "competitive" with "want clear rules."

JJ sucks at getting his point across.

This is a possible explanation... I wonder if he's not TOO good at getting his point across, in that he seems to be angry at "competitive" players, and he lets that show through in everything he says that's related to the subject.

But their lack of responsibility for their actions just drives me *crazy.* THEY created the tournament scene. THEY created and spread the notions of official, universal rules and official models -- a definite departure from the historicals scene.

I tend to wonder if this isn't driven by internal personality conflicts. I feel like JJ holds the tournament scene in a certain amount of contempt. It seems like he's gained more prominence of late as well. Is it possible that we're seeing policies put in place by people before him, people he disagreed with and had friction with? Now that he's in charge, he's cutting their policies loose, and counting the backlash as the fault of the people he never agreed with?

FWIW, I spent over a decade as a Systems Programmer / Analyst.

And FWIW I am currently a software engineer. I think your arguments about additional costs leading to a disproportionately small gain in sales is mistaken. I really don't get the impression that the guys in charge have a clear enough picture of how to do their jobs.

They're hobby enthusiasts, not game designers.

To me, your argument is like hiring a bunch of recent college grads, trying to get them to write a software application, then complaining that I'm being unreasonable to expect good architecture out of your team. I agree, recent grads won't have good sense of architecture... But why are they the team? Hire half as many, hire one good architect, let him run them and keep them organized, and you'll get better quality results for less money.

We're not going to agree on what the balance should be. No two of us would agree. So let's not pretend there is a finish line.

I agree, and I think it's important to make a distinction between balanced lists, and clear rules. Clarity is critical. Balance is merely desirable.

carmachu wrote:http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx

2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?

Then what happens?

2005 sees 136.6 million

2006 sees 115.2 million

2007 sees 111.5 million


And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.

GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.

It's only among the cloistered world of on-line 40K fans that the negative sales growth of GW can be directly attributed to the quality of its rules set. GW certainly has a problem... it's very likely they've priced themselves too high, and possibly by more than 50%. Their relationship with independent retailers was terrible. There were long periods when the release schedule was glacial. The absence of low cost introductory games is a contraversial possibility, but I personally think it's highly significant.

Compared to actual retail factors, the quality of the rules is unlikely to be anything close to a major factor.

By the way, directly comparing the growth rates of market leaders and startups is horrible, horrible analysis. Really, truly horrible. Don't do it.

Having finally read the entire editorial, I can rest a bit easier. The specific quote *is* taken out of context when presented in a vacuum. The entire Standard Bearer is about the philosophical underpinning of the new rules developed for 5th. When JJ is saying: "...then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.", he is referring to the mechanics of the new rules, not the ruleset as a whole. That may seem pedantic, but it puts his tone as something quite different.

Yet again, as with our last argument, I think some folks are reading into a rules defense where there is none. Based on the rather benign article, they simply want to inject fun back into the game. Cinematic mechanics instead of efficient mechanics, as the example provided indicates. It might slow some games down, but should increase player participation in more segments of the game besides movement and dice rolling.

As to whether it works, time will tell.

But having read the SB in question, it's fine, the point is fine, and I appreciate the concept. The rest of our discussion about rule balancing between flavor and tightness is a different argument.

As for the dichotomy in articles (Byrne and JJ's), I don't think they aren't acting like powergaming is a poison. They are merely stating they'd rather base rules development on "what is fun?" rather than "can it be abused?" They still recognize the competitive streak in many of their customers, so they write an article to address that on a recent Codex. It helps that Byrne has a GREAT looking army.

They also have LOTS of articles on the washes, painting technique, and their little spraygun. One of the things GW is doing right now is they are addressing the WHOLE hobby better than they used to.

Anyways, a great WD if you love LOTR (I don't). Just the calm before the storm regarding 5th, though.

Addressing the whole hobby... by that I assume you meant they're advertising the whole hobby, rather than just bits of it.

