Alright everyone, lemme preface this by saying that I recognize that there are some very valid issues with Games Workshop, which need addressing sooner rather than later.
That said, I've seen quite a few things lately:
1) I've seen people complaining that the faster pace of updated rules is so bad that they cannot possibly keep up:
WarOne wrote: I simply cannot keep up with their update schedule and what I want to buy.
2) Alongside people saying that GW should update their rules faster:
morgoth wrote: It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
This is just an example - others include asking for more content in White Dwarf, then complaining about being charged to access the content that's exclusive to White Dwarf. People wanted a faster release schedule, and now they want it slower. People wanted GW to drop 0-1 restrictions in codecies, now people want them back.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
It sad really, but attempting to appease everyone will just end up making no one happy. I like the current release schedule pace and hope they never go back to releasing a codex every 3 months with almost nothing in between updates. Though I would like if they would every year release at a couple of new models for every army along with things like formations and dataslates. This would help keep things fresh and give players of outdated armies something to look forward to every year.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
I am surprised people would want the release process to speed up, but not expect a drop in quality. Some things should not be rushed, and people should not be surprised if something fouls up in the system when it is rushed.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Lower prices
Balanced ruleset/codexes
Spread the love to every army/faction
Drop resin
I would be very pleased if these things could be accomplished, but it will be a very chilly day in hell before they do.
The only one of these things that isn't based in a subjective judgement is the lower prices.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development. Many people, therefore, have different ideas of what exactly balance truly means.
Spreading the love is arguable - I would argue GW doesn't have 'love' anymore. 6th seemed to be the era of balanced codecies, until Tau and Eldar came out (and Daemons broke). But I don't think those were intentional 'love-gifts' from GW. I think they were dumb oversights.
I have a friend who loves their resin models (though yes, he and I do fight about it XD).
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
I am surprised people would want the release process to speed up, but not expect a drop in quality. Some things should not be rushed, and people should not be surprised if something fouls up in the system when it is rushed.
Well its not the quality as much as what they released. I mean the tempestus codex would have been a White Dwarf article years ago. But instead of finishing off all the main factions like want, they decide to release all this clutter thats not necessary and work on the main faction s properly first. So they did what we wanted, in a really odd and somewhat detrimental fashion.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
I am surprised people would want the release process to speed up, but not expect a drop in quality. Some things should not be rushed, and people should not be surprised if something fouls up in the system when it is rushed.
Well its not the quality as much as what they released. I mean the tempestus codex would have been a White Dwarf article years ago. But instead of finishing off all the main factions like want, they decide to release all this clutter thats not necessary and work on the main faction s properly first. So they did what we wanted, in a really odd and somewhat detrimental fashion.
If that makes sense.
I guess. But some people wanted those supplements. After losing the 'Grenadiers' doctrine after the 3.5-ed Guard Codex, my buddy has ACHED for a Storm Trooper army. My best friend who I just saw tonight is ecstatic over the Farsight supplement - Crisis Suit troops are his wet dream, the goddamn anime fan (I kid, I kid,).
It's almost as if Human beings have different desires and motivations and operating under the assumption that everyone wants the same thing out of a product, organization or person is stupid.
Your example would be better served if you provided an instance of someone saying they wanted one thing from GW, and then later bemoaning having that thing after GW gave it to them. Providing two separate instances of two different people wanting two different things is pointless.
Unfair how? Different people want different things.
The trick for any company is simply to find the path that more people approve of.
Unfair because people compare it constantly to games like Warmachine. I've played Warmachine, and I didn't like it for a multitude of reasons. I do not, however, go around to the Warmachine section of the forums and constantly yammer about how I didn't like it, nor do I do so around Warmachine night at my FLGS.
However, it seems like I can't go a day either in Real Life or on the Internet without hearing about how "Game X" is better for "Reason Y" when "Reason not-Y" is decried as a horrible failure after GW gets rid of Y.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
(Emphasis mine)
I found your issue, you think GW does stuff that is good...
By this I simply mean shoring up the many holes that exist in some of the "weaker" codexes (BA, SoB, C:SM etc.) and balancing some of the more ridiculous units out there like Riptides. Perfect balance is probably an impossibility, but right now there are some things that could be done to even things up a bit. I don't necessarily despise the way the game is going as far as core rules go, but its got a very "free-for-all" feel to it now that I'm not sure I like. Not liking resin is just a personal preference, but I do miss the old metal models and would love a return to them.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: By this I simply mean shoring up the many holes that exist in some of the "weaker" codexes (BA, SoB, C:SM etc.) and balancing some of the more ridiculous units out there like Riptides. Perfect balance is probably an impossibility, but right now there are some things that could be done to even things up a bit. I don't necessarily despise the way the game is going as far as core rules go, but its got a very "free-for-all" feel to it now that I'm not sure I like. Not liking resin is just a personal preference, but I do miss the old metal models and would love a return to them.
I guarantee you that any change GW makes to anything right now will piss enough people off that we'll have 2 front-page threads about it. That's how it seems lately - those need fixing, but when something's fixed, everyone cries about the manner in which GW fixed it, or really everything except "yay".
It is just that the business decisions that GW have made in the last 10 years make no sense, and also the alienation to their customer base, i love the Imperial knight design but for the money it costs here in Japan i can get a Macross(Robotech) transformable toy with metal parts and i don't have to paint it.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
(Emphasis mine)
I found your issue, you think GW does stuff that is good...
They do good. Lots really. But as soon as I say something good, there is a problem they made that goes along with it.
And to the OP, the scions codex could easily (about 10-15 minutes work) be put in the guard codex, or be released AFTER all the other books where released. There are way better ways of it happening than the way it was done. I think most people would prefer it if no supplements where out yet but all the books had been released before 7th with a bit more effort put into each. Then once that was done supplements and so forth where added for a while until next edition where the cycle goes again. Instead it was all messed up and random.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
(Emphasis mine)
I found your issue, you think GW does stuff that is good...
They do good. Lots really. But as soon as I say something good, there is a problem they made that goes along with it.
And to the OP, the scions codex could easily (about 10-15 minutes work) be put in the guard codex, or be released AFTER all the other books where released. There are way better ways of it happening than the way it was done. I think most people would prefer it if no supplements where out yet but all the books had been released before 7th with a bit more effort put into each. Then once that was done supplements and so forth where added for a while until next edition where the cycle goes again. Instead it was all messed up and random.
That's a fair enough appraisal, I suppose. I kinda liked the old Chapter Approved, which was the epitome of 'messed up and random' rules supplements, but to each his own I suppose.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: By this I simply mean shoring up the many holes that exist in some of the "weaker" codexes (BA, SoB, C:SM etc.) and balancing some of the more ridiculous units out there like Riptides. Perfect balance is probably an impossibility, but right now there are some things that could be done to even things up a bit. I don't necessarily despise the way the game is going as far as core rules go, but its got a very "free-for-all" feel to it now that I'm not sure I like. Not liking resin is just a personal preference, but I do miss the old metal models and would love a return to them.
I guarantee you that any change GW makes to anything right now will piss enough people off that we'll have 2 front-page threads about it. That's how it seems lately - those need fixing, but when something's fixed, everyone cries about the manner in which GW fixed it, or really everything except "yay".
Really though, is that surprising considering the vile reputation GW has built for itself? I truly do believe it considers its customers as some lowly life-form incapable of rational thought beyond the need to buy anything and everything GW releases. It's sickening, but I can't be too upset because I buy all of my models second-hand and usually find some fantastic deals, so they're really only hurting themselves. It's a bizarre company in a bizarre situation.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
(Emphasis mine)
I found your issue, you think GW does stuff that is good...
They do good. Lots really. But as soon as I say something good, there is a problem they made that goes along with it.
And to the OP, the scions codex could easily (about 10-15 minutes work) be put in the guard codex, or be released AFTER all the other books where released. There are way better ways of it happening than the way it was done. I think most people would prefer it if no supplements where out yet but all the books had been released before 7th with a bit more effort put into each. Then once that was done supplements and so forth where added for a while until next edition where the cycle goes again. Instead it was all messed up and random.
That's a fair enough appraisal, I suppose. I kinda liked the old Chapter Approved, which was the epitome of 'messed up and random' rules supplements, but to each his own I suppose.
As I said, 10 ish years ago that tempestus scions book would have been a white dwarf article. But since that road was sealed its doomed to be what it is hence why my example was like that. Otherwise id be thinking its better the white dwarf way too.
I've played Warmachine, and I didn't like it for a multitude of reasons. I do not, however, go around to the Warmachine section of the forums and constantly yammer about how I didn't like it, nor do I do so around Warmachine night at my FLGS.
Why not? If you care about Warmachine, and you want it to be a better game, keeping your criticisms to yourself only makes you part of the problem.
As a consumer, the only power you have in the market is your opinion and your money. Perhaps if more people complained about 40K, and more people abandoned it to play better games, Games Workshop would actually improve their rules.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: By this I simply mean shoring up the many holes that exist in some of the "weaker" codexes (BA, SoB, C:SM etc.) and balancing some of the more ridiculous units out there like Riptides. Perfect balance is probably an impossibility, but right now there are some things that could be done to even things up a bit. I don't necessarily despise the way the game is going as far as core rules go, but its got a very "free-for-all" feel to it now that I'm not sure I like. Not liking resin is just a personal preference, but I do miss the old metal models and would love a return to them.
I guarantee you that any change GW makes to anything right now will piss enough people off that we'll have 2 front-page threads about it. That's how it seems lately - those need fixing, but when something's fixed, everyone cries about the manner in which GW fixed it, or really everything except "yay".
Really though, is that surprising considering the vile reputation GW has built for itself? I truly do believe it considers its customers as some lowly life-form incapable of rational thought beyond the need to buy anything and everything GW releases. It's sickening, but I can't be too upset because I buy all of my models second-hand and usually find some fantastic deals, so they're really only hurting themselves. It's a bizarre company in a bizarre situation.
I agree that they're pretty fethed, and I'm not surprised at the outrage.
But I think the modern GW is trying to listen to their customers. They put Looted Wagon rules in WD, because of the outcry after it was leaked that it wasn't in the codex. They fixed Challenges in 7th Edition, so I can't feed Guard Sergeants to Bloodthirsters for fifteen combats anymore. I really think GW is actively working to climb out of the grave they dug for themselves, but instead of helping them up, the customers are jeering, hollering, and laughing at every slip.
I've played Warmachine, and I didn't like it for a multitude of reasons. I do not, however, go around to the Warmachine section of the forums and constantly yammer about how I didn't like it, nor do I do so around Warmachine night at my FLGS.
Why not? If you care about Warmachine, and you want it to be a better game, keeping your criticisms to yourself only makes you part of the problem.
As a consumer, the only power you have in the market is your opinion and your money. Perhaps if more people complained about 40K, and more people abandoned it to play better games, Games Workshop would actually improve their rules.
I voted against WM with my wallet, yes.
And I keep my opinions to myself because people act so offended when I talk about Warmachine negatively. I'll say things like "Combined Fire makes no sense" or "Tracked vehicles will always be better than walkers at a given tech level - have they not developed the Wheel?" and people will honest-to-god be offended and aghast that I dare joke in such a manner!
People also apparently act offended when you talk about 40K negatively. They get offended enough to even make threads about it, apparently.
Many of us who criticize 40K realize that the opinions of others are irrelevant, though. Everyone has different tastes, there are some people who hate things just to hate, there are some people who love things unconditionally and will defend it to the end. Point is, you're a customer. You have the right to voice your opinion on a product at all times; other peoples' sentiments be damned.
BlaxicanX wrote: People also apparently act offended when you talk about 40K negatively. They get offended enough to even make threads about it, apparently.
Many of us who criticize 40K realize that the opinions of others are irrelevant, though. Everyone has different tastes, there are some people who hate things just to hate, there are some people who love things unconditionally and will defend it to the end. Point is, you're a customer. You have the right to voice your opinion on a product at all times; other peoples' sentiments be damned.
