As for the (fantasy) daemons thing, I think that was more a case of Ward knowing where 8th was going as he wrote the daemons army book, so yes for a little while it was OP but I think anyone saying fantasy having to change to fix it has it the wrong way around.

Grey Knights on the other hand, I have heard it said that even some of the people at GW admit they didn't playtest them enough and have tried to step up their game since.

If you want to see changes in Games workshop, vote with your dollar and buy shares in the company. Take an active interest and try and effect positive change. We can sit here an talk about all the faults GW has; but unless we actually try and change them we are simply wasting time.

You need a crap load of stock to even be looked at and the majority of stock being held on too are by Kirby and 5 investment Funds holders (5 investment fund holders currently hold +51% of the total GW stock.)

The other method is to vote with your wallet.

 Fafnir wrote:

battleranch wrote:
This may be annoying to hear but maybe people play the game wrong.

When we pay as much as we do, we should be able to play it however we want. This point is irrelevant.

Maybe the game isn't meant to be played with 4 of the same unit to maximize effectiveness to win the massive grand tournament? Maybe the game is ment to be played with a large selection of units with a group of friends who invested time and effort into building a painting an army.

If such is the case, then the rules should reflect that. Besides, if one of those friends ends up consistently winning because of having the arbitrarily better army, it doesn't matter what the friends are trying to do, the game becomes stale and boring.

Maybe it has nothing to do with winning or losing, maybe the GW standard of play testing is one that says

"hey daemons need something to do on the turn they deep strike, lets give them a couple units that can soften up targets; then, the awesome Blood letter models can get into combat!"

If such is the case, why even include things like points or force orginization charts in the first place?

I'm sure they don't give two monkies if the Nova Open had 12 Grey Knights or 12 Daemon players. Games-Workshop doesn't host tournament or cater to tournaments because tournaments don't matter.

So you're saying that people who enjoy the game for anything other than an advanced yahtzee simulation don't matter?

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses. It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome. Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy. Don't feed me that "o you can't do that in tournaments!" line because your argument was a friend. Who is a person I assume you see regularly. If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people. If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Take some personnel responsibility and quit trying to blame your failings on the company that is doing an actual bang up job. The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works. the Models look amazing, the story is rich and continues to get denser.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game. If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

 Daedricbob wrote:
It seems a bit odd that in this modern age GW don't have a community rep that liaises with the main wargaming websites/publications.

Such a position would allow them to provide official rulings on rule interpretations/questions as well as providing 'sneak peeks' of upcoming products, promoting offers, gaining valuable product/design feedback and I feel would go a long way to promoting general goodwill within the gaming community, the people that buy their products.

I honestly can't understand why they don't have anyone doing this, they don't even have their own forums.

A community rep would not be asked these kinds of things. Instead he'd get "OHMYGAWDWAAARDISSOOOSTUPIDWHYCANTMYARMYBEASAWESOMESAUCEASMYCUSTOMFANDEXSTUFFISEXPENSIVEYOUSHOULDLOWERYOURPRICESBUTYOURSTUFFISCRAPWWWWWWHHHHHHYYYYYY??????"

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page " target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page

Can't remember the last time I heard VW chiming in on the forum I was on for my Jetta...

battleranch wrote:
I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

Chess isn't perfectly balanced. And you seem to assume that balance a) must be perfect and b) requires everyone to be the same.

Take some personnel responsibility and quit trying to blame your failings on the company that is doing an actual bang up job. The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works. the Models look amazing, the story is rich and continues to get denser.

And the rules are poorly written. Ignoring balance (which is dumb) they could at least put out a well written set of rules. Which would benefit everyone, not just tournament goers.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game. If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Disparity between books is fine. Horrible internal balance isn't.

every so often, I see one of these posts saying how everyone would simply explode and act like a 5 year old if given the chance to tell their opinion.
Is this common to other places that ask for feedback, or just GW because people are displeased and are annoyed because they're not listening.
But because people are unhappy it is assumed they cannot make any rational points and scream like fools.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
every so often, I see one of these posts saying how everyone would simply explode and act like a 5 year old if given the chance to tell their opinion.
Is this common to other places that ask for feedback, or just GW because people are displeased and are annoyed because they're not listening.
But because people are unhappy it is assumed they cannot make any rational points and scream like fools.

again, look what happened when a guy started a thread about job recruitment at GW. about three responses later, the price question is dropped. Eventually, it would turn into a sci-fi convention q&a where people who have no control over the topics being asked are grilled about decisions over which tjey would never be able to answer.

you'd never have a person like that on a forum like this- besides that wasn't about hearing anyone's opinion that was a job thing

I think, if they actually had someone come here, even still, I have some faith people could carry on more respectfully.
It was the stuff people felt and some knew was wrong, and such, made them mad.
Simply the mere gesture of someone from GW asking an opinion from the community, I think people would be mature

I seriously hope you are kidding, Rainbow...

I have a sliver of faith in some people I guess
it has many risks but it is something never done by GW before. Of course it would need moderation but I think people could surprise you.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I have a sliver of faith in some people I guess
it has many risks but it is something never done by GW before. Of course it would need moderation but I think people could surprise you.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page

Sorry to diaappoint, but this isn't MLP world... some people believe GW needs to be brought task for creating a fun game that should be serious like they are...

oh bronies are more hardcore and angry then warhammer fans lol
a game is only as fun as the person feels it is.
the current ed is not my taste so I play 3rd ed

battleranch wrote:

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

There's no point in playing a lot of games if all of the games are one-sided messes.

And as Rigeld noted, Chess is not perfectly balanced.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses.

And who said a game can't be balanced and can have different factions with strengths and weaknesses at the same time? If anything, 40k is extremely homogenous compared to other games despite its terrible balance.

It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome.

I don't play 40k anymore, so that point I made had nothing to do with myself. Besides, back when I did play, I tended to have a decent record. But "adapt and overcome" simply doesn't work in every single context concerning this game. Try to take on a Necron flying bakery with an army with no available anti-air, such as Black Templars, and tell me that it's 100% the fault of the player of the BT for losing. Some armies simply do not have the tools to be competitive.

40k is an extremely list dependent game. It's built that way in order to sell more models.

Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy.

I played Daemonhunters. The very worst codex in the game before it was updated. I had to work for my wins. Typically, a good game was not one where I won, but where I didn't lose horribly. Let me assure you, simply 'swapping weapons' doesn't do anything for you when none of the options available are relevant to the situation and metagame. Changing your deployment doesn't tend to do much when the army you're facing is simply more capable than yours in every possible way.

If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people.

"Simply being happy to play games" doesn't work when all the games are one-sided slaughter-fests. That, or they're all the same (and boring as hell because of it), because only a few options are viable.

If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Once again, balance=/=homogeneity. In fact, the major thing you don't seem to understand is that in wanting balance, we want it so that players can go into a game (tournament setting or not) with something that isn't identical to the flavour of the month and have a chance of winning. Better balance would in fact give players more reasons to play different armies. Come back when you have an understanding of what actually constitutes game balance.

The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works.

Which is why they have to release massive erratas rewriting entire sections of the rulebook not long after release. Which is why the YMDC section of this forum is bloated as hell.

Models look amazing,

Are you kidding? Horrendous proportions aside (I understand what "heroic" proportions means, but that's a relic from the past when sculpting and casting capabilities were not what they are now), they get more busy and toyetic as each release comes.

the story is rich and continues to get denser.