(/obvious joke)

BYE

Phryxis wrote:I tend to wonder if this isn't driven by internal personality conflicts. I feel like JJ holds the tournament scene in a certain amount of contempt. It seems like he's gained more prominence of late as well. Is it possible that we're seeing policies put in place by people before him, people he disagreed with and had friction with? Now that he's in charge, he's cutting their policies loose, and counting the backlash as the fault of the people he never agreed with?

But guess who was the architect of the GTs? That's right, ol' JJ himself. Or at least I remember that he was heavily involved with the UK GTs, and provided guidance when the US team started theirs. Now, maybe he's dealing with some internal conflict over what they've become. But then, that doesn't really make sense either, because AFAIK the UK scene has never had substantive comp requirements, etc. like the US. That implies that a certain level of beardiness is acceptable.

IMO, the issue is that GW really never figured out what they want 40K to be about, or how to best balance the needs of new customers and vets. I think the first part is addressable simply by writing a clear-as-possible ruleset, and just let the customers figure out the rest. The constant handwringing about HOW players play the game is a pointless waste of time.

dienekes96 wrote:Based on the rather benign article, they simply want to inject fun back into the game. Cinematic mechanics instead of efficient mechanics, as the example provided indicates. It might slow some games down, but should increase player participation in more segments of the game besides movement and dice rolling.

In other words, they brought back some of the "cinematic" 2nd edition stuff. In retrospect (and I'm glad to see the designers apparently agree), it probably was a mistake to remove virtually all of that stuff that made for memorable games. Now, it needed to be greatly cleaned up and balanced, don't get me wrong. But throwing it all out was like repairing an injury through amputation.

GW hates you and wants you to die in a fire.

Jervis should just admit the truth, and then maybe he'd earn some respect.

Here's how it should have went:

"Writing tight rules is hard, i have no real aptitude for it, and I've got other things I'd rather be doing. My boss doesn't really understand the game, so he has no real understanding of where I need to improve, so I get no pressure from him, so why should I bother? Besides, I'll probably be laid off some time in the next 12 months anyway."

Then at least I wouldn't think he's an idiot.

ere’s a thread on 5th ed LOS over on TWF in which someone managed to get a personal emailed response from Jervis on the subject.

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=43154&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=26

miker
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 170
Location: milton keynes Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:29 am Post subject:


________________________________________
Just had a reply email from Jervis about LOS. I emailed him a specific question about modelled figures after I received this and I hope he will be kind enough to reply.

"This isn’t to say that we made the change whimsically. It was tested extensively, both by the development team, and in the white heat of tournaments that we ran as part of the development process. It stood both tests supremely well, and the tournaments, in particular, proved so successful that we’ve had players cuing up to take part again after they’ve played once. Speaking personally, it was very hard to have to use the old LOS rules when taking part in things like the 40K Doubles tournament I joined in with earlier this year, because I’d become so used to the true LOS during playtesting and I enjoyed using them so much more.

And this, I guess, is an important point. You can look at all of the new the rules ‘on the page’, but you really need to play them to see how the come together. Try them out, and I think you’ll quickly see what I mean.

This response from Jervis is absolutely tragic.

We HAD true LOS (except for forests) all through 3rd edition. I played in friendlies, leagues, tournaments, and GTs using it over literally hundreds of games. It does work pretty well, but it DOES take longer, it DOES create more disagreements, and it OFTEN results in somewhat unrealistic events like sniping someone's tank through the window of a building. In 3rd edition at least Hull Down automatically reduced Pens to Glances. But in 5th, tanks will not be so fortunate.

Area Terrain was standardized/instituted in 4th edition because it plays MUCH faster and better. It makes it easier to model up terrain bases which are usable in play (because you have enough space to physically fit models in them), while simultaneously allowing them to block LOS so that the board is divided up into fire lanes and areas where you can maneuver. Area Terrain was a deliberate broadening and expansion of the Forest rules, which were the most successful terrain rules in the game; ones which successfully served BOTH the rule and modeling aspects of the game.