Haha, I'm not that offended really - more saddened. GW is dying, but rather than mourn it's loss, people would rather piss on its corpse.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Haha, I'm not that offended really - more saddened. GW is dying, but rather than mourn it's loss, people would rather piss on its corpse.
When your teats are sore from over milking, it's hard to empathise with the farmer when he trips over and falls.
It'd be easy for GW to win. Look at what most of their competitors are doing... make games with a realistic barrier to entry, write good rules, support good rules, support the community, encourage the community, give back to the community...
You know, the things they used to do and were the trend setters for the new upstarts.
The product has lost a great deal of it's value and has much lower value compared to other games at this point. High price does not equate to value, either. I'd be a happy customer if they did what I said. I may not like every decision, that's a different and personal case, but if you treated your customers as valued patrons instead of walking wallets who will buy anything with your stamp on it, then you'd be much better off.
And for the argument that we wanted faster rules but now complain that we got them, we wanted faster rules of a certain level of quality that didn't involve price increases and being nickle and dimed with additional content in many different forms. We just wanted codices faster and better rules support. We are getting one with the distinct lack of the other.
Agreed, there is too much negativity.
Gw have done plenty that is worthy of criticism, but really their biggest mistake is their poor communication, it's allowed the 'fans' to become a vocal cesspit of negativity.
They also seem convinced the internet isn't a big deal, which has allowed negative opinion to spread
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Call me optimistic (or sadistic, if you will) but I don't see the end of GW on the horizon just yet. In ten years? Maybe. In five? Unlikely.
You should head over to Dakka Discussions and read the forum more closely. I imagine you're going to see a lot more scrambling, and if things are changed, a much bigger down turn for the 14-15 Fiscal year.
I also recommend you read this 14 part series if you don't think GW is in dire straights:
Unit1126PLL wrote: But I think the modern GW is trying to listen to their customers. They put Looted Wagon rules in WD, because of the outcry after it was leaked that it wasn't in the codex.
If GW was trying to listen to their customers, they either wouldn't have cut the units from the codexes (multiple units, multiple codexes), or would have released the rules free online. As the rules already existed in the previous codex there's absolutely zero cost to them. Not paid for piecemeal, following the same trend we've been arguing against. But then, there's an entire thread devoted to GW and the concept of "Day one DLC" on this topic.
ahzek wrote: Agreed, there is too much negativity. Gw have done plenty that is worthy of criticism
Plenty worthy of criticism... too much criticism... -_-
TheKbob wrote: And for the argument that we wanted faster rules but now complain that we got them, we wanted faster rules of a certain level of quality that didn't involve price increases and being nickle and dimed with additional content in many different forms. We just wanted codices faster and better rules support. We are getting one with the distinct lack of the other.
I agree with this point. Some decisions of GW, I cannot make sense of it. My experience would be the SoB codex. Why a half hearted update (which they charged for it through Black Library) when a rework could have been possible. Perhaps they didn't want to do anything new without new models? I wouldn't know. But they have released a new Edition in a short time, whereas allowing SoB to languish in a semi-reworked state.
TheKbob wrote: And for the argument that we wanted faster rules but now complain that we got them, we wanted faster rules of a certain level of quality that didn't involve price increases and being nickle and dimed with additional content in many different forms. We just wanted codices faster and better rules support. We are getting one with the distinct lack of the other.
I agree with this point. Some decisions of GW, I cannot make sense of it. My experience would be the SoB codex. Why a half hearted update (which they charged for it through Black Library) when a rework could have been possible. Perhaps they didn't want to do anything new without new models? I wouldn't know. But they have released a new Edition in a short time, whereas allowing SoB to languish in a semi-reworked state.
Preachin' to the choir, brother. I hate our new codex. Not that it's particularly bad on the table, minus dedicated AA means, but it's just so bland and flat. And bad units stayed bad or got worse. And faith has gone from a really keen and rewarding system to back ally craps to a once per game mechanic that I've found almost entirely useless save Dominions or Seraphim.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development. Many people, therefore, have different ideas of what exactly balance truly means.
To me, it is less about releasing a perfect set of rules - that simply isn't possible. There are two main problems with GW rules and both are definitely possible to fix:
1.) Lack of playtesting: the rules either are not getting playtested at all or the playtesting is severely lacking. After every release, in an extremely short time window, gaping flaws are found in them. The latest example just being the CCB that causes a lot of problems. Those problems could have been found extremely easily if the rules had been playtested.
a) One huge reason for the poor rules quality is the rushed release. Releasing 7th so soon after 6th is a clear money-grab to boost sales and satisfy shareholders in order to cover up the consistenly lower overall sales. Fast releases aren't a problem, but they become one if the quality is lowered at the same time. Rushed content and quality simply do not go together well.
2) Consistently working on the rules: if there's a gaping flaw in the rules, it needs to be fixed asap. There is no space for discussing this. Rule problems need to be fixed IMMEDIATELY. Re-rollable 2++. CCB. etc. Both are two examples that can be fixed. GW actively decided to not fix the problems. That is, all things considered, shoddy working practice and every company who actually cares for their product would be ashamed of themselves. GW doesn't care.
To me, those two things bother me the most and it's the reason why we barely buy GW rules anymore. If we have to do the playtesting and if we have to fix the rules, why would we pay GW for their product?
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.
They do a ton of not needed stuff. I checked the chaos supplements the other day , they could all be in one book. The scion could be in the AM codex, which they technicly are, or in a WD. They update nids , force them to spam MC and FMC only to nerf MCs and FMCs a few months later , with no other option for nid players to play with. Why give nids a new codex at all then ? Other then forcing people to buy a codex , new models and then switching to another army .
They make escalation legal which is skewed in favor of few armies . Then everyone explains it as a counter to ++2 builds , and then shortly after they remove the counter ability . So now people that bough escalation have models that got nerfed and the problem of ++2 is not fixed.
It is as if they didn't want to make a good game and just hoped that people will buy what ever they make.
My fundamental issue with GW is based on their prices and their pricing model. I agree that imbalance and the like is an issue, but it's not the most severe issue. Everything comes back to the pricing structure, for me at least.
Let me make an analogy.
You are shopping at the supermarket. There's some nice corn you see in an aisle. Looking down at the written prices, you gasp... the corn costs $50/head of corn. Well, you like corn. Maybe corn is your favorite food. But no way in hell you're paying that much...
Other people start to bicker about it in the aisles. "I used to like corn, but now it's terrible!" "Look, the corn isn't even fresh. Some of it's expired!" "Those leaves look nasty! Why would they put corn out that's that nasty!"
While it looks like the people really care about the issues with the state of the corn, it should be obvious that everyone has eaten food that's expired or nasty or whatever and it hasn't been a big deal. No, what they're really doing is they just want to gripe about the ludicrous price of the corn but they don't want to seem like a cheap, one-issue johnny. I mean sure it sucks that the corn is past its expiration date, but that really would matter as much if the corn would just be piking cheaper, and those issues would be more likely to be forgiven.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.
Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.
I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.
My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?
Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.
If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.
I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.
Swastakowey wrote: I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.
And oddly enough I got third place in the last tournament that I went to and my list included trenchers in it...
Rule #1 of games like Warmachine and Infinity, don't listen to the forums when it comes to list building, you have to discover what works for your play style and your particular meta. Everything in Warmachine can be used competitively, it is just a question of finding the right role for it.
Swastakowey wrote: I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.
And oddly enough I got third place in the last tournament that I went to and my list included trenchers in it...
Rule #1 of games like Warmachine and Infinity, don't listen to the forums when it comes to list building, you have to discover what works for your play style and your particular meta. Everything in Warmachine can be used competitively, it is just a question of finding the right role for it.
So just like 40k, if I ignore the forums ill have a great time?
Yea I guessed as much, but such an intense game Id rather not be at a disadvantage. Since then I have got into many more games so its too late for me though.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.
Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.
I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.
My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?
Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.
If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.
Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.
Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.
And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.
You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?
Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.
Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.
I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.
My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?
Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.
If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.
Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.
Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.
And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.
You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?
Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.
Except at times many of the distinctions is less with stats and points as much as gear, some warjacks are nearly identical except with a different loadout, such as the Bonejacks.
Makumba wrote: And that makes warmahordes easier to balance then w40k , because ... ?
Because their rules are concise? Everything fits in using rules for the game, there's very little ambiguity about RAW vs. RAI in Warmahordes, because it was built from the ground up to foster competitive play. 40k on the other hand just kind of lays out all the ingredients and tells you to have fun cooking, without any indication of what you're going to make.
Also re: units, the main difference with Warmahordes is that while some units might be subpar, everything is viable with how you use it. There is basically zero situation where the answer to "I like the look of Unit X, how can I use it" is met with "Unit X sucks, take Unit Y instead" like in 40k; even maligned units such as the aforementioned Cygnar Trenchers or Khador Man o War troopers can be made to work in lists, and in the end it boils down to how you use them anyways, while 40k if you take subpar units you are actively and deliberately hurting your chances of winning simply by not taking the better unit.
The big problem why GW "can't win" is because everything they do has an ulterior motive. They release things faster, but test less and charge more, and add DLC (dataslates) to add what should have already been there, and supplements that cost the same for 2 pages of rules, not to mention removing entire units because god forbid a third-party company make a model for it and "steal" their sales for something they don't produce anyway. They add nonsense like objective cards to make the game more random, thinking that a wargame NEEDS to be random, and now supposedly there is going to be faction-specific objective decks (Orks are getting Ork specific objective cards), so 40k is now adding a CCG-type element to it as well, which will likely still be overpriced. And, of course, there's the underlying value for money where you pay a premium for everything because GW considers itself some designer brand, and get half of what you actually need so you need to pay double for every unit.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too.
No, they're not. They're more complex (in a good way) and, because of that, the interactions on the table have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw model cost/effectiveness, which are actually every bit as bad and obvious as in 40k. I've not met anyone in person who hasn't had this same realization (after a few years of hardcore PP or CB fandom, usually).
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
7th Edition:
£50 for three rulebooks that you can't buy separately even though most veterans don't need the fluff and pics books. No other options available.
Fast Codex releases:
With no testing or balance for double the price of the previous version justified by sticking a sheet of cardboard into the cover. Invalidated after less than two years by the release of a new edition of rules.
If your hobby is buying new GW stuff then all the above things are wonderful.
milkboy wrote: My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout.
To a certain extent that's true, although it's partly down to how you look at it. Where 40k might have a Dreadnought with 3 different weapon options, Warmachine just has three different Warjacks with fixed weapons... And you can change the function of those Warjacks by just changing your Warcaster.
Yes, 40k had a lot more fiddly little options... But many of those are useless or not worth the points to use them. Or essentially a no-brainer that everyone uses, so realistically not really an option...
On the balance issue, I see people constantly arguing that 40k couldn't possibly be made balanced because the rules are too complicated. To me, that seems like a really, really obvious sign that the game system that GW have chosen to create is fundamentally flawed, and needs fixing.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
I'm in a minority I suppose who think they are doing a good job, certainly models-wise, but IMO also rules-wise. 7th is a pretty decent improvement from 6th, and I enjoyed the gak out of 6th. They just charge too much, and are doing weird practices like DLC-only releases for a tabletop game with a large community of book nerds.
If GW were selling all their stuff for ~60-75% of what its going for now, I have a sneaking suspicion that the popular criticism against the game would diminish significantly.
1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones
Then most people online would be happy for a while.
You know, I guessed that, but I've honestly seen posts like yours that were serious, and so I wasn't sure.
It's that bad - I literally cannot tell when someone is being sarcastic about GW's options or is being serious!!
And sorry. :(
lol no problem my post was the recreation of everything people complain about.
GW not letting them use their tables for other games
The sell models to make a profit
Complain about exchange rates
Complain about the new ork model thats the exact same but is taller.
ect lol it bad man
1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones
Then most people online would be happy for a while.