That's cute. But I'll refrain from even touching this point, since I don't want this to turn into yet another Ward-hate thread.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game.

Have you even read the 6th edition rulebook? The game contains far more random elements than previous editions. Random terrain features, random charge range, random warlord abilities, random psychic powers, etc. It is factually wrong to state that GW is "de-yahtzeeing" the game when they are taking more options away from the player and making them random.

If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Once again, and I feel I must hammer this in as much and as hard as possible, balance=/=homogeneity. Furthermore, the random nature of the game has nothing to do with balance (that's just an issue with the poorly written and tactically shallow nature of the game itself).

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
The other method is to vote with your wallet.

Wallet and also make noise.

There are a lot of people who rage on that anyone who doesn't like GW should just shut up and not buy their products - that is fine and good, if you feel like it.

However, a more effective approach is to stop buying them...and make sure other people stop buying them...and make sure those other people make sure other people stop buying them... One person stopping isn't really something that GW will notice, but if you manage to convince a majority of people in your local area it is something that GW will notice. Their sales reps have numbers which they are supposed to meet each month, quarter, year. If you get the groups in a town to switch from GW games to something like PP or Infinity (or any number of other game systems which are out there) - then the drop in sales to the independent retailers [of GW products] would show up on the balance sheet for that regional rep. Get enough of those to happen - then GW might even consider rethinking their policies.

It is something which has been shown to work against other companies in the past - though it really needs to be a concerted effort if it is something you would like to see actually happen.

 Fafnir wrote:

battleranch wrote:

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

There's no point in playing a lot of games if all of the games are one-sided messes.

And as Rigeld noted, Chess is not perfectly balanced.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses.

And who said a game can't be balanced and can have different factions with strengths and weaknesses at the same time? If anything, 40k is extremely homogenous compared to other games despite its terrible balance.

It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome.

I don't play 40k anymore, so that point I made had nothing to do with myself. Besides, back when I did play, I tended to have a decent record. But "adapt and overcome" simply doesn't work in every single context concerning this game. Try to take on a Necron flying bakery with an army with no available anti-air, such as Black Templars, and tell me that it's 100% the fault of the player of the BT for losing. Some armies simply do not have the tools to be competitive.

40k is an extremely list dependent game. It's built that way in order to sell more models.

Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy.

I played Daemonhunters. The very worst codex in the game before it was updated. I had to work for my wins. Typically, a good game was not one where I won, but where I didn't lose horribly. Let me assure you, simply 'swapping weapons' doesn't do anything for you when none of the options available are relevant to the situation and metagame. Changing your deployment doesn't tend to do much when the army you're facing is simply more capable than yours in every possible way.

If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people.

"Simply being happy to play games" doesn't work when all the games are one-sided slaughter-fests. That, or they're all the same (and boring as hell because of it), because only a few options are viable.

If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Once again, balance=/=homogeneity. In fact, the major thing you don't seem to understand is that in wanting balance, we want it so that players can go into a game (tournament setting or not) with something that isn't identical to the flavour of the month and have a chance of winning. Better balance would in fact give players more reasons to play different armies. Come back when you have an understanding of what actually constitutes game balance.

The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works.

Which is why they have to release massive erratas rewriting entire sections of the rulebook not long after release. Which is why the YMDC section of this forum is bloated as hell.

Models look amazing,

Are you kidding? Horrendous proportions aside (I understand what "heroic" proportions means, but that's a relic from the past when sculpting and casting capabilities were not what they are now), they get more busy and toyetic as each release comes.

the story is rich and continues to get denser.

That's cute. But I'll refrain from even touching this point, since I don't want this to turn into yet another Ward-hate thread.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game.

Have you even read the 6th edition rulebook? The game contains far more random elements than previous editions. Random terrain features, random charge range, random warlord abilities, random psychic powers, etc. It is factually wrong to state that GW is "de-yahtzeeing" the game when they are taking more options away from the player and making them random.

If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Once again, and I feel I must hammer this in as much and as hard as possible, balance=/=homogeneity. Furthermore, the random nature of the game has nothing to do with balance (that's just an issue with the poorly written and tactically shallow nature of the game itself).

Have you read the 6th edition rule book? Do you know how many options there are to change the game, simply buy using a few dice rolls? that Space Marine Statue terrain piece is something exciting every game! Black Library is publishing books that make me want to start new armies all the time! I can use more models, more often. I have hours of value because I make the game valuable.
It's like I said, You have options against hard lists. Necron flyers versus Black Templars? Guess what 6's happen. I played that very match up yesterday and WON. I got hot dice and it was all over.
You're citing an army from years ago that got updated and is now good It has tonnes of options and flavour.
The game is Supposed to be random, That's why it has dice. the dice are supposed to determine success of failure. You can tip the balance. But fate is always supposed to decide. That's how epic things like a Space marine Sgt with a power axe killing wraith lord. If you can't accept that. If you can hand over that little piece of your ego for the sake of fun, You are probably not mature enough to play this game. I don't think it's to expensive. I think it's priced fairly. I think the kits are worth every penny. I bought a land-raider at the new price and spent 36 hours on it. Building painting and playing. 36 hours of use. For 100 bucks.

But if you're so upset you want to stop playing please do. Negative players are the worst. If you can't lose with something approaching grace don't bother playing. I play as often as I can and can say I hate whiney players more than I have ever been upset with the rules.

Saying chess isn't balanced is the exact reason GW shouldn't have a rep. How ungreatful are you? Do you seriously think any sane person would allow themselves to be harassed by a group that clearly can't ever be pleased? Chess is about as fair a game as you can get and you bashed it without a second thought. Maybe Solitaire is more your game?

I've no words, but I guess a picture is worth a thousand so here goes:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you'd never have a person like that on a forum like this- besides that wasn't about hearing anyone's opinion that was a job thing

I think, if they actually had someone come here, even still, I have some faith people could carry on more respectfully.
It was the stuff people felt and some knew was wrong, and such, made them mad.
Simply the mere gesture of someone from GW asking an opinion from the community, I think people would be mature

You have to be kidding me right?

Have you actually READ these forums?!

Oh boy, Fafnir, you've got a live one here.

Good luck!

How is chess not balanced?

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
How is chess not balanced?

Queens are broken. Duh!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh boy, Fafnir, you've got a live one here.

Good luck!

You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

battleranch wrote:
Have you read the 6th edition rule book?

Yes. And played quite a few games with it before I decided that 6th edition was not enjoyable in the least, and quit 40k.

Do you know how many options there are to change the game, simply buy using a few dice rolls?

If you wanted to have the option to change the game and its outcomes, why not leave it up to player involvement? 6th edition takes many options away from the player and puts them in the dice. One of the major reasons I decided to leave 40k is that I felt that I wasn't playing an actual game, so much as I was just rolling a lot of dice.

It's like I said, You have options against hard lists. Necron flyers versus Black Templars? Guess what 6's happen. I played that very match up yesterday and WON. I got hot dice and it was all over.

"Getting obscenely lucky" does not count as a viable strategy against anything. You didn't win because you played well, you won because you rolled well. It doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely one-sided matchup that is not fun to play. Being forced to rely on nearly impossible odds to win is horrible game design.

You're citing an army from years ago that got updated

Irrelevant to the point I was making. It was Daemonhunters years ago, now it's Black Templar and Tau. Soon it will be another army. The point is, I'm no stranger to losing games, or making due with what I have, but it doesn't change the fact that some armies are inherently far better than others, and some armies simply do not have the options available to be competitive, no matter how blessed your tactical acumen is.

and is now good It has tonnes of options and flavour.