This is an enormous step backwards, and clear evidence that Jervis has not learned from 4th edition. Which is terrible news for folks like me who are trying to get friends back into the game who have moved on to better-written systems like Warmachine and Flames of War.

I think Muwhe’s comments are exactly on the mark. A lot of grownups who play these games have a much easier time blocking out a day once a month to get in three games against painted armies than they do scheduling a weekly night down at the game store to get in friendlies. This doesn’t mean that said grownup games are “rules lawyers” or “over-competitive players”. Quite to the contrary. Competitive players and rules lawyers might have the free time on their hands to hash out unclear rules online and figure out arcane and badly-worded concepts. Grownups and casual gamers are actually more in need of a clear rule so that they can just get on with the game. And it doesn’t mean they’re “overly competitive” if they’re dissatisfied with rolling a d6 for it.

Phyxis makes an excellent point that it feels like Jervis has drawn a false dichotomy between friendly and competitive players, and that he has come to the utterly mistaken conclusion that only competitive players need/desire clear rules. Also that he was perhaps not completely on board or in agreement with the development of 4th edition, and he is now taking the game in a different direction starting to some extent with 3rd as a reference point for a lot of things instead of 4th.

sebster wrote:

carmachu wrote:http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx

2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds. , 2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?,
Then what happens?, 2005 sees 136.6 million, 2006 sees 115.2 million, 2007 sees 111.5 million

And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.

GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.

It's only among the cloistered world of on-line 40K fans that the negative sales growth of GW can be directly attributed to the quality of its rules set. GW certainly has a problem... it's very likely they've priced themselves too high, and possibly by more than 50%. Their relationship with independent retailers was terrible. There were long periods when the release schedule was glacial. The absence of low cost introductory games is a contraversial possibility, but I personally think it's highly significant.

Compared to actual retail factors, the quality of the rules is unlikely to be anything close to a major factor.

By the way, directly comparing the growth rates of market leaders and startups is horrible, horrible analysis. Really, truly horrible. Don't do it.

Those seem to me like useful and meaningful numbers. GW’s sales have been dropping. Competitors have been much more successful lately than anyone who tried (for example) in the 90s (Warzone, Void, etc).

Can you explain how the data he’s using here does not support his point?

And it’s not just in the “cloistered” online world that we see a correspondence between dissatisfaction with the rules and losses for GW. Check out the D6 Generation podcast for a classic example of friendly gamers who used to be in love with GW (Raef and Russ both had multiple armies and played every week for years; Russ owned a darn GW-specialist gaming store). Neither of them has time any more for the ambiguities and vagueness of the 40k rules. Warmachine and Hordes have stolen their loyalty from GW due to giving an enjoyable play experience with virtually no ambiguities from the perspective of the casual player.

I am completely in agreement with you that several other factors contribute. But the rules are not insignificant. Make the game fun and people will buy figures. I had to buy a Warmachine army just to keep playing miniatures with Raef and Russ. But I (and they) never would have bothered if the game weren't fun.

IMHO the tournament circuit in the US this year sucks. Only 3 GTs and all of them are far from where I live. I sure as hell am not going to pay $1,000 (airfare, room with a friend, and entrance fee) to play in the LVGT, much less Chicago or Baltimore...

So, if the 5th ed rules are more geared toward casual play, I guess that is fine with me...

Shouldn't you be looking at UKGTs, moose?

Mannahin: I might be able to explain Sebster's point, and I will try since I butchered my last attempt.

GW may THINK is it enough to "be on top" of the miniatures market. They may think it is a zero sum game, and so long as they get more than anyone else, cool.

This isn't necessarily so, however. More often markets grow and shrink based on not only the immutable tastes of the consumer, but also the actions of the producer in filling different needs. This can be seen in some niche markets with what are called "gateway products." For instance, lots of people my age got hooked on anime because of the movie Akira, and now buy expensive boxed sets of say Evangelion for hundreds of dollars. Now, the companies that produced and imported the two are probably not related at all, but the latter greatly benefitted by thier competitor's actions, as without the introduction a 10$ DVD provided these new fans would never have bought super expensive sets just to "see what it was about".