The problem with 1, 2 and 3 are they have stores, and have to charge to keep them running.
4 can be made better by merging rules (shredding, rending, etc), and fewer complex situations (focussed fire, wound allocation).
5 is not usually a problem, until new models appear. If there is no model, it's not going to be a problem for long. Eldar Farseers on jetbikes, though?
GW face a comunity of rather nice polite and educated young adults. But are collective self can, on many occasion, be describe has «The Comic Book Guy»: a complete nit-picking nerd with an abyssimal sense of self-estime and to much time on its hands. It's not only GW, no multinational companie can pride itself of having a majority of «happy customers». Their customer base is so large and varied that you cannot please one without generating complain from an other.
I personnaly think GW price are quite reasonnable even though a massive quantity of you will think otherwise and all of us buy GW products. GW is victim of its one success. All those other wargame system comparable to Warhammer (Lord of the Ring, Hordes, Warmachine, Final Frontier, etc.) will one day face the same issues with similar results.
Has for the rule problem it need to exist (why changing a perfect set of rules if its perfect). That would spell the end of 40K. The market for wargaming miniature is already saturated. To survive, you need to sell to your regular customer and fans. Its for same reason they didn't updated SoB. Who would pay 45$ or more for 10 sisters in plastic when you already own 40 sisters well painted in metal? Making an entire new cast is risky and SoB have a small fan base outside of the players who already own one (I would like to start one some day, but I don't know many people sharing my point of view).
We can hope for some minor changes that will improve GW products. For exemple, more and more plastic kit of great quality but rather high price to replace old metal or resin miniatures; Tweek in the game system that will modified top and low tier build but not the middle tier really; More and more supplements and expentions to codex; New specialised game style like kill team, apocalypse, city fight, etc.
If you are not happy with this, don't hold your breath and whine and don't hope for other company to save you. The more they will grow the more they will act like GW. It's the fate of all big business. That's why its better to have many hobbies and focus on the good stuff rather than the bad stuff (God knows there is a lot of both when it comes to GW).
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples: Imperial Knights: £110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Do you actually realize why people don't complain about the gargantuan but complain about the Knight? The gargantuan is what, 18 points? 19 points? It's a BIG chunk of your army; when you field one you generally only field one. A Knight is what, 300 points? You end up fielding a lot more if you want them, and they are more broken than the gargantuan due to 40k's gakky rules.
Someone who fields a bunch of Knights in 40k will steamroll anyone who doesn't build a list to beat it; on the flipside taking a Stormwall (Cygnar Colossal) in Warmachine doesn't guarantee you'll win a game. That's the difference. While Warmahordes' rules aren't "balanced" per se they are a lot more balanced than 40k, because there is no choices that boil down to "always take this if you want to win" and "never take this unless you want to lose". Even crappy Warmachine units (the aforementioned Shocktroopers) have a place and can be used without compromising your army; try taking Warp Talons or Khorne Berzerkers or any unit in 40k that just had bad rules or is too expensive, and you're more likely to lose any game just because you picked a weak unit. That doesn't happen nearly as much in Warmachine. I could take an army of Shocktroopers and win if I used superior tactics and played to their strengths.
So we went and say Edge of Tomorrow. My wife said, "Why can't GW make a cool figure like Emily Blunts character? That would make me want to play." I said that there was SoB, she said they need the girls everywhere and SoB are no good anyway.
So, if you want to complain about GW, then there is LOTS to complain about and LOTS of things that are wrong. The real kicker is that people don't know what it is like to run a huge company like GW and listening to fans is not the wisest business model. Also, I went around and read some forums about non-gamer products and they all sounded exactly like Dakka hate. I think we all get into a buttoned up tank vision of our hobby. I would really like it if more women would play, but GW has no icons for women to make them want to play? I see lots of women playing Pathfinder. When I see their character that they are playing I always say, GW could make a unit like that?
Lots of things wrong, lots of valid complaints, lots of lost opportunities, but not really that impressive when you step back and see the big picture.
I see the prices as going up, but plastic kit prices are going up from every manufacturer. I see stores closing, like I see Burger Kings closing. The list goes on. The bottom line is the people that complain about it are really not the people that are going to make GW more solid or more successful financially. Anyone in business knows that you want to reach more people, not cater to the fans!
I am wanting a lot from GW. I call them and write them and tell them. I buy what I like and I pass on what I don't like. I am impressed that they release product faster than anyone else in this hobby. I have never run a company, but I have worked in a fortune 500 company at HQ, eye opener, things more slow and there are a lot of problems that you never expected. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to make a product that will please everyone.
1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones
Then most people online would be happy for a while.
See, now this is a very typical white knight response (please note, I'm characterising the post, not the user, as white knight-ish, before anyone gets offended.)
Employing redactum ad absurdum to try and undermine what are, generally fairly valid complaints.
1. Nobody is seriously advocating a 75% price cut, in fact, few people argue for much of a price cut, more often, it is about poor value than excessive price, which are related but not the same.
2. The rules are probably too much money as they are now, many people cite the price of rules rather than models as a reason to stop playing when an update occurs, and it isn't like other companies don't function perfectly well while giving their rules away for nothing, is it?
3. This is a totally reasonable, who in earth is complaining they can't use third party products in GW stores?
4. Why is requesting timely updates to ensure under or over powered units or unintended consequences are addressed a bad thing? Surely making sure all units are equally viable in game (and therefore a valid purchase) isn't a problem?
5. This would actually be possible with many models, just establish a "Legacy" range, charge a small premium to cover the extra time investment and cast to order. Besides, GW seldom change or update models now, unless it is to switch to plastic, which is something they're doing for themselves as much as the customer, because it is a much lower risk to release a new kit nobody has than redesign a kit and risk people not liking it and sticking with their old version. Personally, I think it shows a lack of confidence in the studio and it's ability to produce quality sculpts as much as it shows an aversion to the financial risk.
I think that was more sarcasm than a "joke" (it was done in what appears to be a condescending manner), and he's right - that sarcasm is the typical anti-anti-GW sentiment, oh just let them give everything away for free and it'll make things better.
I think that was more sarcasm than a "joke" (it was done in what appears to be a condescending manner), and he's right - that sarcasm is the typical anti-anti-GW sentiment, oh just let them give everything away for free and it'll make things better.
Right, I don't think Reductio ad absurdum really qualifies as a joke. It was just meant to say all complaints are invalid.
ahzek wrote: Agreed, there is too much negativity.
Gw have done plenty that is worthy of criticism, but really their biggest mistake is their poor communication, it's allowed the 'fans' to become a vocal cesspit of negativity.
They also seem convinced the internet isn't a big deal, which has allowed negative opinion to spread
The negativity has come from people who are unhappy with GW because of their poor rules, inflating prices and bad communication with the community.
I like how you put the word fans in quotation marks. As if to imply we somehow care less about the hobby because we're unhappy with GW. Classy. If we didn't care about the hobby why would bother complain? Its BECAUSE we care we complain. I wasn't aware things got fixed by just sitting about silently waiting for stuff to happen.
Also, negativity hasn't apread because GW doesn't engage the community, it spread because GW make stupid, stupid decisions and upset a lot of people.
The pace was too slow before, but then it was too fast.
That's not my complaint. It was WHAT they were releasing.
Black Legion? Crimson Slaughter? Who asked for those? It's like they're avoiding putting out the supplements that would add more variety to the game.
And Sisters of Battle. All they got was a Digital only dex with no new units or a single new model. My favorite faction gets the bare minimum just to say "they haven't been squatted." It was one of my reasons for leaving I listed in the letter I sent to GW.
Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.
infinity is balanced , warmachine too.
No, they're not. They're more complex (in a good way) and, because of that, the interactions on the table have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw model cost/effectiveness, which are actually every bit as bad and obvious as in 40k. I've not met anyone in person who hasn't had this same realization (after a few years of hardcore PP or CB fandom, usually).
You do realize that you've just found a very convoluted way to contradict yourself, right?
If the interactions on the table (i.e. the tactical decisions of each player), have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw power of each model (i.e. the list choices), then you've just described a balanced game!
And since this is definitively NOT the case with 40k, where there are arguably models that no matter the tactical prowess of each player will always be more powerful or less powerful than other models, then this makes 40k much more unbalanced than Warmahordes...
No one is arguing for a perfectly balanced game, because that is virtually impossible to achieve, what we are arguing for is a game were, given a decent amount of thought put into your list building (because list building is also fun), no matter what models you choose, its the decisions that you make during the game that will decide the victor and THAT is definitively true in both Warmahordes and Infinity.
The problem is GW have no fething idea how their own game works nor what their customers actually want. So often they'll do something that appears to be what the community wanted, until you realise they've actually done it in such a way that to completely feth up the reason we wanted it in the first place.
People aren't being unfair to GW, GW are being moronic with their changes.
I wanted a faster release cycle in the context of smaller incremental changes that actually help balance and being small fast changes, you aren't left with codices that are horribly unbalanced.
So what do GW do? They implement faster release cycles, but are totally incapable of actually fixing the balance issues, so each new codex is just a roll of the dice as to what randomly improves, what randomly gets worse and over all you're still left with massive codex imbalance from one army to the next. Oh, and the change to hardback colour codices that cost so damned much really puts a damper on the idea of faster release cycles when you have to buy a new expensive book each time.
People wanted GW to FIX the problems with structuring an army list (like 0-1 restrictions), we didn't want them to completely feth off the restrictions, we wanted them fixed. Throwing all army list structure is not how you fix poor army list structure.
I won't comment on the White Dwarf thing because frankly I have barely touched White Dwarf in the past 15 years. I liked White Dwarf when it actually came with meaningful stuff in it, but that said, with the internet these days I don't really care for paying to get a magazine in the first place, they could get rid of White Dwarf completely for all I care.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.
Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.
How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.
I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.
1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free.
2: Friendly Staff
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet"
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries"
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals"
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste.
8: Update paint range regularly
9: pretty good brushes for 10$
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.
Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.
Gargossals, I like that
Anyways this needs to be restated. Picking a "Gargossal" in Warmahordes is simply a tactical choice; you don't get an immediate advantage just for picking the right unit, and your opponent isn't automatically penalized for not fielding one themselves. In 40k if you take a superheavy, while it might be a tactical choice, it grossly swings the balance in your favor because superheavies are generally miles better than anything else bar other superheavies. So if your opponent doesn't take one of their own, or at the least builds a list designed to take down a superheavy, you're going to stomp them for no other reason than you picked a unit that's insanely good. That's not tactics nor strategy, that's winning at deployment. That rarely, if ever, happens in Warmahordes.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.
Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.
See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.
The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?
1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free. 2: Friendly Staff 3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet" 4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries" 5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals" 6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect. 7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste. 8: Update paint range regularly 9: pretty good brushes for 10$ 10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices. 11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect. 12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.
Let's see here... 1) Can't argue 2) Can't argue 3) You mean the GW store? PP has these, just they are called "independent retailers" and aren't affiliated with the company 4) I think Australia would like to have a word with this? 5) True, but rules without balance mean that being able to play with what you like has a 50/50 chance of either making the game no fun for you (if you pick wrong) or no fun for your opponent (if you pick right) 6) Update the rules without actually addressing issues, completely ignoring some factions for almost 10 years (Orks, Dark Eldar) while giving other factions much more than they need (Marines) 7) I'll believe this but is it really a response if it's just a copy/paste answer? By that logic politicians answer mails frequently too... 8) But charge more than everybody else and give you less paint than everybody else 9) Haven't used their brushes, so possibly true 10) What? Their terrain is just as overpriced as everything else they offer. RoB board being the prime example - they discontinued a reasonably priced felt cloth that had a myriad of uses for a $300 plastic board that has molded-on terrain features (the hill) and out of place skull pit everywhere because skulls. 11) By releasing "digital only" supplements for the same price as a hardcover book, dataslates that amount to first day DLC, and removing things that used to be in the codexes (e.g. painting guides) to release as extras... 12) Hope you don't get eaten!