It's 'good' in the sense that it can win now. As for "tonnes of options and flavour," that's very debatable. The only worthwhile assassin now is the Vindicare (Callidus and Eversor, you shall be missed), Inquisitors lost almost all of their customization, not to mention the loss of most Inquisitional elements in favour of making the codex more SPACE MARINES BUT GREY.
Besides, when it comes down to it, the entire codex comes down to two basic strategies: Spam psycannons/psyriflemen, or spam shooty henchmen/psyriflemen. There are different loadouts available, but at the end of the day, those are the only two real play styles worth noting.

As for flavour, let's not even get started. If this is "tonnes of flavour," I'd rather have the faint hint that the old codex gave us, because the new 'flavour' is horrendous.

The game is Supposed to be random, That's why it has dice. the dice are supposed to determine success of failure.

The dice determine almost everything. There are plenty of other games out there that use dice for determining success or failure, but do not feel nearly as inherently random, and require much more in terms of player input, and give much more for that input. As it is, in 40k 6th edition, what you're given to work with is random, what you do is random, and your outcomes are random. After you've made your army list, the level of player input is low at best, which is why I compare the game to yahtzee.

If you can hand over that little piece of your ego for the sake of fun, You are probably not mature enough to play this game.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ego, but simply the fact that the game is no longer fun to play. Winning or losing itself isn't important, so long as it's something involving and entertaining, but as it stands, the only reason I'm there is to roll dice, in which case, I might as well not be there at all.

I don't think it's to expensive. I think it's priced fairly. I think the kits are worth every penny. I bought a land-raider at the new price and spent 36 hours on it. Building painting and playing. 36 hours of use. For 100 bucks.

Time=/=Value, and I hate such comparisons. I could watch the entirety of Coronation Street, and that's likely a literal eternity of use, but that doesn't necessarily make the time spent of value.

But if you're so upset you want to stop playing please do. Negative players are the worst.

See, here's the thing. I didn't want to necessarily stop playing. I really did want to enjoy 40k and 6th edition, but I simply found it to be unenjoyable. I want to like 40k and everything about it, that's why I'm here. We're not just haters for the sake of hating, everyone here wants 40k to succeed. But the problem is that the way the game is managed and the company that manage it are alienating us. I don't like the direction 40k is moving in, and I'm very concerned, because I used to enjoy it so much. Myself and others are not being negative for the sake of being negative, but because we care about this game and this world and we don't want to see it go the way it is going.

If you can't lose with something approaching grace don't bother playing.

Fun fact: none of my arguments were ever about actually winning or losing itself, or my record. If you must know, of the nine games of 6th edition I played, I only lost two of them. My issues have to do with the lack of involvement and fun I had while doing it.

Saying chess isn't balanced is the exact reason GW shouldn't have a rep. ... Chess is about as fair a game as you can get and you bashed it without a second thought. Maybe Solitaire is more your game?

This is a factual statement. Chess is not perfectly balanced, do to the nature of turn order. The white player will typically have the advantage, due to going first. Keep in mind though, perfect balance is almost never actually attainable. What I do want to see is an actual effort towards it, something GW clearly does not have.

A simple way to even get down the path to balance would be to give every army the tools to actually beat other armies. As it currently stands, in some matchups, some factions literally have no viable options available.

How ungreatful are you?

Considering that I'm paying as much as I do, there's no point in being grateful at all. They are a business, not a charity or act of good will. As the consumer, I (and you, and everyone else) owe them absolutely nothing.

Do you seriously think any sane person would allow themselves to be harassed by a group that clearly can't ever be pleased?

Considering that Games Workshop is a publicly traded company with a majority of it's ownership going to investment groups, yes, actually, I do.

 Fafnir wrote:
You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

You should too, and you should be greatful for it!

And can we please try and turn "Guess what 6's happen" into a meme? I know forcing a meme is bad, but with great comments like that just kinda have to!

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
How is chess not balanced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

You should too, and you should be greatful for it!

And can we please try and turn "Guess what 6's happen" into a meme? I know forcing a meme is bad, but with great comments like that just kinda have to!

Guess what, sixes happen. YOLO!

I really like 6th edition, though.

Which one of us should GW listen to?

The ones that buy their goods.

Well Fafnir. I don't believe you. I don't think you actually like 40k. If you liked it you would ride out the changes and wait for the expansions.
Bad match ups happen, sometimes the other guy is just better than you. Deal with it. You have the tools to play the game. The armies will change in time and you're army will get it's moment in the sun.

GW is doing exactly what it needs to do. It's making money and releasing products. The game works. Minor hiccups pop up but with very little clear-headed thinking you can work through them. T
hey don't need a Community Rep. If you really want to be heard, buy shares. Maybe try and get a job with them. I don't care. Do SOMETHING. Your boycott isn't going to work. For everyone of you that stops they bring in a new player; that's their business model. You should realize you are expendable to them. You're not going to buy 2 or 3 armies any more. Why should they care about what you say? You're not moving the company forward. If anything you are dragging it back. Embrace change, seek it out through positive means and for gods sake be patience. Change with GW isn't going to happen over night. If you loved 40k you would actually be trying something not petty and vindictive. But We'll wait a year and I can promise you my positive and patience approach will yield more results than your boycott.

battleranch wrote:
Well Fafnir. I don't believe you. I don't think you actually like 40k. If you liked it you would ride out the changes and wait for the expansions.

Your argument is a pile of garbage. As if you have any authority to administer some sort of seal of approval on who is and isn't a true 40k fan. You're making distinctions drawn from nothing but your own tiny, pedantic viewpoint and yet you have the gall to act like some kind of arbiter and gatekeeper for an entire hobby? Kindly refrain from making similar statements in the future, for all our sakes, because you make a fool of yourself for saying them and a fool of us for having to listen to them.

I have been waiting for gw to change back into a decent company for about 10 years.

They used to have a loyal base of customers who bought regulaly bought their products, and would buy multiple armies. They would then bring in new people and try to keep them loyal, making them money. There is a sayin in business '20%of loyal customers make up 50% of sales'

Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

battleranch wrote:
Embrace change

And buy a lot of liquid greenstuff to fill all the bubblez, in the end, like the other chap said dont forget to be gratefull about the time you spend doing it

 necrovamp wrote:
Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

I doubt "we" matter anymore. Hardcore 40k fans, of the type that register on internet forums are like these brony-types that have popped up everywhere. They're loud, might be incredibly into a thing and spend a lot of money/time on it, but are nothing but a tiny speck on the overall sales charts. We're the bronies of 40k, utterly insignificant to the brand and its fortunes, dwarfed as we are by the invisible population of transient noobs who grow into and out of the hobby over six months.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 necrovamp wrote:
Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

I doubt "we" matter anymore. Hardcore 40k fans, of the type that register on internet forums are like these brony-types that have popped up everywhere. They're loud, might be incredibly into a thing and spend a lot of money/time on it, but are nothing but a tiny speck on the overall sales charts. We're the bronies of 40k, utterly insignificant to the brand and its fortunes, dwarfed as we are by the invisible population of transient noobs who grow into and out of the hobby over six months.

Not sure how I feel like being a 40K Bronie!