Now, as this relates to GW as the market leader, we have a company that likely sells more rules and mini's than any other. If you go into a random wargame shop, I would say chances are very good there are regulars who play 40k or Fantasy there. People often start playing mini games because they know people who do. It isn't really a hobby you just pick up. It's expensive, there is a lot involved, and unless you get into it simultaniously with a few friends finding a game is well nigh impossible due to the complicated rules. (We are not talking checkers here after all.)

So imagine for a second every current player throws up their hands and says "Screw it! Screw GW, screw their rules, I am out!" What are people going to do to get into the hobby? Suddenly, people are playing many different games at stores, or maybe none. I don't know about other stores, but the ones around here carry just about 0 non-GW miniatures, with the exception of some clicks games. Surely PP and such will start to fill the void, but how many new players will really start up?

Anyway, without going off on too much of a tangent, beating the competition is not sufficient. Hell, it is hardly even necessary. Growing a market is often as important or even more important than what your share of the market is. GW's lack of customer focus despite being the leader of their market, as well as the self described leader of the whole bloody hobby, does nothing to increase their market.
How does that apply to good rules? Clear, tight rules are what make games good. Games that don't require being played with your best friend to be fun are the games that really take off and appeal to a lot of people. If your rules don't allow people to play the game without lots of disputes over how things work, it doesn't lend itself to casual, unorganized "show up at the shop" play.

I again postulate that tight rules are significantly LESS important than clear rules. I'll take fun over balance more often than not. I think the designers would as well.

To address Ragnar, I think it's a philosophical difference. I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun. It's a paradigm shift, and GW would be wise to cater to the majority, whoever they are. If it's new players, you run the risk of pissing off vets. If it's vets, you run the risk of minimizing new players.

And the players GW does (and should) care about, are the ones who spend the most. If vets spend twice as much, they count twice as much. Or if the opposite is true, they count half as much.

That said, GW is trying to straddle a fairly wide gap. Taking it personally, or acting like they are clueless, might be humorous and get a laugh...but it probably isn't true. It's more likely they are acting on more data than you have. You may not like their positioning, but it's done to maximize sales.

dienekes96 wrote:I again postulate that tight rules are significantly LESS important than clear rules.

Whoa, hold on a sec.

Doesn't having clear rules make the rules tight, Chuck?

And GW doesn't even seem interested (or capable) of making clear rules in the first place.

BYE

I think Muwhe’s comments are exactly on the mark. A lot of grownups who play these games have a much easier time blocking out a day once a month to get in three games against painted armies than they do scheduling a weekly night down at the game store to get in friendlies.

I would argue that the above is the norm for the majority of “Tourney” players. It’s certainly the case for me…and that we have allowed these “generic sort of generalizations" to divide the GW gaming community as whole. That fact is the spectrum of players you find at a tourney .. are only the same sort of spectrum of players you see at your local FLGS only on an order of magnitude.

Having been involved with running AdeptiCon now for a number of years. It’s become clear to me that a good chunk of our attendees are just that guys that have “grown-up” and this might be the one chance a year they get to “break” free and play for a weekend, see old friends, and be a “kid” again. I know for a fact this year we had several groups of college buddies that had moved on in life to various corners of the country.. yet used AdeptiCon as a chance to come together, have a reunion of sorts, drink beer and play in the team tourney. Outstanding ..

I honestly feel there is an issue that has been missed by GW UK management. The kids they marketed heavy 25 years ago have grown up and a good chunk of them are still part of the hobby. It’s time to develop a marketing process that includes them. Don’t get me wrong .. there are a huge number of GW employees that get it as well.. we are fortunate to be able to work directly with several of them to make AdeptiCon the sort of event it has become …

This idea of “writing rules for fun” .What exactly does that mean? There are games that make no pre-text that they are “beer and pretzel games. They are quick to play, don’t take a ton of brain power, and generally rely of lady luck more than talent or skill. I got a shelf full of those types of games. I enjoy those games and play them on a regular basis but is WFB/40K at the core that sort of game…I think they require to much personal investment… to be purely whimsical. Course a good set of tight rules .. are fun rules. But not all fun rules are a good set of rules.