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples: Imperial Knights: £110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes. A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.
Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.
See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.
The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?
Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.
WayneTheGame wrote: Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.
See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.
And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.
Because they're more likely for one bullet to find its way into that 1-in-a-million shot to hit a fuel line? Because if you fire 1000 rounds in roughly the same spot it'll eventually break? Because it balances the game?
That aside its a bad choice tactically to expect something like some dudes with guns to down a colossal. If you're relying on your bog standard infantry to take it down something has gone horribly wrong. However, its not impossible. And that is whats important. Sure Winter Guard might be at -8 to their damage rolls against armour 20, but thats why you need 8 of them all focussing on it to dent it properly. But at least they stand a chanc of at least scratching it a bit and if you're lucky, taking out a system.
The same could not be said for 40 guardsmen shooting lasguns at a knight.
£85.
I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.
I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.
Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.
Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.
See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.
The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?
Internet ate my post.
Jist was:
Its for balance and while normal guys can't reliably DESTROY a gargossal, enough concentrated shooting can maybe dent it enough to take out a system if you get lucky.
The same can't be said for 40 guardaman all concentrating fire on a Knight
1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free. That's something every company should do anyway.
2: Friendly Staff Depends which store.
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet" In my store there are two PP tables and two warhammer tables.
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries" Australia may disagree with you.
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals" Which makes pick up games much more difficult to get in the same ballpark of power levels.
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect. Wait....what? If by "a new rule set every two years," then okay.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste. The company that's notorious for shutting themselves away send copy and past answers. I've never even gotten that before.
8: Update paint range regularly There are better and cheaper paints.
9: pretty good brushes for 10$ There are better and cheaper brushes.
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices. Subjective.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect. I'll give you that. The company that thinks the internet is a fad does make E-versions of their stuff, though the execution is often not the best.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.
WayneTheGame wrote: Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.
See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.
And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.
Yes, and that's ultimately destructive and a load of bullgak for pick-up games, which is why I'd rather take PP's approach any day of the week. Bringing three Predator Annihilators to 40k night and your opponent shows up with Green Tide... you aren't going to have a very fun night at all. Therein lies the problem with realism vs. balance. Realism is fine if you are only ever doing simulations or reenactments. You need some kind of balance when you have an environment conducive to pickup games at random that aren't prearranged (and despite what GW might think, 40k is mostly played in pickup games) to avoid that scenario happening.
1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free. That's something every company should do anyway.
2: Friendly Staff Depends which store.
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet" In my store there are two PP tables and two warhammer tables.
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries" Australia may disagree with you.
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals" Which makes pick up games much more difficult to get in the same ballpark of power levels.
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect. Wait....what? If by "a new rule set every two years," then okay.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste. The company that's notorious for shutting themselves away send copy and past answers. I've never even gotten that before.
8: Update paint range regularly There are better and cheaper paints.
9: pretty good brushes for 10$ There are better and cheaper brushes.
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices. Subjective.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect. I'll give you that. The company that thinks the internet is a fad does make E-versions of their stuff, though the execution is often not the best.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.
You've never seen a company send copy & paste answers? Go check out the Dutch mail, then!
See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.
Except that we aren't talking about war, we are talking about a game. And games are supposed to be fun. And having whole swats of your army rendered useless because your opponent chose a single model isn't fun.
If your argument is that 40k is trying, in any way, to simulate actual warfare, then I'll just be forced to laugh.
The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?
Are 10 rounds fired against almost the same spot in bullet proof glass or a bullet proof vest more or less effective than a single round?
Also, I find it pretty hilarious that you have problems with CRA / CMA because they apparently aren't realistic enough, but you are completely fine with guns that can't fire past the length of a tank, people attacking each other with swords when things like plasma weapons exist, fixed wing jet aircraft that can practically hover in the area equivalent to a football field, all the guns fired by more than 10 guys all only hit a single person (and its always the nearest one), an entire squad that can apparently trip at the same time when they are charging, etc, etc, etc...
This is exactly the mood in our gaming group.
On the other hand, not everything is wrong with GW. But they are doing many things in the wrong way.
I guess there is no hope for an improvement in the near future.
WayneTheGame wrote: Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.
See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.
And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.
Yes, and that's ultimately destructive and a load of bullgak for pick-up games, which is why I'd rather take PP's approach any day of the week. Bringing three Predator Annihilators to 40k night and your opponent shows up with Green Tide... you aren't going to have a very fun night at all. Therein lies the problem with realism vs. balance. Realism is fine if you are only ever doing simulations or reenactments. You need some kind of balance when you have an environment conducive to pickup games at random that aren't prearranged (and despite what GW might think, 40k is mostly played in pickup games) to avoid that scenario happening.
That's fine - if you prefer the other method, I won't tell you you're wrong. Where you cross the line, though, is trying to impose your method of fun upon mine by sacrificing realism on the altar of balance.
See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.
Except that we aren't talking about war, we are talking about a game. And games are supposed to be fun. And having whole swats of your army rendered useless because your opponent chose a single model isn't fun.
If your argument is that 40k is trying, in any way, to simulate actual warfare, then I'll just be forced to laugh.
1) I disagree - I think the uselessness of rifles against a tank is a pretty awesome rules mechanic that illustrates the strength of tanks vs riflemen.
2) I don't think 40k is a simulator, but my suspension of disbelief is easier with 40k than WM/H, which should tell you something about WM/H!
The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?
Are 10 rounds fired against almost the same spot in bullet proof glass or a bullet proof vest more or less effective than a single round?
Also, I find it pretty hilarious that you have problems with CRA / CMA because they apparently aren't realistic enough, but you are completely fine with guns that can't fire past the length of a tank, people attacking each other with swords when things like plasma weapons exist, fixed wing jet aircraft that can practically hover in the area equivalent to a football field, all the guns fired by more than 10 guys all only hit a single person (and its always the nearest one), an entire squad that can apparently trip at the same time when they are charging, etc, etc, etc...
1) Well, the 10 rounds into the same spot in the vest or the glass will be more effective. Now you just need to demonstrate that inches-thick steel plates have the same properties as vests and glass. Because neither Warjacks nor 40k tanks are made of glass or kevlar.
2) I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest a weapon that can't fire past the length of a tank - these are usually high-powered energy weapons, which realistically would dissipate incredibly quickly in an atmosphere. People hitting eachother with swords when plasma weapons exist is fine and dandy - there are protective systems that can mitigate the effects of plasma about as well as modern body armor mitigates the effects of bullets, and, well: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10. The fixed-wing jet aircraft are a problem, and I hate them, but they're not as core to the game as warjacks are to WM/H so I can tolerate their existence. The rest of your post is just inane nonsense justifications for rules mechanics that don't even function the way you claim they do in your post. All 10 people don't hit one person (unless he makes all of his saves, and has a different save value than the rest of the unit, which only happens rarely), and a failure to charge the full distance isn't "tripping," it's a multitude of factors including but not limited to one's footing on the terrain.
Okay then, how would you approach the subject of pickup games while balancing realism and mechanics? Or is your solution that it should be okay for the guy who shows up with 3x Predator Annihilators to get crapped on by the Ork Tide and walk away feeling they just wasted a few hours?
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that balance is bad because it's unrealistic, but having a gakky night of gaming because you brought the wrong units or the wrong army to the store on miniatures night and got matched up with the wrong opponent so you had no chance of winning, since if you know what they bring you just tailor a list to beat them and then their night is ruined, or if you don't then your night could be ruined.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.
How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.
I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.
BOOM! Positivity!
That is simply opposed by "The game is not fun and we don't enjoy it", and "because of various documented features such as" clinches the argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, people can "like" anything they want. Some people like girls pissing in their mouths and will pay good money for it.
WayneTheGame wrote: Okay then, how would you approach the subject of pickup games while balancing realism and mechanics? Or is your solution that it should be okay for the guy who shows up with 3x Predator Annihilators to get gak on by the Ork Tide and walk away feeling they just wasted a few hours?
You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that balance is bad because it's unrealistic, but having a gakky night of gaming because you brought the wrong units or the wrong army to the store on miniatures night and got matched up with the wrong opponent so you had no chance of winning.
I dunno, really. I've played in three different gamestores over the course of my life, and I've never had much trouble with what you describe. I've been on the receiving end of the Green Tide horde when I brought three Predator Annihilators, but I gritted my teeth and griped about my army's Quartermaster giving us the wrong equipment.
I've played my Armored Company against an IG foot horde and crushed it, and neither the foot player nor myself had any problem - the game was entertaining for both of us.
I really do think you can enjoy a game like that - the idea that 'because a loss is guaranteed, no fun can be had' is a fallacy imo.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.
How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.
I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.
BOOM! Positivity!
That is simply opposed by "The game is not fun and we don't enjoy it", and "because of various documented features such as" clinches the argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, people can "like" anything they want. Some people like girls pissing in their mouths and will pay good money for it.
Right, and you're allowed to like whatever you want.
Except 40k. If you say anything good about 40k, fifteen people cram how gakky it is down your throat (citation: this thread).
I'm glad that works for you, sincerely, not trolling or being sarcastic. I've only ever seen pickup games that tend to be more on the competitive end than the "Eh let's have fun" end so if you turn up and play the guy who fields 3x Riptides in a 1k army because he can, you don't get to have fun.
Thanks. I'm glad to meet someone who doesn't have the "HOW DARE YOU LIKE 40K!" attitude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: not trolling or being sarcastic. I've only ever seen pickup games that tend to be more on the competitive end than the "Eh let's have fun" end so if you turn up and play the guy who fields 3x Riptides in a 1k army because he can, you don't get to have fun.
IDK where you've been playing; I really haven't had that problem. Maybe I'm the not-competitive one, but I've faced 3 Riptides under 1k points and had a blast!
Thanks. I'm glad to meet someone who doesn't have the "HOW DARE YOU LIKE 40K!" attitude.
Honestly, I want to like 40k. I loved the fluff, and the background, and I played it from 1996-2002 and enjoyed it then. Just the way GW operates makes me refuse. I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to get started, I refuse to deal with rules that can break down if you don't have a group of people who share your views (e.g. a casual player in a competitive setting), and I refuse to deal with a company that acts the way GW does. Couple the fact with some of the gamers in my area that I've seen are more of the competitive type, and always want to play high points games, and it's not something I'd enjoy, because I like tactics and strategy to win not the fact I brought 3x Imperial Knights and my opponent has nothing that can deal with them.
I've started Warmachine and I find it fun; it's not for everyone this is true as it is more... mechanical is the best word I can use to describe it (pun intended, i guess). It feels very game-y, whereas when I played 40k before it still felt like a battle with more immersion, I guess would be the way I'd describe it. I don't feel any immersion in Warmahordes; it's a game I play to play a game, not immerse myself. I guess I can compare it to how World of Warcraft (which I also play) is for many people - the RPG part of MMORPG isn't really meaningful; you don't care that the merchant asked you to kill 10 wolves because they are attacking his supplies and he's losing business, you just care that there are 10 wolves you need to kill for XP and gold. That's how Warmahordes feels - the lore is there but the mechanics are what I care about e.g. I don't care that my Juggernaut's axe is magically coated with ice by the Greylords, I just need to know that if I roll a crit it freezes my enemy. 40k always felt like the opposite - the lore is the selling point.
2) I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest a weapon that can't fire past the length of a tank - these are usually high-powered energy weapons, which realistically would dissipate incredibly quickly in an atmosphere.
Not a chance since the exact same range is used for all types of energy and solid ammo weapons.
I guess that is why swords are such common place weapons in modern armies. Also, a bayonet is a completely different thing from a sword, and not what I was talking about. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
The fixed-wing jet aircraft are a problem, and I hate them, but they're not as core to the game as warjacks are to WM/H so I can tolerate their existence.