Yeah but you alternate who gets the first move in chess and both sides have queens.

 necrovamp wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 necrovamp wrote:
Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

I doubt "we" matter anymore. Hardcore 40k fans, of the type that register on internet forums are like these brony-types that have popped up everywhere. They're loud, might be incredibly into a thing and spend a lot of money/time on it, but are nothing but a tiny speck on the overall sales charts. We're the bronies of 40k, utterly insignificant to the brand and its fortunes, dwarfed as we are by the invisible population of transient noobs who grow into and out of the hobby over six months.

Not sure how I feel like being a 40K Bronie!

Embrace it.

It's been said before in the thread, but GW does not have a community representative (since stores and facebook pages don't seem to count?) because all the feedback they'd get is what a bunch of morons they are, and how "we" know business way better than they do, and rants about how "our" show-up-and-win lists get less effective in a new edition.

battleranch wrote:
Well Fafnir. I don't believe you. I don't think you actually like 40k.

Yes, I give in. I don't like actually 40k.

That truescale marine army that I lovingly converted, that cost more for 16 models than you'll probably pay for all the armies you'll ever play, and that I wrote 16 pages of fluff for, was only because I didn't actually like 40k in the first place.

All those Inquisitor models I converted and wrote more fluff for? Same thing, because I didn't like 40k.

The Daemonhunter/Grey Knight, Ork, and Death Korps armies that I've invested so heavily into, many with their own very involving conversions and paintjobs? Yeah, because I do not like 40k, and I never did.

I'm done with you.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 necrovamp wrote:
Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

I doubt "we" matter anymore. Hardcore 40k fans, of the type that register on internet forums are like these brony-types that have popped up everywhere. They're loud, might be incredibly into a thing and spend a lot of money/time on it, but are nothing but a tiny speck on the overall sales charts. We're the bronies of 40k, utterly insignificant to the brand and its fortunes, dwarfed as we are by the invisible population of transient noobs who grow into and out of the hobby over six months.

Its true, GW is probably going off the numbers they get from their stores, when I worked for them the average new person spent $1500 in the first year, the "vets" was $500 or less, and selling 100+ starters a month vs the dozen boxes the neck beards bought, its obvious where the focus is. Its showing even moreso now that GW is pulling tables out of stores and getting really anal about "loitering", "vets" have (mostly) informed opinions that can taint otherwise blissfully ignorant noobs.

 necrovamp wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 necrovamp wrote:
Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

I doubt "we" matter anymore. Hardcore 40k fans, of the type that register on internet forums are like these brony-types that have popped up everywhere. They're loud, might be incredibly into a thing and spend a lot of money/time on it, but are nothing but a tiny speck on the overall sales charts. We're the bronies of 40k, utterly insignificant to the brand and its fortunes, dwarfed as we are by the invisible population of transient noobs who grow into and out of the hobby over six months.

Not sure how I feel like being a 40K Bronie!

I am certain bronies have a much bigger effect on my little pony then hardcore warhammer players do on GW
though hasbro doesn't seem to like bronies much and will probably run MLP into the ground to be rid of them... then wonder where the fanbase went
though that is a topic for another day, this isn 't a pony thread...yet

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
Yeah but you alternate who gets the first move in chess ...

Which only matters if you're playing more than one game...

 Ravenous D wrote:
Its true, GW is probably going off the numbers they get from their stores, when I worked for them the average new person spent $1500 in the first year, the "vets" was $500 or less, and selling 100+ starters a month vs the dozen boxes the neck beards bought, its obvious where the focus is. Its showing even moreso now that GW is pulling tables out of stores and getting really anal about "loitering", "vets" have (mostly) informed opinions that can taint otherwise blissfully ignorant noobs.

And it's this simplistic idea of things that adds one more reason to the list of why GW needs to die ASAP and get taken over by someone who knows how to run a gaming company. You'd have to be a short-sighted idiot to write off the veteran players, since they're a big part of the reason WHY you sell so much to newbies. They might not buy as much themselves, but they keep the community going, put awesome complete armies on the table and give new players something to envy, ensure that there's always a game going on and make a new customer confident that their $1500 investment isn't just going to sit around collecting dust with nobody to play against, give free advertising by telling everyone they know about how awesome your game is, etc. If you drive away the older players you lose all that, and new customers have a lot less reason to become customers.

Unfortunately that kind of short-sighted idiocy is entirely typical of GW's management, and the only thing that can change it is for the company to die.

 Fafnir wrote:
I'm done with you.

Gak! I must hate 40K as well. That's the only explanation!

battleranch wrote:
. You should realize you are expendable to them. You're not going to buy 2 or 3 armies any more. Why should they care about what you say?

Sigged. So sigged.

 Peregrine wrote:

And it's this simplistic idea of things that adds one more reason to the list of why GW needs to die ASAP and get taken over by someone who knows how to run a gaming company. You'd have to be a short-sighted idiot to write off the veteran players, since they're a big part of the reason WHY you sell so much to newbies. They might not buy as much themselves, but they keep the community going, put awesome complete armies on the table and give new players something to envy, ensure that there's always a game going on and make a new customer confident that their $1500 investment isn't just going to sit around collecting dust with nobody to play against, give free advertising by telling everyone they know about how awesome your game is, etc. If you drive away the older players you lose all that, and new customers have a lot less reason to become customers.

Unfortunately that kind of short-sighted idiocy is entirely typical of GW's management, and the only thing that can change it is for the company to die.

Yes, let's get WotC in here which will change to a MtG model where they force your old models and units to be unplayable every 2 years so you constantly have to buy an entire new army.

Also, WotC has been C&D happy to tons of Kickstarters... if you think GW has a monopoly on trying to sue 3rd parties out of business, WotC is doing it even more than GW is. The difference is WotC is even better at it.

No company is ever going to keep the 'veterans' happy. I don't know of a single fandom anywhere on the internet where the 'veterans' don't hate everything the company does which is business driven and not catering to them as the primary focus even though these 'vets' overestimate their worth and percentage of income.

It is almost universal that 'vets' are unpleasable, unreasonable and have much much much less of a purchasing impact than they think they do. If GW had a community rep, it would do what HASBRO does... Tells the 'community' that you angry unhappy old men buying their toys make up less than 10% of the market so quit your bitchin.

I don't really see how 'vets' are hard done by. We already got into the game when it was a lot less expensive and now we need less but can still buy it and it's just fine.

What am I missing? Did GW kick a bunch of neckbeards out of their shop for standing around and being all jaded, talking about kickstarters and Corvus Belli?

The only thing anyone has a gripe about is the price, which is going up all the time. That sucks for everyone.

This may have already been said but here goes:

GW will never have a community manager because that would mean they were willing to listen to expressed concerns and act upon them in some meaningful away. The moment you publicize an open forum where this community representative will manage and promote discussion that NEW customers can be directed to, you are giving up some of the control on how the customer perceives the hobby.

That's not to say GW does not care, but its that they are not willing to give up any sort of brand image that gives anyone the impression it's not the land of sunshine user level. I am still surprised they have Facebook pages (albeit heavily supervised for posted content).

GW does have an Outreach Manager but the title seems to be a misnomer.

nkelsch wrote:

Yes, let's get WotC in here which will change to a MtG model where they force your old models and units to be unplayable every 2 years so you constantly have to buy an entire new army.

That rather misrepresents how it works. It depends on the format that is being played. You have 'Standard', which covers the most recent two years only, 'Modern', which is nearly 10 years and 'Legacy'/'Vintage' which go back to the beginning of about 20 years. Of all cards ever printed, only a tiny fraction are banned from play making them unusable, which is a lot more than can be said of the last two decades of GW miniatures in which whole ranges have been axed.