I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun.

Which is a generalization .. and I think is a mistake .. you can have silly fun games of WFB/40K even if you have a tight set of rules. You can all ways do the crazy, goofy WFB/40K scenarios or little hearted stuff with any ruleset. What you can not do is move the other direction from a swiss cheese rule system.

Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.

dienekes96 wrote:To address Ragnar, I think it's a philosophical difference. I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun. It's a paradigm shift, and GW would be wise to cater to the majority, whoever they are. If it's new players, you run the risk of pissing off vets. If it's vets, you run the risk of minimizing new players.

And the players GW does (and should) care about, are the ones who spend the most. If vets spend twice as much, they count twice as much. Or if the opposite is true, they count half as much.

That said, GW is trying to straddle a fairly wide gap. Taking it personally, or acting like they are clueless, might be humorous and get a laugh...but it probably isn't true. It's more likely they are acting on more data than you have. You may not like their positioning, but it's done to maximize sales.

I agree they're straddling pretty wide, and think that a lot of GW's problems stem from them trying to serve very different markets with the same product. Let's face it, if they solely want to go after those 13 year olds who will likely drop the hobby in about 12 months, why not go to collectible prepaints? I think the fact that they still push a time-intensive, attention-demanding *hobby* shows they really still do want us vets.

It's no wonder GW seems so schizo at times. Just because they're a public company, they have to rather expensively target kids and newbies through their retail store chain to try to hit their growth targets. Trouble is that their vets still make up a solid percentage of sales. If they were still private, they could probably be a nice little profitable operation selling to a mostly veteran audience, like with most historicals manufacturers. But their shareholders demand more, and thus they have to try to grow beyond the limited veteran base.

So here's the thing. Faced with two different audiences with different needs, some companies would likely just create TWO products. I've never been an advocate of "advanced 40K," but wouldn't a smaller, more newbie-friendly skirmish game that uses existing miniatures make sense? Or why not get involved in a prepaint collectible game on the side? Seems like those are cash cows even moreso than GW minis.

I realize GW's in the mode of getting back in touch with their "core" business, but it sure seems to me that they're going to have a harder and harder time trying to make all their customers happy with one product. When you try to do that, you often either completely drive off one set of customers, or slightly alienate all of them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:1) Doesn't having clear rules make the rules tight, Chuck?

2) And GW doesn't even seem interested (or capable) of making clear rules in the first place.

1) No, it's a difference in how we are using the words. I use the word tight to mean rigidly balanced. I use the word clear to be easily understandable. Two different things.

2) That's an anecdotal observation, possibly based on your frustration, and not on any sort of data. GW has made clear rules numerous times, as we both know. That's why I made the point that their customer base is bigger than Dakka, or vets, or newbies, or schoolkids, or...etc, etc, etc.

muwhe wrote:

I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun.

Which is a generalization .. and I think is a mistake .. you can have silly fun games of WFB/40K even if you have a tight set of rules. You can all ways do the crazy, goofy WFB/40K scenarios or little hearted stuff with any ruleset.

Of course I generalized, muwhe. So did you.

As for the tight rules, again, we appear to be using the words to mean different things. I'm not talking crazy scenarios, I am talking rules that might be looser...like (again) the 3.5 edition of CSM. To me, that was a great Codex with a LOT of character. It was abusable by the douches (and they did), but it also had a lot of flavor. That's what I want. Balancing that much stuff COSTS more, and if GW has to choose to not include it for balance, or include it and trust the players...I'd vote for the latter. Perhaps they could do both. But for their own reasons (none of which are "stick it to the vets", most of which are probably $$$), they have chosen to emphasize one or the other.

muwhe wrote:Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.