Except that you said that your problem was with CRA / CMA and not with warjacks. Jets in 40k are just as ubiquitous as CRA / CMA in WMH, if not more so.
The rest of your post is just inane nonsense justifications for rules mechanics that don't even function the way you claim they do in your post. All 10 people don't hit one person (unless he makes all of his saves, and has a different save value than the rest of the unit, which only happens rarely),
So my post is inane nonsense that doesn't even reflect the rules, but you immediately identify an instance where that happens? Right...
and a failure to charge the full distance isn't "tripping," it's a multitude of factors including but not limited to one's footing on the terrain.
The "tripping" part was me just forging the narrative, the same logic applies that all of those factors, whatever you interpret them to be, affect all the members of the unit at the exact same time and in the exact same manner...
Your suspension of disbelief seems to vary pretty wildly but at the same time is pretty consistent with the fact that if a rule is in 40k, then is completely plausible to happen in reality, any other game? Nah, that is a complete fabrication!
1) Well, the 10 rounds into the same spot in the vest or the glass will be more effective. Now you just need to demonstrate that inches-thick steel plates have the same properties as vests and glass. Because neither Warjacks nor 40k tanks are made of glass or kevlar.
Warjacks aren't made of "steel plate" and a pretty common way to break medieval armour was to hit it repeatedly in the same spot until the armour broke. You can see examples of this in practically every movie or book ever made about it.
And this doesn't matter one bit, because we are talking about a game and the CRA / CMA ability is in the game, like many people have said, so that if you bring a light infantry unit against a heavy armoured one, at least you'll still get a chance to do some damage.
jasper76 wrote: I'm in a minority I suppose who think they are doing a good job, certainly models-wise, but IMO also rules-wise. 7th is a pretty decent improvement from 6th, and I enjoyed the gak out of 6th. They just charge too much, and are doing weird practices like DLC-only releases for a tabletop game with a large community of book nerds.
If GW were selling all their stuff for ~60-75% of what its going for now, I have a sneaking suspicion that the popular criticism against the game would diminish significantly.
Well, when you are strictly looking at the quality of the rule writing, 6th was a huge improvement over 5th and 7th was small improvement over 6th, so I'd agree that they are trying and somewhat succeeding in making their rules better. The issue is, these improvements have to be bought for a lot of money, and they just don't measure up. Even in 7th there are some really unclear rules which should have been accompanied by more examples or pictures (psychic focus). Some rules which fail to point out that other, previous installments of the rule are no longer in place (blast markers+ruins) and on top of that some half-assed update-FAQs.
In the end, the BRB wasn't exactly the problem of 6th edition, and that's coming from an ork player. The combination of tau support and the undercosted riptide, prescience for a dime a dozen, overpowered wave serpents, flying monstrous creatures, the two 2+ rerollable deathstars and ranged D weapons were what broke the previous edition. Most of those were the result of sloppy play-testing before releasing the codices. They fixed most of those in 7th, which is actually a good sign, but not all of them. Sadly we now have to wait till 8th for them to fix the new issues they've cause.
sgtpjbarker wrote: I am wanting a lot from GW. I call them and write them and tell them. I buy what I like and I pass on what I don't like. I am impressed that they release product faster than anyone else in this hobby. I have never run a company, but I have worked in a fortune 500 company at HQ, eye opener, things more slow and there are a lot of problems that you never expected. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to make a product that will please everyone.
Most people don't have an issue with the product itself, just with the quality of the product. GW had years to get their rules up to current state of art, being a large company is no longer a valid excuse. Gaming as a whole (PC and tabletop) has become a huge industry with lots of experience and established best practices. People can go to college and become MoA in game design. Nowadays people expect that non of the available game pieces are useless pieces of junk, not in any game. Nowadays people expect table top games to have a FAQ include in its release and more help available online. I have a lot of board games (many of the expensive kind, with hundreds of pieces in little plastic bags), and only a single one has a rule like Warhammer 40k's most important rule, and that would be Munchkin, which tells you to resolve all rule disputes by loudly shouting at each other. Guess what that one is making fun of?
There simply is no excuse for their game being as bad as it is now. They have enough time and money to fix their problems. If they are lacking the skills to fix their problems, then they can buy people who have those skills. Between pen&paper role play games, board games, video games, trading card games and even rival wargames, there should be experienced people willing to lend them their skills. Other companies have hired their own players in order to understand their own games better, with success. The only thing they can do is get better. I for one have faith in them, since we are seeing little signs of improvement here and there. Even despite their annoying pre-release marketing and ridiculous pricing on the mek gunz, I'm still pumped for the ork codex. I also fear it though, because it might shatter all hope I have for Warhammer 40k. We'll see.
MWHistorian wrote: I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.
+1
Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.
While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.
What I would like is for GW to own up to their "oopsies" and use FAQs and Errata to correct Codex mistakes. For instance, how much different would have 6th Edition been if GW had reFAQed the Helldrake to a 180 or 90 Degree arc or Hullmounted RAW? How different would 6th have been if they had owned up to their mistakes and Errated the Serpent Shield to 24" Range or Errated the price of the Twin Linked Scatter Lasers to 20pts or the Serpent Shield to a D6 not a D6+1 any of which would have dilluted the Wave Serpents efficiency. Or errated the BRB stating that when a 2+ save is rerolled it is only successful on a 4+, ie changed 2+ Rerollable from 1/36 to 1/12. Or Errated the Tau Signature Systems to limit them to 2 or 3 selections per model. Or Errated the price of the Ion Accelerator to 25pts. Or if they had Errated the Annihilation Barges price to 100 or 110. Or Mind Shackle Scarable to be on 2d6. Or if they had errated the BRB so FMCs couldn't assault the turn they changed Movement Modes etc. Or tweaking the Allies chart. Or if they errated the base marine price for BA, or errated their heavy weapon prices. So many possible examples of things that could have been Erratted in a simple FAQ/Errata that would have greatly improved gameplay and balance for many.
IMO the more viable units, lists, and strategies that players have access to the more models they will ultimately buy, build, and play.
GW can't win because everyone won't be happy with anything, but a few changes here and there and owning up to mistakes and correcting them would greatly alleviate some of the problems they face.
MWHistorian wrote: I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.
+1
Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.
While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.
I found myself experiencing the same thing. I think it is because your brain gets so caught up in all the math calculations and vector analysis and correct order of activations needed to implement that pretty cool tactic that you just thought out that it doesn't leave much room for immersing yourself in the story of the battle!
What helped me get through this is that every time that something cool or unusual happens I take a moment to imagine how that would have played out in "reality", like that time my Carnivean got tired of always missing Morvhana and picked up a Warspear and threw him directly at her, knocking her down and just biting her head off! Or how my Eyriss, no matter how easy a shot it is, always seems to miss it! EYRISS! /shakes fist angrilly!
Colossals are generally felt to be "okay" with only the Stormwall from Cygnar and the one for the Mercs being used frequently. The Cryx Unicorn can also be useful. The Battle Engines are all considered tepid.
The Gargantuans are considered greatly limited and very rarely used, with the Skorne one frequently considered the only one worth bringing. Again, Battle Engines here are considered very meh. The Woldwrath could be useful in a few tier lists but the Mountain King and Archangel are considered jokes. You buy them to paint and display, nothing more.
Games Workshop hobby supplies are all pretty much garbage save the paints. The paints are just the worst value compared to P3, Reaper, and Vallejo. The brushes are terrible when you can purchase Rekab sable hair brushes for $5 a pop compared to the GW $10 brushes. And if you're seriously into painting, you're buying Kolinsky Sables from Raphael, DaVinci, or Windsor & Newton. Games Workshop tools are usually mediocre and they are overprice to hell and back for what you get. If you want good hobby tools that are also high quality, but a highish price, try Tamiya.
Except 40k. If you say anything good about 40k, fifteen people cram how gakky it is down your throat (citation: this thread).
No. You're making a generalization about anything not positive about 40k and construing it to be that no one is allowed to like it.
I don't think I've seen anyone on these boards actually tell someone they're not allowed to enjoy 40k. What I have seen are people who point out issues with the game and misconceptions like how 'casual' 40k is, or how its a better 'narrative' game. Discussing those points is a very far stretch from telling people they can't enjoy 40k.
If you want positivity, you have to hold up your end of the deal and not turn it into an us vs. them mentality or putting words in peoples' mouths.
There are a lot of issues with 40k, but you can still have fun and enjoy it. Besides, you can't seriously make a thread basically asking for peoples' thoughts on GW/40k and not expect some of the answers to explain what the issues are.
MWHistorian wrote: I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.
+1
Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.
While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.
That's interesting. Because all of the characters in game have a history and personality. Could it be that you feel disconnected from the fluff because the game you're playing isn't reflected in the fluff? I know I've met a lot of warmahordes players that don't care about the fluff, but it is there and IMO very close to the surface. Of course I pick my Warlock/Caster based on the character and not the rules most of the time.
MWHistorian wrote: I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.
+1
Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.
While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.
That's interesting. Because all of the characters in game have a history and personality. Could it be that you feel disconnected from the fluff because the game you're playing isn't reflected in the fluff? I know I've met a lot of warmahordes players that don't care about the fluff, but it is there and IMO very close to the surface. Of course I pick my Warlock/Caster based on the character and not the rules most of the time.
That's my experience. The casters are dripping with character and personality and their rules actually reflect this. As a fluffy player, that's one reason I'm attracted to Warmachine.
The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experianced.
Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?
Could you give pause and think that other communities don't have this style of negative feedback loop because they are better served by the parent company of said game(s)? Equally valid line of reasoning. And from what I've read and heard discussed, most of the devs for GW, the unnamed guys behind the scenes, are in agreement with us negative chuckleheads and that it's management that's driving the game into the ground.
A great deal of negativity is centered around the poor rules, the game itself. No one has (serious) arguments over aesthetics. There maybe some grumpy tiffs over fluff, but that's usually when either GW is quietly murdering it or has made game rules that do not follow their own narrative; which then it is then expected for the "kids to play nice" and follow said narrative without any reason given to do so. Other games gives incentive to form fluffy armies, be it tier lists in Warmachine or sectorials in Infinity.
You see a lot of negativity because Warhammer 40k is usually a wargamers first game given the fact it just has a larger presence thanks to other channels like video games. They get in and then base all their assumptions on what wargaming is like based upon how GW operates. If they get brave and venture forth, they may become acutely aware that other companies care about their loyal customers, provide incentive for new players to start, and better maintain and support their communities ensuring that negative feedback doesn't become a constant loop, but rather something that is addressed. Even a simple "Oh, we missed that, check for it in the next update of X, thank you!" or "Play it like this, guys" for rules disputes would end a never ending cycle like YMDC.
I will stand with the notion if Games Workshop was a better company and provided a better product (or at least better support for their current product), then you'd see a massive decrease in negativity.
It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I could do better promoting 40K myself:
The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I could do better promoting 40K myself:
The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.
etc. etc.
Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh
Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh
How so?
I've seen plenty of discussion about the issues with the game. All of which are back with examples in the game, valid comparisons to other wargames, and basic number crunching/analysis, not to mention obvious wording issues/generally unclear rules.
Not to mention the issues with pricing, the debacle that was finecast, and DLC type products for singular units.
Its fine to like GW/40k, but if you're going to discuss it with other people, at least present a real counter argument.
Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.
Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.
The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.
In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.
The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experienced.
True
Pancakey wrote: Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?
The community didn't arise out of a spontaneous fountain of rage; GW's misdeeds made it this way.
First part is true, second part is half true.
GW and an unchanging mindset from some of the more established players have created this. It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.
The positive thing I feel, although it a specific to 7th, is that you choose the mission before doing up the army list. This give a certain amount of customization to the player. I know no one brings around 4000 points of miniatures for a 1500 pt pick up game but having a sideboard ability at least, doesn't take much more points. At least you have the option to not field units poorly built for a certain mission.