This means with MtG that if you want to only ever play Standard then your cards will go obsolete, this it true. But you're overlooking the fact that there are commonly played formats in which they are still legal. Also you know well before hand that these cards are only legal two years, unlike GW releases in which you don't know what will be dropped as each codex is released. Standard is good for newcomers because all the cards of the last two years are readily available, and other formats are good for older players who have older collections of cards that are out of print. If they didn't have the concept of 'Standard', then newcomers would always be competing with a pool of tens of thousands of cards spanning decades, many out of print and with unobtainable collectors values, which is just ridiculous.

But no, building a game around several formats to appeal to all sorts of players, that's just stupid.

Actually, lets look at all the other dumb stuff WotC do for Magic. They maintain a full online database of all the cards printed with rulings of each and a website with daily articles about decklists being played around the world at tournaments, or those being sent in by gamers, or discussing the design process behind cards and sets. They also have all their rules printed in full on their website. When there's a new set of cards released, in the weeks beforehand the entire set is 'leaked' onto the internet a few cards each day. Then you get various events, the first being a week before general release, but also their 'Game Days' held afterwards as well as the numerous Tournaments. At these you can win cards and other things exclusive to those events, every friday is their Friday Night Magic in which in addition to any local prize pool, you can win alternate art cards by either winning the evening, or being part of a random draw at the end of the night. So it's not only the winners who stand to get something. In fact, their releases in general, feel like 'Events' that are memorable. What does GW do? Clamp down on discussion and then put the stuff out with a tiny fanfare in White Dwarf.

From what I can see, Wizards do a lot to make each release event a memorable one and encourage a community through multiple events, they run Tournaments nationally and internationally, there are prizes big and small as well as odds and ends just for turning up so everyone gets a little something to take home, and their engagement online is good too with reader submissions on questions/decklists and running their own forums. Does GW do ANY of those things? Sure, Hasbro is a big company and like all companies I'm sure there are plenty of things to criticise, but the way MtG is handled for the gaming community puts GW's meagre efforts to shame.

Just as an example, here's a story about the kind of positive impact a good customer interaction can have for a company. After reading the story, scroll down the the comments section and read the overwhelmingly positive reactions given by common people:

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/boy-writes-letter-lego-losing-minifigure-gets-awesome-220816003.html

nkelsch wrote:
Yes, let's get WotC in here which will change to a MtG model where they force your old models and units to be unplayable every 2 years so you constantly have to buy an entire new army.

As a person who has played a lot of MtG and GW games, I need to weigh in on this. First of all MtG is a finished product straight out of the box. No painting, no assembly, just play with the cards. Secondly, people talk about MtG changing every 3 months because of new set release and GW never changing, this is partially true.

- I can play up to 4 of any MtG card in any deck if I am playing casual. There is no requirement I ever update the deck. Minimum entry price is $30 plus some donated lands.
- I can play the vast majority of cards in Legacy tournaments which will set me back $2000 for a competitive deck. The is no requirement to update the deck unless I want remain competitive, which may run $250 a year.
- I can only play the two most recent blocks and the most recent core set in Standard tournaments which will set me back $500 for a competitive deck. There will be a requirement to update the deck at least once a year when the block rotates, which will run around $400 every year.
- Draft and sealed are played with product which must be purchased.

- I can play any of my models in 40K at the casual level and disregard WYSIWYG. I am not required to buy any models from GW and can play with postit notes if I want. Minimum entry price is $100 for core rules and 2 codexes.
- I can play in tournament, but the army must typically be GW models which are WYSIWYG. GW changes the rules every edition meaning I will need to pick one of two options; be competitive or not. If I choose to be non-competitive, I'll field what I have. If I choose to be competitive I will need to update my models to meet the current WYSIWYG standards and probably buy new models for the most recent OP unit (flyers currently). I would guess this is going to be about $500 in GW product, plus another $250 in labor for initial investment and then another $200 every year for rework and new models.
- GW also does this lovely thing known as codex creep, meaning you need to buy a whole new army to be competitive. Another $750.

In the end, MtG and 40K are both money pits, with each taking large sums of money if a person wishes to be continually competitive. Either game is as cheap or expensive as you want it to be.

Anybody who thinks WotC could do a worse job of this than GW is, I assume, completely ignorant of how WotC (in particular Magic) positions itself and deals with it's fans. Mark Rosewater has written a PhD level discourse on game design FOR FREE over the past decade on the Magic website and that is the tip of the iceberg as far as their fan/community interaction goes.

It is far easier for any company to just "lurk" it is not like we as a community are not free with our opinions and they need to be dragged out of us.

We are not likely to take any opinions from them with any degree of grace either without being bombarded with posts or private messages.

It is far more fun all of us being "peers" and your opinion is no better than mine... but I think mine is better anyway.

 Talizvar wrote:
It is far easier for any company to just "lurk" it is not like we as a community are not free with our opinions and they need to be dragged out of us.

We are not likely to take any opinions from them with any degree of grace either without being bombarded with posts or private messages.

It is far more fun all of us being "peers" and your opinion is no better than mine... but I think mine is better anyway.

Actually, if you look at the Through the Breach thread in News and Rumors, there are two people posting in there, Lalochezia and Miggidy_Mack, these two guys work for Wyrd (the company making Through the Breach). Since they started posting, there has been a level of openness with them answering questions and giving us hints, etc... A lot of tension has been relieved since their entrance in the thread.

a community representative can help improve the image of the company, and alleviate stress... The problem becomes again, GW has no interest in answering our question, etc...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
It is far easier for any company to just "lurk" it is not like we as a community are not free with our opinions and they need to be dragged out of us.

We are not likely to take any opinions from them with any degree of grace either without being bombarded with posts or private messages.

It is far more fun all of us being "peers" and your opinion is no better than mine... but I think mine is better anyway.

Actually, if you look at the Through the Breach thread in News and Rumors, there are two people posting in there, Lalochezia and Miggidy_Mack, these two guys work for Wyrd (the company making Through the Breach). Since they started posting, there has been a level of openness with them answering questions and giving us hints, etc... A lot of tension has been relieved since their entrance in the thread.

a community representative can help improve the image of the company, and alleviate stress... The problem becomes again, GW has no interest in answering our question, etc...

New companies would have some measure of kindness shown to them since they have no history of past "sins" people feel they should be accountable for.
I am glad there is a feeling of progress with Wyrd, I just think it may not continue as expectations ramp up.

I think GW is trying to model themselves after Apple: market a pretty series of products and do not admit that there are problems with said products.

I personally believe that to at least look for a means of demonstrating a passion for your product and being on the hunt to make it better can be respected.

 Talizvar wrote:
New companies would have some measure of kindness shown to them since they have no history of past "sins" people feel they should be accountable for.

And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GW can't have a community representative because of their past sins, but because they don't have a community representative (among other things) they continue to add more sins, therefore ensuring that they'll always have sins to be guilty of and never participate in the community. GW needs to just accept that even if it might be difficult at first the long-term health of the game is what is important.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
It is far easier for any company to just "lurk" it is not like we as a community are not free with our opinions and they need to be dragged out of us.

We are not likely to take any opinions from them with any degree of grace either without being bombarded with posts or private messages.

It is far more fun all of us being "peers" and your opinion is no better than mine... but I think mine is better anyway.

Actually, if you look at the Through the Breach thread in News and Rumors, there are two people posting in there, Lalochezia and Miggidy_Mack, these two guys work for Wyrd (the company making Through the Breach). Since they started posting, there has been a level of openness with them answering questions and giving us hints, etc... A lot of tension has been relieved since their entrance in the thread.

a community representative can help improve the image of the company, and alleviate stress... The problem becomes again, GW has no interest in answering our question, etc...