That *IS* what they are interested in, but you are not representative of their entire customer base. You believe that solving your problems would be beneficial for all, but that is an assumption, not an objective fact. And as a company celebrating 25 years of their initial game system, with quite a few major successes along the way, I think they have shown sustainability far beyond ANY of their competitors. That is an objective fact. They are having a rough patch, but their rough patch would be wild success to every one of their peers.

People have mentioned some of GW's competitors, does anyone have actual sales figures for them or are they just guessing based on "how the locals play/buy"? I know GW had almost twice the sales as Wizards of the Coast in 2007 because I read their Financials.

muwhe wrote:Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.

That *IS* what they are interested in, but you are not representative of their entire customer base. You believe that solving your problems would be beneficial for all, but that is an assumption, not an objective fact. And as a company celebrating 25 years of their initial game system, with quite a few major successes along the way, I think they have shown sustainability far beyond ANY of their competitors. That is an objective fact. They are having a rough patch, but their rough patch would be wild success to every one of their peers.

Wow! you guys should really have your own TV/Web Show for DakkaDakka.
LMAO!

The Rumer of the 5th. edd. is really getting me painting my Mini's, ( & Making/Buying) Im just short of a 4000 Pt. Ork Army.

Now im going to Pick up WD 341 in a few. (and a Box Of Lootas )

I think dienekes96 that you and I are arguing the same point from different sides. I don't think GW is out to get anyone. I just think that they are making poor choices, in particular choices that are made by people who sort of understand basic business concepts, but are mostly interested in what they like to make.
In other words, I attribute decisions that I find highly questionable and seemly self defeating to ignorance, not malice.

Personally, I think it is a classic example of a person who loves some trade, and is great at it, but does not have the skills to run a business that makes money off the trade. One sees that a lot since they are very different skill sets.
Even with professional bean counters as people refer to them here, there is no guarantee that the company will make good decisions. Every industry has companies that just don't quite make it big, or that don't change enough for the times. It is also a possibility that that the war gaming industry does not attract the kind of big league folks that really form the cutting edge of business theory. Who knows?

I do think they need to make a few segments of 40k. I think a small skirmish game, a medium tourney game and a big crazy game for vets makes a lot of sense. Say "40k: Kill team" with stripped down rules and maybe prepaints, WarHammer 40k: Classic with tight, clear rules that allow more detailed games designed for serious players , and then 40k: Apocalypse with optional crazy rules for fun things that rely on the players to balance (more like how historicals have done it.)
I had thought GW was more on this track, but now I don't know as much.

Wehr,
I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper. It would sell the concept and the mechanics. I think it would also help sell some model kits to vets.

Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse

Trust me, I've been saying that for over a year They've got two of the three, and the basis for the last. It would require some resources to make a proper release, though. I think the speed of play would be a selling point for vets as well.

temprus wrote:People have mentioned some of GW's competitors, does anyone have actual sales figures for them or are they just guessing based on "how the locals play/buy"? I know GW had almost twice the sales as Wizards of the Coast in 2007 because I read their Financials.

None of their competitors are publically traded companies, nor their figures listed.

However, its a matter of public record they, PP, had to delay new releases one month due to demand, which quardupled rather doubled they were prepared for.

No idea about FoW. Rackham has had ups and downs.

dienekes96 wrote:I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper.

I agree, but all cynicism aside, GW wants to sell miniatures first and rules last - kill team, in the short-term, is a smaller game requiring less in the way of miniatures, therefore it is an anathema to GW bean-counters. Having an intro boxed set with cool and detailed skirmish would would certainly interest me and quite a lot of other people, but it won't have full-page spreads of massive 2000 point armies, and that's what GW want to sell to people the moment they come in the door.