This leads to my view of things like imperial knights and riptide heavy lists or even a 4 land raider list. I believe in making sure my list has options against high AV, high armour save, hordes, MC, flyers most times. Than is usually easier in 1500 and up games. So if I face an extreme list, I am not completely helpless and I find it a challenge to put up a fight at that slight disadvantage. Ok, maybe not slight in some circumstances but I will just roll with the punches. At least now I don't have to worry about being non optimized for the mission.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I could do better promoting 40K myself:
The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.
etc. etc.
Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh
Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.
Lobomalo wrote: No facts besides the pricing, everything else is purely opinion and has no merit in a debate
Poorly designed rules? Lack of playtesting? Rushed, lacking products? Openly hating and mocking their customers? Those aren't "opinion" points. Those, sadly, are pretty darn solid points.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
I definitely agree with this. A fix usually comes with a price with GW, and the price isn't acceptable for a lot of people.
I think GW's first big step would be to undo the blatant price gouging. But hey, let's not kid ourselves here...
All hobby supplies are higher price and/or lower quality than equivalents.
Narrow range of games available.
Shops do not stock everything needed for 40K or WHFB.
Lobomalo wrote: Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.
Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.
The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.
In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.
Of course it is, in fact GW's "modern approach to war gaming" was so successful that they lost 30% of their profits in 6 months! It was so great that they felt the need to release a new edition less than 2 years after the previous one was launched! That is the true mark of success right there!
Their "random is good" was so wildly received by old and new players alike, that their second flagship product disappeared from the list of top 5 most sold table top games in the US. This is, of course, great news!
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I could do better promoting 40K myself:
The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.
etc. etc.
Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh
Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.
Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.
Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.
Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.
Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.
Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.
The hobby aspect has almost been completely lost nowadays, pick up an old White Dwarf. Those often had, I kid you not, tutorials on how to build CUSTOM terrain. I am dead serious.
Lobomalo wrote: Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.
Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.
The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.
In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.
Of course it is, in fact GW's "modern approach to war gaming" was so successful that they lost 30% of their profits in 6 months! It was so great that they felt the need to release a new edition less than 2 years after the previous one was launched! That is the true mark of success right there!
Their "random is good" was so wildly received by old and new players alike, that their second flagship product disappeared from the list of top 5 most sold table top games in the US. This is, of course, great news!
Where I play, 7th is seen as more of a 6.5 edition as nothing major really changed except for the Psyker phase so it doesn't merit a full edition. GW made a new BRB for it strictly for cash. Companies lose profits, if you are judging a game strictly by how well they do financially, you'll never be satisfied. MtG for instance lost nearly 40% when the Mirrodin block released as it completed destroyed every international tournament for the next couple of years where the cards rotated out and were then unanimously banned from nearly all formats.
Lobomalo wrote: ...The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
We'll see. I mean there's a chance that my mindset, the mindset of my gaming buddies, and so many greater online communities are wrong. That a new breed of gamer will emerge; one playing a game that is distanced from the old editions, full of imbalance, and ever-increasing in price. That would make me sad but whatever. Good on you if you enjoy it.
Or maybe the small numbers of new blood will figure out what's happening, GW will crash and burn, and we can look forward to something remotely resembling sanity in the future of the Wargaming industry.
Given my experience with people like you, here's my bet: In 6 months, you will have either quit GW or you will join the ranks of the severely dissatisfied.
Lobomalo wrote: ...It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.
I know that the internet view on GW is strongly negative with a few positive people; given the wide variety of websites, blogs, discussions, and the like that I've seen I think it's fairly safe to assume that the internet hatred of GW is statistically valid when considering the real world and gamers in general as well.
Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion
Yes, because codices that are older than 5+ years and completely outdated are a matter of "opinion".
Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.
"It's bad everywhere, so it's not bad with 40k!"
Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance.
Flames of War, WM/H, Starcraft II...want more?
Got any more baits?
SCII is nowhere near balanced, I play it regularly and have since the game was Star Craft when the Koreans destroyed everyone in every game, it never has been balanced otherwise you wouldn't have people screaming for something to be done about the Protoss every other week or the Zerg the week after.
Warmachine is more balanced than 40k because it is smaller skirmished based which is easier to manage.
If you are whining about proofreading, how do you think I feel as an English teacher reading all of your posts? It really doesn't matter and honestly this is the first place I have seen anyone bring that up as a complaint really.
Let's see, what other things did you include. Never played Flames of War but I am sure I can find a forum where people clamor just as much as 40k players do here about balance.
Lobomalo wrote: Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.
I don't see that at all. I see people taking a look at the new rule set and evaluating it for what it is. Further, there's nothing 'modern' about it at all. I'd ask what you consider to be modern for game design, but 40k is currently the only game with its approach, while every other game uses much more simplified mechanics and streamlined writing.
Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
No, the success or failure of a game is dependent on the quality of the game, not the veterans or new bloods. People will stay if its good, and people will come to it if its good. Your store and experiences there are completely anecdotal, and I've come across as many stories from other locations with the exact opposite experience.
Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.
Change is good, but only when its good. Random is good to a point; randomly rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers is not a positive for a game. Randomly rolling to determine how many wounds I deal is good. Dice should be used as impartial judges to resolve an action; not decide what kind of personality your commander has today.
And, once again, it has nothing to do with looking back at the past. You keep bringing this up as some kind of point, when it has no relevance. People can dislike something because of a variety of reasons that don't amount to "Change is bad!".
The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.
And many people think these issues are significant, considering the competition. Why would I pay $85 for a rulebook and 60$ for a codex, when that amount of money can get me a tournament ready force and rules for another system with better balance and gameplay? If 40k is to survive, it'll need to clean itself up and put in the effort to provide a better ruleset with better balance at a fairer price.
Further, I don't think people are making it out to be any worse than it is. Its as bad as anyone is willing to think it is, which varies from person to person. I put greater emphasis on a cleaner ruleset than someone else who might take greater issue with the prices. Stop assuming the internet is some sort of collective entitiy. This community is made up of individuals with different opinions.
In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.
There is need to balance the game more than it currently is. Both internally and externally, the codex system has glaring flaws that even the most casual player will find after a few read throughs. There's no reason Rough Riders should still be awful after two codices (if not more, only started in 5th).
Remember, no one is expecting 'perfect' balance; just a reasonable level that makes all units mostly viable.
Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.
What games have you played to make this claim? No, it is definitively not an issue in every game, not when you have problems arising due to a lack of proofreading within less than a day after the rules are released.
Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.
That is a strawman argument. Competitive games are by its very definition balanced to the point that player skill will make the deciding difference in the outcome. MtG, Starcraft, Warmahordes.
Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?
Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.
So is every other miniature wargame company, and those other companies are growing while GW is shrinking so their business strategy doesn't seem to be working very well...
And "People buy things which merits a price increase"? What kind of logic is that?
Lobomalo wrote: ...The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.
We'll see. I mean there's a chance that my mindset, the mindset of my gaming buddies, and so many greater online communities are wrong. That a new breed of gamer will emerge; one playing a game that is distanced from the old editions, full of imbalance, and ever-increasing in price. That would make me sad but whatever. Good on you if you enjoy it.
Or maybe the small numbers of new blood will figure out what's happening, GW will crash and burn, and we can look forward to something remotely resembling sanity in the future of the Wargaming industry.
Given my experience with people like you, here's my bet: In 6 months, you will have either quit GW or you will join the ranks of the severely dissatisfied.
Lobomalo wrote: ...It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.
I know that the internet view on GW is strongly negative with a few positive people; given the wide variety of websites, blogs, discussions, and the like that I've seen I think it's fairly safe to assume that the internet hatred of GW is statistically valid when considering the real world and gamers in general as well.
In six months if I have stopped playing it will be because of the price and because I've finally had enough of the whining.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry, have any of you actually played SCII?
If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.
SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Desubot wrote: Finecast did happen and bubbles are not opinion.
Edit: Proofreading sure does matter when your spending money on it. its not like we are buying your students essays.
It IS bad when they need to release a day one FAQ that adds so many amendments as was the case with dark angels.
Dark Angels wasn't even that badly hit, my roommate runs them and has had no problems. Please, enlighten me to this issue?
Change is good, but only when its good. Random is good to a point; randomly rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers is not a positive for a game. Randomly rolling to determine how many wounds I deal is good. Dice should be used as impartial judges to resolve an action; not decide what kind of personality your commander has today.
I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.
SCII is nowhere near balanced, I play it regularly and have since the game was Star Craft when the Koreans destroyed everyone in every game, it never has been balanced otherwise you wouldn't have people screaming for something to be done about the Protoss every other week or the Zerg the week after.
So we either take your opinion or that of actual (competitive) players..hm...also, Koreans are OP.
Warmachine is more balanced than 40k because it is smaller skirmished based which is easier to manage.
You, obviously, have never played WM/H and neither have you read into it - yet you make such a claim. Guess how much "merit" your comment therefore has? Right, zero.
If you are whining about proofreading, how do you think I feel as an English teacher reading all of your posts? It really doesn't matter and honestly this is the first place I have seen anyone bring that up as a complaint really.
Oh, ad hominem. Classic. You have completely run out of arguments and resort to ad hominem to vent. Classy!
Let me just sum your posts up:
>> Claims that everyone who says something against GW is wrong because there's no substance to his arguments >> Valid points with solid reasoning are brought up >> Reacts with either "No, you're wrong because I think so!" ...without anything solid to back your point up or rebutt the other or reacts with ad hominem
You really are a shining example of how one should argument in favor of GW
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.
I could do better promoting 40K myself:
The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.
etc. etc.
Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh
Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.
Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.
Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.
Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.
Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.
Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.
You don't think the game codexes should be the same edition as the game rules.
You don't think a £130M corporation should use Word spellchecking.
You don't think that 30 years of development over 15 editions should have led to any advancement in the rules.
You don't think that a £130M corporation can put a bit of effort into avoiding the obvious gross mistakes of balance that GW make.
This is all very positive in supporting the good reputation of GW.
Lobomalo wrote: Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.
Yeah, it's really just a personal preference thing, whether you want to have all armies get a current-edition codex, or be playing 4th edition armies in 7th edition.
Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.
No, it's fact. 40k's rules suck, largely because GW refuses to move beyond the original structure of a 1980s fantasy game with different models. Things like IGOUGO, the horrible WS chart, etc, need to go away, while the game needs to improve significantly in things like morale and reaction options.
Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.
Not true. Other games don't have anywhere near GW's level of issues. MTG has a typo rate of maybe one per decade, X-Wing hasn't had any, etc. Meanwhile GW lets mistakes into their rules with alarming frequency, and that's not even counting the obviously broken rules that don't work properly but are grammatically correct sentences.
Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.
This is absolute nonsense. Other games have much better balance than 40k. The problem isn't the difficulty of making a balanced game, it's that GW doesn't care about making one.
Oh, and dismissing balance issues as "you just can't win" is just laughably wrong. Have you ever noticed that many/most of the people complaining about balance issues are perfectly aware of what the best strategies are, and would have no problems using them? Or that many of those people do win just fine, and are tired of the fact that they need to deliberately weaken their own lists so that they don't crush people too badly?
Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money
People buy things therefore price increase? I suppose the goal of a business is to increase prices until nobody buys the product anymore?
Also, "GW is a business" isn't an excuse because their price increases are a bad business decision. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to make the next financial report show a profit, likely at the expense of long-term growth. GW is trading sales volume for immediate profits, completely neglecting the fact that they produce social games where market share is absolutely vital to success. And each price increase means a higher barrier to entry for new customers, customers GW depends on to compensate for their losses in veteran players.
Where I play, 7th is seen as more of a 6.5 edition as nothing major really changed except for the Psyker phase so it doesn't merit a full edition. GW made a new BRB for it strictly for cash. Companies lose profits, if you are judging a game strictly by how well they do financially, you'll never be satisfied. MtG for instance lost nearly 40% when the Mirrodin block released as it completed destroyed every international tournament for the next couple of years where the cards rotated out and were then unanimously banned from nearly all formats.