New companies would have some measure of kindness shown to them since they have no history of past "sins" people feel they should be accountable for.
I am glad there is a feeling of progress with Wyrd, I just think it may not continue as expectations ramp up.

I think GW is trying to model themselves after Apple: market a pretty series of products and do not admit that there are problems with said products.

I personally believe that to at least look for a means of demonstrating a passion for your product and being on the hunt to make it better can be respected.

How about Reaper then? They are over 20 years old and regularly interact at all levels with their customers. They are not even afraid of jumping into discussions with those who are actively hating on their products and take their lumps along the way. You can speak with all levels of the company without much difficulty from production, design all the way to Ed at the top.

 Peregrine wrote:
And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GW can't have a community representative because of their past sins, but because they don't have a community representative (among other things) they continue to add more sins, therefore ensuring that they'll always have sins to be guilty of and never participate in the community. GW needs to just accept that even if it might be difficult at first the long-term health of the game is what is important.

Oooh! You said the magic words:

'long term'

Not something that factors into much of what GW does really.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GW can't have a community representative because of their past sins, but because they don't have a community representative (among other things) they continue to add more sins, therefore ensuring that they'll always have sins to be guilty of and never participate in the community. GW needs to just accept that even if it might be difficult at first the long-term health of the game is what is important.

Oooh! You said the magic words:

'long term'

Not something that factors into much of what GW does really.

Yeah. This is the reason for my hope that GW dies as quickly as possible and gets bought by a company that can run things properly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GW can't have a community representative because of their past sins, but because they don't have a community representative (among other things) they continue to add more sins, therefore ensuring that they'll always have sins to be guilty of and never participate in the community. GW needs to just accept that even if it might be difficult at first the long-term health of the game is what is important.

Oooh! You said the magic words:

'long term'

Not something that factors into much of what GW does really.

Yeah. This is the reason for my hope that GW dies as quickly as possible and gets bought by a company that can run things properly.

Like who?

No matter who bought GW, there would always be someone pissing and moaning about the direction of the company. Its what gamers do!

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Like who?

No matter who bought GW, there would always be someone pissing and moaning about the direction of the company. Its what gamers do!

As I've already mentioned, my preference is WotC, since they've done a very good job of handling MTG. Especially in the context of community support/interaction GW could really learn a few lessons from them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
New companies would have some measure of kindness shown to them since they have no history of past "sins" people feel they should be accountable for.

And so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. GW can't have a community representative because of their past sins, but because they don't have a community representative (among other things) they continue to add more sins, therefore ensuring that they'll always have sins to be guilty of and never participate in the community. GW needs to just accept that even if it might be difficult at first the long-term health of the game is what is important.

But it's haaaaaaard.

I don't have any WotC games, though D&D certainly is appealing to the sword-and-sorcery extremely cheesy fantasy lover that has taken over me in the past month.

From what I can gather, they've managed to create a very good community. The D&D forum especially is a very friendly forum. After a few months, the admins haven't shut down the thread where I asked about Pathfinder (though the responses were overwhelming pro-D&D).

The games they produce, as far as I can tell, are excellent. They are actively supported and stuff. The company is even re-releasing AD&D 1st Edition! I can't imagine GW re-releasing Rogue Trader or the Harry the Hammer WFB games.

The hobby may not do so well with WotC since their wargaming rules have been, let's face it, failures. However, it would not be disastrous at all.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The hobby may not do so well with WotC since their wargaming rules have been, let's face it, failures. However, it would not be disastrous at all.

On the other hand, WotC isn't stupid. If they buy GW they know they've got an established game with an existing community, and I think they'd be smart enough to find people who know wargames and improve on that base instead of running it into the ground. And they certainly wouldn't do worse than GW is already doing with their rules...

Although I'm not sure it was even a failure, IIRC their Star Wars miniature game was fairly successful and only died because of licensing issues.

Chainmail 2nd Edition disappeared despite using a well-known background as a selling point. The dungeon skirmish game they're releasing now isn't exactly doing well AFAIK.

They're not stupid at all. But what I don't want is to buy a box of pre-painted 40k miniatures and pray for a Long Fang with a Lascannon . . .

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
They're not stupid at all. But what I don't want is to buy a box of pre-painted 40k miniatures and pray for a Long Fang with a Lascannon . . .

But, as mentioned, WotC isn't stupid. They know that 40k isn't a pre-painted game, and that making it into one would destroy what makes 40k popular. The fact that they've tried in the past to cash in on the prepainted market doesn't mean that they'd insist on only having prepainted games, it just means that they'd have separate product lines for different markets. The most likely result of buying GW would be that most of the designers keep their jobs with just a change of logo and a "keep up the good work", while the main emphasis in changes would be in the rules (make them not suck) and marketing (have some).

 Peregrine wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
They're not stupid at all. But what I don't want is to buy a box of pre-painted 40k miniatures and pray for a Long Fang with a Lascannon . . .

But, as mentioned, WotC isn't stupid. They know that 40k isn't a pre-painted game, and that making it into one would destroy what makes 40k popular. The fact that they've tried in the past to cash in on the prepainted market doesn't mean that they'd insist on only having prepainted games, it just means that they'd have separate product lines for different markets. The most likely result of buying GW would be that most of the designers keep their jobs with just a change of logo and a "keep up the good work", while the main emphasis in changes would be in the rules (make them not suck) and marketing (have some).

I tend to agree with this statement. The GW models and product offerings are fine for the most part. The biggest issues are the rules, interactions with the public and pricing. The rules are a disaster and codex creep makes it even worse. GW blatantly ignores the community, sometimes doing everything in their power to stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalala" over and over. Lastly, the prices are astronomical and compound with the issues above. WotC, hell even Hasbro, does a pretty good job with all three of these things and I would think make it far better.

While in general I have more faith in WotC than in GW, I would not be certain WotC would handle 40k well. Back in the 90s Decipher made a great Star Wars CCG. WotC acquired the license and all but ruined the game.

 spaceelf wrote:
While in general I have more faith in WotC than in GW, I would not be certain WotC would handle 40k well. Back in the 90s Decipher made a great Star Wars CCG. WotC acquired the license and all but ruined the game.

Decipher managed to kill the game themselves long before Lucas gave WotC the license.

Before we talk about how WotC or Hasbro would be better or worse in the marketing and sales part of the hobby, lets please take a minute and remember GW is the company that said no to Wallmart when they wanted to carry their line.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The hobby may not do so well with WotC since their wargaming rules have been, let's face it, failures. However, it would not be disastrous at all.

On the other hand, WotC isn't stupid. If they buy GW they know they've got an established game with an existing community, and I think they'd be smart enough to find people who know wargames and improve on that base instead of running it into the ground. And they certainly wouldn't do worse than GW is already doing with their rules...

Although I'm not sure it was even a failure, IIRC their Star Wars miniature game was fairly successful and only died because of licensing issues.

I fully believe in WotC and I dream of a day when they wrest 40K away from GW. I'm with you there. However, people who bad-talk that idea are probably remembering Dreamblade, a game that was such a disaster that WotC was nearly put out of business, or dropped by Hasbro, which is pretty much the same thing.

There is every reason to believe that Wizards have learned from that debacle, though, and the lessons of it show all over the place in their releases since.