As far as them writing clear rules go, perhaps we need to look at in a different light. They can right clear rules (most of Warhammer works, and Specialist Games has a good track record), but it seems that writing clear rules isn't their priority. Just getting it done in time for the miniature release is their main goal, and selling the latest releases is the design goal of their rules writing. As I'll keep saying, minis come first with them, which is fine from a business perspective - it would make them the most money compared to selling some books - but given the examples where they have written the rules correctly there is frankly no excuse for the current state of 40K.

Their 5th Ed trailers (which are absurd in and of themsleves, but we'll ignore that for the moment), they talk about how 5th Ed is '20 years in the making'. I just about fell off my chair with laugher when I read that because it was so blatantly untrue. If 5th Ed really was 20 years in the making, then it'd be tight (from your definition and mine) and whilst not error free, would be balanced and clear from the first page to the last page.

Compare 40K to... say... Classic BattleTech. Now there is a game that has been around in virtually the same form for the past 20 years. The most recent edition - Total Warfare (which I guess you could call 5th Ed) - really has been 20 years in the making. I can pick up a copy of my 3rd Ed rulebook, my 4th Ed rulebook, my Revised Master Rules and my 5th Ed rulebook and I can actually track the progression of rules and see the changes they've made, see the attempts at balancing, the re-wording of things to make them clear. Was it always error free? No, of course not, they are human after all and they're already onto their second printing of the main rulebook and have a errata document as long as my arm for the others. But it was all done in the right spirit - to make a better game.

Take their rules for tanks.

In 4th Ed BattleTech tanks were a complete waste of time. 'Mechs would absolutley shred them. If you scored a critical hit on an enemy vehicle it would be crippled 5/6ths of the time and destroyed half the time. The damage table was that savage. For this reason tanks were used because people liked them, not because they were any good. Along comes 5th Ed and the writers decide that something has to change. They rework the rules for vehicles, making them tougher and expanding their critical hit and damage table so that they only die outright on an 11 or 12 on 2D6 - a fair bit better than the 4+ on a D6.

But did this massive change in the way tanks work coincide with a new army book all about tanks? Or a massive new release of several different tank miniatures? No. It coincided with a release of some plastic 'Mechs and no new tanks. The change wasn't made to sell tanks, it was made to make the game better - to make it tighter, more balanced, clearer and, and this should always be the objective, more fun.

It is this attitude that GW is missing. Despite my cynicism, I can actually admit that GW is capable of writing some damned good rules, they just don't seem to have the impetus to do it beyond selling whatever their sculptors have made recently, and that, I have to say, is a terrible shame.

BYE

dienekes96 wrote:Wehr,
I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper. It would sell the concept and the mechanics. I think it would also help sell some model kits to vets.

Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse

Trust me, I've been saying that for over a year They've got two of the three, and the basis for the last. It would require some resources to make a proper release, though. I think the speed of play would be a selling point for vets as well.

Aye, this was similar to PPs model (350 starter, 500, then Epic Casters, etc) and it works well. I believe this is also part of the intent of Apoc. As an example, players that like units from other armies would be forced to 'buy in' with several models in which to play them. On the other hand, if I were to purchase a unit for Apoc that I normally wouldn't (Due to allies), there is a greater chance I will buy yet another unit and eventually collect an army. I believe Apoc was the best single idea they've came up with in ages. I don't know if Jervis is the father of this idea or not...but I can honestly state since he's taken his new title I've became more and more excited about 40K (And spent more money).

If the new Marine whispers hold true, I'll probably collect another army as well (And Jervis is the author). I think he's full of win.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is this attitude that GW is missing. Despite my cynicism, I can actually admit that GW is capable of writing some damned good rules, they just don't seem to have the impetus to do it beyond selling whatever their sculptors have made recently, and that, I have to say, is a terrible shame.

BYE

I can almost agree with this, but then I remember that GW released rules for Chaos in Epic:A, and then Jervis told everyone to look for old Chaos miniatures on eBay. I suppose that's really more an an "exception that proves the rule," though.

Yeah but that's Specialist Games. They don't give two gaks about that part of the business. I wouldn't even count that as an example, let alone an exception that proves any rules.

BYE