So the place where you play doesn't consider it a new edition so it doesn't matter what GW call it? Do you even read what you post?
Of course GW made a new BRB strictly for cash, everybody knows that! Its the fact that they felt that need less than 2 years after their last edition change that is significant! Its a ploy to fleece more cash from a dwindling player base because they don't know what else to do... And the fact that you seem to applaud this for some reason is mind bogging: by your own words you realize that it brings nothing substantive to the game or its players, that its just a cash grab, yet you still support it?
Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?
Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine
Warhammer Fantasy
Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd
I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.
But this is the crux many people have with the game.
I thoroughly enjoy adding rules to games, or creating new units, or any variety or rules/mechanics things to add/tweak games. I've spent most of Dakka time in the proposed rules for just this reason.
However, for the price I'm paying, I'm expecting a finished product I don't need to 'fix' or houserule to function how it should. I should be houseruling things like custom characters, fun scenarios, and custom codices.
Not trying to untangle the mess of random tables and convoluted rules.
*Edit* Why are video games being used as a comparison point for a miniature wargame?
Seriously, who cares about Starcraft in a discussion about 40k? If you're going to use comparisons, at least compare with another wargame. Like X-Wing, or Infinity, or Firestorm.
I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.
But this is the crux many people have with the game.
I thoroughly enjoy adding rules to games, or creating new units, or any variety or rules/mechanics things to add/tweak games. I've spent most of Dakka time in the proposed rules for just this reason.
However, for the price I'm paying, I'm expecting a finished product I don't need to 'fix' or houserule to function how it should. I should be houseruling things like custom characters, fun scenarios, and custom codices.
Not trying to untangle the mess of random tables and convoluted rules.
I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.
We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.
If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?
Also video games were listed as for some reason, people who obviously haven't climbed the ladder very high in SCII claim that SCII is balanced
This is just an example - others include asking for more content in White Dwarf, then complaining about being charged to access the content that's exclusive to White Dwarf.
When people say they want more White Dwarf content, they don't mean they want limited runs of a splash release of rules (such as the Sisters "Codex" before it got released digitally).
What I often see wanted is a return of the detailed battle reports (complete with turn by turn battlefield diagrams showing charges, casualties etc.), a return of DIY scenery articles, conversion tutorials, perhaps a return of comic strips such as the old Malus Darkblade series.
So, content that isn't required to actually play the game but rather builds on the background and provides you as a hobbyist with more ideas and inspiration to squeeze every bit of enjoyment out of the hobby.
Not the adverts for next weeks releases which White Dwarf has become.
When I started the game in 2nd, a tactical squad had just gone up to £10. They now cost £25. Yes they are now of better quality and not just multiples of the same single pose model... but 150% more in the space of 12/13ish years??? That is ridiculous!
It costs more to make the varied casts. But at the same time technology has improved to make such things cheaper.
Lobomalo wrote: I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.
We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.
If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?
This is a location where people debate, mano. Where they pick a point and argue in favor of their beliefs. It might be considered negativity; I consider it player involvement.
I would compare your point to showing up to a debate club and saying "Goddamn! You pricks are making me question my political beliefs!? This is awful, why am I here?." I mean questioning, complaining, and debating is kind of the point of dakka (especially a topic like this).
It's not that we have any disrespect to you, or your beliefs, or the fact that you like the direction GW is going while we don't. It's that you're stating a belief and so we're questioning you.
If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.
SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?
Yeah! Starcraft II is never balanced, much less in any kind of competitive environment! Just yesterday I was watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Now that is just completely unbalanced!
I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.
We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.
If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?
More of this tired old argumentation. Great, you don't like hearing other peoples' opinions on a forum designed to share this kind of discussion. Its not about negativity, its about people who care about a game they love, and watching degrade and otherwise rejected by the parent company through absurd business practices.
GW has given us no more or less permission to change the rules than any other game. Those other games, however, come finished.
If it makes you feel better, I sold all my GW stuff, and my Guard is now all 3rd party. I still hold on to a 40k army because I love the background, I can find games easily, and I love the models/aesthetics for the game.
Finally, its not bashing. Its not hating. Its not whining. Its not any of these frankly asinine comments you and others on this board love to make about a valid post outlining what issues I and others have with this game.
It is simply an opinion, backed with reason. You can attribute to it whatever you like in your mind, but leave it out of your posting. If you want to engage in a sensible discussion, start posting like you mean it.
Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?
Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine Warhammer Fantasy Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd
So two relevant games to the discussion, one of which is also a poorly produced Games Workshop product.
So what's your opinions on Warmachine; the fact that it has a lower barrier to entry, better customer support, free mission support, tournaments and events supported by the company, better written rules, and better pricing overall (save a few extreme models, Vlad3 WHYUSOSPENSIVE?!).
So far, Lobomalo, or Bad Wolf as we shall call him, is spouting off many things a new player to the game of Warhammer 40k says. I said the same things when I started. It just how quick does one catch on to the bad practices and bad quality and value of the game the determines when they become a "vet," or the other terms Mr. Wolf has used in the past that are quite derogatory.
If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.
SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?
You do know that words have actual meaning and that those things are easily disproved by a simple google search right?
For example, I was just yesterday watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Funny, that seems pretty balanced to me...
Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.
North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.
If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.
SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?
You do know that words have actual meaning and that those things are easily disproved by a simple google search right?
For example, I was just yesterday watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Funny, that seems pretty balanced to me...
Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.
North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.
Irrelevant. If Starcraft were as unbalanced as you claim, you would see the same skew of results everywhere.
Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?
Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine
Warhammer Fantasy
Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd
So in other words, you've never played any miniature wargame other than 40k? Right...
Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.
North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.
1. Me, following Esports for about 2 years now, can attest to a close balance between the three factions and a near-even mix of the factions by professional players.
2. StarCraft is more popular in South Korea than the US because it's a strong national phenomenon, explaining the gap and why most good SC2 players are South Korean.
3. StarCraft is not actually relevant to this discussion (oops, whoever said that was right).
If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.
SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?
You do know that words have actual meaning and that those things are easily disproved by a simple google search right?
For example, I was just yesterday watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Funny, that seems pretty balanced to me...
Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.
North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.
That is completely irrelevant. An unbalanced game would mean that you would have the same faction skew no matter what level of competitiveness you were playing on.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Will do, going to the game store myself and bringing four different games with me. I already have, it's called variety!
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine.
So...same as you then?
I know what I see. It has some minor issues here and there, but nothing to get my panties in a bunch. I don't give a crap about how things were in other editions as they have zero bearing on this one. I take the game for what it is. It's fun, I enjoy it, my friends enjoy it and this is all that really matters. Everyone who feels otherwise is entitled to their opinion, but it is never going to be anything more than an opinion, a bunch of whining individuals who will never be satisfied and that is fine too. You will see me as a young, rude player and that is fine too, we are all entitled to our opinions.
I prefer to look on the bright side, you guys won't be around playing much longer I think, which means more people who want to get back to playing the game they love and less people sitting on forums complaining.
jamesk1973 wrote: GW can make back the ground that they have lost but it is going to take a while and it is going to be painful.
I really hope they do. They already face a financial problem on the horizon as for quite some time, they have only been able to maintain profit by cutting cost and sales have gone lower and lower. Kirby and most of the upper management have to go (down), before, we will not see the good old, healthy, GW back.
jamesk1973 wrote: GW can make back the ground that they have lost but it is going to take a while and it is going to be painful.
I really hope they do. They already face a financial problem on the horizon as for quite some time, they have only been able to maintain profit by cutting cost and sales have gone lower and lower. Kirby and most of the upper management have to go (down), before, we will not see the good old, healthy, GW back.
I think the bigger questions are:
Do they understand the need to?
Are they willing to do it?
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine.
So...same as you then?
I know what I see. It has some minor issues here and there, but nothing to get my panties in a bunch. I don't give a crap about how things were in other editions as they have zero bearing on this one. I take the game for what it is. It's fun, I enjoy it, my friends enjoy it and this is all that really matters. Everyone who feels otherwise is entitled to their opinion, but it is never going to be anything more than an opinion, a bunch of whining individuals who will never be satisfied and that is fine too. You will see me as a young, rude player and that is fine too, we are all entitled to our opinions.
I prefer to look on the bright side, you guys won't be around playing much longer I think, which means more people who want to get back to playing the game they love and less people sitting on forums complaining.
So play along with a hypothetical: GW reports one of their worst financial years in 5 years this July. The company, instead of changing course, doubles down on their current actions. They then report another bad mid year report in January of 15. The company spirals and falls apart come July 15. This is a realistic time frame given how fast TSR and many other companies their size have fallen historically.
Would you still care to disagree with so many folks that are pointing out what GW is doing wrong right now or would you still blame the players, as GW has tought you, as the fault of their demise?
I know what I see. It has some minor issues here and there, but nothing to get my panties in a bunch. I don't give a crap about how things were in other editions as they have zero bearing on this one. I take the game for what it is. It's fun, I enjoy it, my friends enjoy it and this is all that really matters. Everyone who feels otherwise is entitled to their opinion, but it is never going to be anything more than an opinion, a bunch of whining individuals who will never be satisfied and that is fine too. You will see me as a young, rude player and that is fine too, we are all entitled to our opinions.
I prefer to look on the bright side, you guys won't be around playing much longer I think, which means more people who want to get back to playing the game they love and less people sitting on forums complaining.
You continue to post this misinformed and confrontational drivel.
No one has their panties in a twist.
No one is whining or a whiner.
No one is concerned about how things were when looking at what the issues are currently.
No one is saying they aren't having fun with their friends.
No one is saying you're a young rude player (well I'm thinking that now with your posting).
I don't look at any side. I look at things for what they are and judge them accordingly. There's plenty I enjoy about 40k, but there's a lot holding me back. If you were to acknowledge the arguments being made without being so confrontational and assuming things of others, maybe you'd understand where a lot of people are coming from.
Instead, you make attack other posters, belittle them, and make yourself out to be some guiding light for the future of 40k.
And you wonder why there's negativity on these boards.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Well, judging by GWs financials, it's not for anyone
Any reasonable change would mean a considerable threat to all shareholders. You can't just turn the entire company around on one day and people immediately start buying stuff. Gaining trust again will take time and shareholders won't like the changes...at all.
GW put themselves in a dark, moldy pit and they keep digging deeper. Which is really sad as 40k and WHFB are still awesome games.
Any reasonable change would mean a considerable threat to all shareholders. You can't just turn the entire company around on one day and people immediately start buying stuff. Gaining trust again will take time and shareholders won't like the changes...at all.
GW put themselves in a dark, moldy pit and they keep digging deeper. Which is really sad as 40k and WHFB are still awesome games.
At least I get my Bretonnia update before it gets real grim 'n dark up in here!
Any reasonable change would mean a considerable threat to all shareholders. You can't just turn the entire company around on one day and people immediately start buying stuff. Gaining trust again will take time and shareholders won't like the changes...at all.
GW put themselves in a dark, moldy pit and they keep digging deeper. Which is really sad as 40k and WHFB are still awesome games.
At least I get my Bretonnia update before it gets real grim 'n dark up in here!
I was hoping to get plastic Sisters before GW goes belly up.
Any reasonable change would mean a considerable threat to all shareholders. You can't just turn the entire company around on one day and people immediately start buying stuff. Gaining trust again will take time and shareholders won't like the changes...at all.
GW put themselves in a dark, moldy pit and they keep digging deeper. Which is really sad as 40k and WHFB are still awesome games.