WotC acquired the Star Wars license (maybe something to do with Hasbro owns WotC and Lucas owning parts of Hasbro) and made an entirely new card game incompatible with the Decipher one. WotC didn't 'ruin' the game, Lucasfilm finished it when they wouldn't renew the licence with Decipher, it was clear they wanted it to go elsewhere.

It wasn't the fault of WotC that their game was incompatible because Decipher owned the previous game design if not the licence. They are at fault however for their new game being rubbish. I say all that as someone who was incensed when Decipher lost the licence. But that was over 10 years ago now, I think generally they have a better record over the last decade than GW who have released almost no new games (great work for a 'workshop') and been determined to bury the remaining few 'specialist games' and have choked off the availability of popular releases like Space Hulk with their fetish for 'limited edition' stuff.

In answer to the original question:
This simple reason is that the rule set isn't tight enough to keep people fulfilling any type of customer-liason position around long enough to actually know what they are doing.

Building on that, the costs involved in actively responding to this large a community would be outrageous.

I wish they would just use something like uservoice.com or stackexchange.com and allow the community to vote on the top issues that need rectifying. Then release monthly FAQs until things settle down.

 Fafnir wrote:


See, here's the thing. I didn't want to necessarily stop playing. I really did want to enjoy 40k and 6th edition, but I simply found it to be unenjoyable. I want to like 40k and everything about it, that's why I'm here. We're not just haters for the sake of hating, everyone here wants 40k to succeed. But the problem is that the way the game is managed and the company that manage it are alienating us. I don't like the direction 40k is moving in, and I'm very concerned, because I used to enjoy it so much. Myself and others are not being negative for the sake of being negative, but because we care about this game and this world and we don't want to see it go the way it is going.

This. This. This. Exalted.

If GW hadn't made the universe they did they would have died years ago. We love that universe. We helped make that universe. Look at BL authors like ADB and Kyme. It's the fans that made cement for GW's aqueducts. Yes they supplied the water but we the fans made the pipelines.


MattyRM inquired earlier about why we should treat GW different from any other PLC. The difference is a lot of us grew up with this company. We helped nurture it. We had a voice once. It was us that made it a PLC. I think it boils down, to me and a few others, that GW took our love for the universe and said "yeah, you don't matter. don't matter how long you've been doing it. you're not our target demo." and thats what hurts really. GW wasn't founded on quick sale teens, but that's their new business plan, so who am I to judge? Besides with my wallet. Which honestly I don't want to do. I want to want to spend money on this. I finally have a real job dammit!

And matty I miss you in OT. Especially in the gun topics. You're very much needed to keep the armchair generals in line.

GW know exactly what the community think. Unfortunately, money talks louder than words. If you want to change GW, stop buying their stuff.

 BryllCream wrote:
GW know exactly what the community think. Unfortunately, money talks louder than words. If you want to change GW, stop buying their stuff.

Or buy all their shares.

ALL their shares?

If you're Bill Gates, why not?

Yes, but most people aren't Bill Gates, and most hobbyists don't have the money to buy every single one of their dirty shares. Anyway, chappies like Kirby aren't likely to be selling their shares any time soon.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Yes, but most people aren't Bill Gates, and most hobbyists don't have the money to buy every single one of their dirty shares. Anyway, chappies like Kirby aren't likely to be selling their shares any time soon.

You don't need ALL the shares. Just enough to have controlling interest. Something like every person who's been a customer of GW just needs to shell in some $1000 or something like that. Can't remember how much exactly, but I calculated it in a previous thread about more or less the same topic.

Also, LOL @ this thread past about page 2.

 SurfPenguin wrote:
OP, let me ask you a simple question: If you were running a company, would you want a phone line where, no matter when you picked it up any hour of the day you got nothing other than an endless string of insults, obscenities, and screaming demands that you essentially give your product away for free?

You wouldn't?

Well, now you know why GW doesn't have a community representative.

Seriously, if 'the community' wants GW to listen to them, then said 'community' had better start saying something other than "You stupid who don't know we don't give a damn about your wellbeing as a company, give us everything we want, right now, for free!"

Indeed. No one's actually shown much effort in proving all that customer support builds the brand or makes them money, or that there is more money to be made. Its a tiny niche market.

A community representative is not the same thing as a phone line or customer support.

It is about communication and spin. Politicians have such folks. Most people do not think highly about politicians. However, they think that their politician (elected official) is doing a good job. Seems to me that community reps work.

 spaceelf wrote:
A community representative is not the same thing as a phone line or customer support.

It is about communication and spin. Politicians have such folks. Most people do not think highly about politicians. However, they think that their politician (elected official) is doing a good job. Seems to me that community reps work.

Exactly, they don't need someone to sit down and sift through forums for the non offensive comments to address, they need someone who can stand up and tell us price rises, limited editions at a 100% mark up, the 'no sneak peak' policies and finecast are GOOD things. Most of us won't believe it but that is a community reps real job, trying to spin bad stuff to make their employer look reasonable/good/our savior.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


See, here's the thing. I didn't want to necessarily stop playing. I really did want to enjoy 40k and 6th edition, but I simply found it to be unenjoyable. I want to like 40k and everything about it, that's why I'm here. We're not just haters for the sake of hating, everyone here wants 40k to succeed. But the problem is that the way the game is managed and the company that manage it are alienating us. I don't like the direction 40k is moving in, and I'm very concerned, because I used to enjoy it so much. Myself and others are not being negative for the sake of being negative, but because we care about this game and this world and we don't want to see it go the way it is going.

This. This. This. Exalted.

If GW hadn't made the universe they did they would have died years ago. We love that universe. We helped make that universe. Look at BL authors like ADB and Kyme. It's the fans that made cement for GW's aqueducts. Yes they supplied the water but we the fans made the pipelines.


MattyRM inquired earlier about why we should treat GW different from any other PLC. The difference is a lot of us grew up with this company. We helped nurture it. We had a voice once. It was us that made it a PLC. I think it boils down, to me and a few others, that GW took our love for the universe and said "yeah, you don't matter. don't matter how long you've been doing it. you're not our target demo." and thats what hurts really. GW wasn't founded on quick sale teens, but that's their new business plan, so who am I to judge? Besides with my wallet. Which honestly I don't want to do. I want to want to spend money on this. I finally have a real job dammit!

And matty I miss you in OT. Especially in the gun topics. You're very much needed to keep the armchair generals in line.

And your post made me realise why this is such an emotional issue for people better than the numerous arguments I've had with super pissed people like Phantom.

I can entirely understand the anger as a result of being such a long term fan and seeing things change right in front of your eyes.

Alas, such is the world we live in... Still, it will be worse in 50 years time when we all live in Hab-spires and dont even get served in stores by actual humans.

so, I see the discussion has veered from "why doesn't GW have a representative here that we can yell at?" to just another complaint war?

/thread?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


How about Reaper then? They are over 20 years old and regularly interact at all levels with their customers. They are not even afraid of jumping into discussions with those who are actively hating on their products and take their lumps along the way. You can speak with all levels of the company without much difficulty from production, design all the way to Ed at the top.

That's the difference between a gaming/modeling company run by gamers and modelers and a gaming/modeling company run by accountants, Sean.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
so, I see the discussion has veered from "why doesn't GW have a representative here that we can yell at?" to just another complaint war?

/thread?

You expected something different? There are like 6 threads in GD which are nothing but complaint wars...

GW is not run by accountants. I know a lot of accountants and they would never tell you to throw away your existing customer base or alienate existing customers if they're worth their salt.

agustin wrote:
GW is not run by accountants. I know a lot of accountants and they would never tell you to throw away your existing customer base or alienate existing customers if they're worth their salt.

No, its run by bad accountants.

Here's an interview with Rick Priestley done a few days ago.

http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.nl/2013/01/rick-priestley-interview-from-realms-of.html

The most damning bit towards GW is this:
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!"

 Peregrine wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Like who?

No matter who bought GW, there would always be someone pissing and moaning about the direction of the company. Its what gamers do!

As I've already mentioned, my preference is WotC, since they've done a very good job of handling MTG. Especially in the context of community support/interaction GW could really learn a few lessons from them.

Funny, WotC ruined MtG for me and I don't play the game anymore.

I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

But WotC don't just make MtG, they make D&D as well, which is pretty robust.

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

I've never played competive MtG, but expansion creep was very notable at around Visions, when I quit. Don't really know what has happened since.

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

I've never played competive MtG, but expansion creep was very notable at around Visions, when I quit. Don't really know what has happened since.

So all of the top Legacy decks only use cards from the latest sets?

No. That's demonstrably untrue.

Backfire wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Backfire wrote:
I find it laughable how people in same sentence condemn GW from codex creep and praise WotC, which is way worse in this department.

Easily, because anyone who thinks that MTG suffers from power creep never played competitive MTG until recently.

I've never played competive MtG, but expansion creep was very notable at around Visions, when I quit. Don't really know what has happened since.

If you would look closely the older cards are actually more powerful than the new ones because they haven't figured out balance yet before then. Even a highly competitive standard deck would fall easily to a Legacy/Modern one.

And Visions was like what, 16 years ago? even during Visions, every card from the Power 9 came from the older sets.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But WotC don't just make MtG, they make D&D as well, which is pretty robust.

A lot of the criticism that is leveled at GW can be applied to the way WoTC handles D&D, though.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But WotC don't just make MtG, they make D&D as well, which is pretty robust.

A lot of the criticism that is leveled at GW can be applied to the way WoTC handles D&D, though.

But even in the way they handle D&D there are some improvements over GW. Can you see GW doing a re-release of 1st ed./Rogue Trader? Keeping the last edition of the rules in print? Letting the players have input on the new edition?

xxvaderxx wrote:
Before we talk about how WotC or Hasbro would be better or worse in the marketing and sales part of the hobby, lets please take a minute and remember GW is the company that said no to Wallmart when they wanted to carry their line.

Hasbro sells its games there, so does Asmodee, Mayfair, North Star, and whoever it is that makes Apples to Apples. I remember seeing several of these at Origins, never once thinking that they would go mainstream - but they did, and how!

GW's upper management has said that they don't want to sell to the masses, that is why they don't make use of advertisment media. I understand not advertising on TV but really no print ad campaign in comic books? How the do you think TSR sold its product, or WotWC sold MTG, or Mage Knight, Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh even have print campaigns even though they have a 30 minute commercial every saturday morning. Get with it GW you are 35 years behind the curve!

xraytango wrote:
GW's upper management has said that they don't want to sell to the masses, that is why they don't make use of advertisment media. I understand not advertising on TV but really no print ad campaign in comic books? How the do you think TSR sold its product, or WotWC sold MTG, or Mage Knight, Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh even have print campaigns even though they have a 30 minute commercial every saturday morning. Get with it GW you are 35 years behind the curve!

It never quite made sense to me that GW supposedly wants Little Timmy's money, yet refuses to advertise where little Timmy can see it. Meanwhile, they annoy/antagonize those who would appreciate their efforts to look elite. If they really wanted to chase away stingy older players and empty ten-year-olds' pockets, they'd already have a Saturday morning cartoon.

Personally, I never would have heard of Warhammer if I didn't just happen to see the boxes sitting on my FLGS's shelves when I was in to play MTG (which incidentally, I learned about through the magazine advertisements).

 daedalus wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Yes, but most people aren't Bill Gates, and most hobbyists don't have the money to buy every single one of their dirty shares. Anyway, chappies like Kirby aren't likely to be selling their shares any time soon.

You don't need ALL the shares. Just enough to have controlling interest. Something like every person who's been a customer of GW just needs to shell in some $1000 or something like that. Can't remember how much exactly, but I calculated it in a previous thread about more or less the same topic.

Also, LOL @ this thread past about page 2.

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

 Alfndrate wrote:

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

Well, google finance has it expressed in GBx, which I'm told is indeed the pence, but I was referring to what it takes for gamers to acquire controlling interest, not just a share.

To be honest, I forget how precisely I figured it last time, but at a Market Cap of 207 million (GBP, in this case), and almost 68,000 registered users on Dakka, you'd have to have every user ever registered on this site chip in about 1500 GBP in stock for those users to own half the shares of the company.

This is of course neglecting other minor details, like that the price inevitably would increase as it started getting bought up, and other economic factors even beyond me. This is also for 50% of the stock. I'm not sure how much controlling interest would be. Could be less.

This is of course, entirely academic, and of no significant import beyond that. Personally I think that the company being in control of "the fans" would probably damage it more than it currently is.

 daedalus wrote:

This is of course neglecting other minor details,

Like the fact that there are very few people on Dakka I'd trust on being able to work together, or even have the basic understanding of how not to screw up to run a bake sale, much less a company. Also, the fact that for those few who are at least that capable, I'd highly doubt that they'd have mutually compatible views for how things should be run.

 daedalus wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

I thought I read somewhere that the current going rate for a single standard share of Games Workshop PLC was 669 pence, not pounds... So, 66.9 pounds a share... For about a 110 dollars USD, you too can be a part of the gravy train. Think about it, want to buy a new Space Marine Vehicle? Buy a GW share! lol

Well, google finance has it expressed in GBx, which I'm told is indeed the pence, but I was referring to what it takes for gamers to acquire controlling interest, not just a share.

To be honest, I forget how precisely I figured it last time, but at a Market Cap of 207 million (GBP, in this case), and almost 68,000 registered users on Dakka, you'd have to have every user ever registered on this site chip in about 1500 GBP in stock for those users to own half the shares of the company.

This is of course neglecting other minor details, like that the price inevitably would increase as it started getting bought up, and other economic factors even beyond me. This is also for 50% of the stock. I'm not sure how much controlling interest would be. Could be less.

This is of course, entirely academic, and of no significant import beyond that. Personally I think that the company being in control of "the fans" would probably damage it more than it currently is.

Bah! Details! This is plastic space mans we're talking about we're all about the RAI not the RAW We'd be forging one hell of a narrative!

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

This is of course neglecting other minor details,

Like the fact that there are very few people on Dakka I'd trust on being able to work together, or even have the basic understanding of how not to screw up to run a bake sale, much less a company. Also, the fact that for those few who are at least that capable, I'd highly doubt that they'd have mutually compatible views for how things should be run.

Yeah, absolutely. Like I said, the point is just academic wankery, but interesting nonetheless.

If you could work all that out, a Kickstarter designed to raise capital to buy out GW to put it back in the "hands of the fans" would be utterly hilarious.

Regarding Dakkanaughts agreeing, the schism created would probably destroy the company. I mean, when you consider the militant holy war that almost happened as a result of the 5th ed autocannon discussions, having control over the writers would be pretty much having one hand on the self-destruct button.

I doubt you could buy enough shares to get a controlling interest anyway. Pretty sure Kirby owns enough of them to make that impossible, but I don't really know much about this kinda thing admittedly.