I'm not sure that's true, not the first part anyway. Shareholders like long-term viability and long-term goals for steady growth and profits. If GW has a viable plan that can promote these things, I think the shareholders will largely be behind this plan because, let's face it, the GW shareholders are probably players, too, and if not are probably gamers and comic-book geeks to some degree. GW is not a company like Microsoft or Samsung or Apple where you see their products on every street-corner and are inundated with their advertisements at every turn. You kinda gotta know what you're getting into when you buy stock in GW.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Oh good, and now you complete the pattern by running off with a parting shot about how everyone is so narrow-minded and hateful, while doing nothing to address the arguments anyone has made. Does your entire position come down to "I like the game and you shouldn't be so negative"?
Maybe GW should learn what is it about Manolo Blahnik that makes others shell out cost equivalent to my Army cost, happily. Or Mont Blanc for making people pay 400 times the price of a normal pen. They must be doing something right that people enjoy buying their products.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Oh good, and now you complete the pattern by running off with a parting shot about how everyone is so narrow-minded and hateful, while doing nothing to address the arguments anyone has made. Does your entire position come down to "I like the game and you shouldn't be so negative"?
As someone said before, perhaps when someone backs out of a discussion, we should let them go rather than provoke them to come back. I think everyone has voiced their opinions about the poster enough. Lets get back on topic?
Sigvatr wrote: Any reasonable change would mean a considerable threat to all shareholders. You can't just turn the entire company around on one day and people immediately start buying stuff. Gaining trust again will take time and shareholders won't like the changes...at all.
I think this is the big problem. GW is extremely concerned with the opinion of shareholders who know nothing about the company beyond how much profit they made and how well the stock price is doing, and I can't see the current management being willing to take the risk of telling the shareholders "we need to make some changes that will hurt profits now, but pay off in the future". Meanwhile the "casual at all costs" rule authors will continue to insist that nothing is wrong, and publishing bad rules is actually something to celebrate. End result: more cost cutting and price increases, faster releases, and more DLC. Milk that cash cow as fast as possible, until there's nothing left and GW's management can cash in their retirement deals the day before the whole thing collapses.
What GW needs is to go bankrupt ASAP so that the IP can be picked up by a company that knows how to run a game business.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Oh good, and now you complete the pattern by running off with a parting shot about how everyone is so narrow-minded and hateful, while doing nothing to address the arguments anyone has made. Does your entire position come down to "I like the game and you shouldn't be so negative"?
I answered the reasons provided to me by the moderator within this topic, I do not need to acknowledge every crack pot reason someone else has as well. I also do not need to repeat myself. If you are unhappy with something, remove yourself from the situation or find a way to make things better.
Nothing any of you have said in this conversation is helping to fix the issue. You all have your own issues with the company and you are all stubborn enough to insist that these issues are of such importance that they be addressed now.
So I ask you a series of questions.
What are you going to do about the game as it stands now?
How can you as a player improve your experience?
How can you as a player improve the experiences other have within the game?
What actions can you take to help "fix" the game that is "broken"?
Mind you, if your only answer is simply to post on the forums and talk about it, don't bother answering.
See Peregrine, you people in this thread, you talk about things, you talk about problems, but you don't have a single solution. Me, I see the problems, I accept them and I accommodate them. I find ways to work around them and I move on. I don't let it bother me, I don't let it bring me to a forum to vent my frustrations, because, though one of you refuses to admit it, in reality, this is all you are doing, venting.
There is altogether too much talking and not enough action from what I am seeing. Me, I have an excuse, my buddies are all at work and my models are stripping so I am sitting on too much free time, otherwise I'd be painting or playing as its my day off.
What is your excuse?
All of you, ask yourselves, how much time do you spend talking about the game compared to how much time you spend playing the game? Some people on these forum I see them on literally almost the entire day, posting at all hours of the day, which is a shame because all they do in their posts is start fights and vent their frustrations which helps nobody.
So, one final time, you all know the issues you have with the game.
What are you going to do about it?
Or are you just going to sit here and complain and talk about stock issues?
As someone said before, perhaps when someone backs out of a discussion, we should let them go rather than provoke them to come back. I think everyone has voiced their opinions about the poster enough. Lets get back on topic?
Thanks for the assist but I've been watching the discussion and its going just as I predicted. Nobody is going to do anything but talk about the problems, they won't solve anything.
Accommodating problems, which is just a fancy way of saying that you enable them, makes you apart of the problem.
Your smug stance is equivalent to being a family member of a drug addict and lording over the rest of the family for worrying about the addict while you just accept them for what they are.
At the end of the day, the family members who are concerned and voice their concern about said addict's problems are doing more to fix it, despite not directly taking any action, then the guy who just says "well it is what it is deal with it hurrrrr!"
You do realize the GW is completely fortressed up.
There is no action to take besides going up to kelly or the higher ups and punching them in the face.
Any email or attempt at contact is met with low grade flunkeys and canned messages.
Shale we all fly out the GWHQ and do a mass protest?
Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you
Oh good, and now you complete the pattern by running off with a parting shot about how everyone is so narrow-minded and hateful, while doing nothing to address the arguments anyone has made. Does your entire position come down to "I like the game and you shouldn't be so negative"?
I answered the reasons provided to me by the moderator within this topic, I do not need to acknowledge every crack pot reason someone else has as well. I also do not need to repeat myself. If you are unhappy with something, remove yourself from the situation or find a way to make things better.
Nothing any of you have said in this conversation is helping to fix the issue. You all have your own issues with the company and you are all stubborn enough to insist that these issues are of such importance that they be addressed now.
So I ask you a series of questions.
What are you going to do about the game as it stands now?
How can you as a player improve your experience?
How can you as a player improve the experiences other have within the game?
What actions can you take to help "fix" the game that is "broken"?
Mind you, if your only answer is simply to post on the forums and talk about it, don't bother answering.
See Peregrine, you people in this thread, you talk about things, you talk about problems, but you don't have a single solution. Me, I see the problems, I accept them and I accommodate them. I find ways to work around them and I move on. I don't let it bother me, I don't let it bring me to a forum to vent my frustrations, because, though one of you refuses to admit it, in reality, this is all you are doing, venting.
There is altogether too much talking and not enough action from what I am seeing. Me, I have an excuse, my buddies are all at work and my models are stripping so I am sitting on too much free time, otherwise I'd be painting or playing as its my day off.
What is your excuse?
All of you, ask yourselves, how much time do you spend talking about the game compared to how much time you spend playing the game? Some people on these forum I see them on literally almost the entire day, posting at all hours of the day, which is a shame because all they do in their posts is start fights and vent their frustrations which helps nobody.
So, one final time, you all know the issues you have with the game.
What are you going to do about it?
Or are you just going to sit here and complain and talk about stock issues?
As someone said before, perhaps when someone backs out of a discussion, we should let them go rather than provoke them to come back. I think everyone has voiced their opinions about the poster enough. Lets get back on topic?
Thanks for the assist but I've been watching the discussion and its going just as I predicted. Nobody is going to do anything but talk about the problems, they won't solve anything.
In many ways you are like me dude. But the guys you are arguing with have been doing this exact same thing for a long time against fresh meat like you (or me a few months ago). Your enjoyment of the forum will increase if you simply block peregrine for example (seriously, that guys got a bad name everywhere I go and dakka is mentioned, thats a red flag right there). The other guys arent so bad but really, just accept that they will do what they do and enjoy the game as much as you can. There are plenty of people that enjoy the game for what it is and even like the things some call flaws. You will get to know them and start realizing soon enough to just not take these guys too seriously. They can be right on some things too. But its an unwinnable war for both sides and its really much easier to just remove yourself as often as you can and let them all agree with each other for a few days before they repeat the process.
Give it 2 months and you will notice these arguments happen systematically and in the exact same fashion and order as the last. Its awfully predictable. So just avoid the loop these guys are stuck in and try squeeze what fun you can out of the forum until you get bored of it haha.
Complain on forums for the hobby about my issues for the game, because GW has no official channels to do so and don't care, but if enough people express a dislike of the the state of the IP, things might change.
I also refuse to spend further money on the hobby until the game reaches a playable state again.
Lobomalo wrote: If you are unhappy with something, remove yourself from the situation or find a way to make things better.
Why? It's much more fun to point out how you're avoiding the substance of the arguments and focusing on complaining about how negative everyone is.
Nothing any of you have said in this conversation is helping to fix the issue.
Of course not, because GW absolutely convinced that there is no issue. But the fact that GW fails to recognize their problems doesn't make our criticism any less true.
What are you going to do about the game as it stands now?
Play other games instead.
How can you as a player improve your experience?
By playing other games instead.
How can you as a player improve the experiences other have within the game?
By suggesting other games that they might find more enjoyable.
What actions can you take to help "fix" the game that is "broken"?
None, because the only way to fix the game is to delete the entire rulebook and design a new game from scratch. 40k's problems aren't a few superficial mistakes that can be FAQed away, the entire game is broken in countless different intersecting ways.
See Peregrine, you people in this thread, you talk about things, you talk about problems, but you don't have a single solution. Me, I see the problems, I accept them and I accommodate them. I find ways to work around them and I move on. I don't let it bother me, I don't let it bring me to a forum to vent my frustrations, because, though one of you refuses to admit it, in reality, this is all you are doing, venting.
Translation: STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE I DON'T LIKE NEGATIVE FORUM POSTS.
The fact that I'm not magically fixing the game doesn't make my criticism any less true. The subject of discussion here is GW's problems, not how we as individual players are fixing them for GW. Please either address the substance of the argument instead of complaining about how negative everyone is, or just leave.
By having stopped supporting a company that butchered a couple of great games and IP in their endless quest for short term profit, and instead supporting other, better companies that still value their product and their customer's play experience.
What actions can you take to help "fix" the game that is "broken"?
Voting with my wallet and hope against all hope that GW notices their dwindling player base (and profits), and gets back to how they were in the 90's when they were growing year on year.
So, what are you doing about it? Apart from apparently supporting something that by your own admission is just a cash grab that doesn't bring anything substantively new or better to the game, that is.
Wow. GW's incompetence has turned veterans of 20+ years that are supposed to help promote the hobby into strong opponents that will actively try to get new players from starting the game. (I being one of them. I'm currently trying to talk my nephew out of buying into the game.)
Good job GW. I haven't seen this with any other game.
Achievement unlocked!
Edit: I also sold an army and bought into Warmachine and Infinity. Looking at 40k rules from the other side I see how much better things can be.
Personally my main issue is not the outright "you're not allowed to like GW blah blah blah, GW sucks ass" thing that others are saying on this thread, but just the general vibe of it. I often see in YMDC people blaming things on lack of GW playtesting and their release schedule, but then in other threads applauding the GW release schedule.
Also, honestly, one of the other reasons I refuse to quite 40k is because I've simply invested too much in it to drop it, and I love it too much to leave it behind. Yes the management might be fething it up but that doesn't make me ignore the rich background and honestly awesome games I have with a few mates up at my FLGS. I know it's not the same for tournament players or pick-up gamers but it's not hard to organise things with people. For example, we have a housrule on flyers, we just keep everything groundborne. Don't like a rule? Talk to your friends about it, come to a verdict.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Personally my main issue is not the outright "you're not allowed to like GW blah blah blah, GW sucks ass" thing that others are saying on this thread
That's a good thing, having an issue with something that doesn't exist would be peculiar.
azreal13 wrote: Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Sorry, this made me laugh again. You're under the assumption that this experience you have grants you more knowledge than me. It doesn't. You just have more exposure to a product, it has no bearing on your overall knowledge of the product. Remember children, experience =/= knowledge.
As for me being patronizing, I get that way when people try and step on that high horse as they have been since I joined these forums.
Just think of me as the guy who shoots that horse in the knee cap whenever you try an climb atop it in an argument and we'll be golden. Not to mention, I doubt they would hear anything I had to say unless it was just as sniveling as what they are crying about. It's okay though, I've gotten all I need from this topic and am satisfied that this really is nothing but a whine fest, nobody is posting anything constructive, so I'm going to go play the game and you know, enjoy it as it is because it is very fun to play indeed.
You're under the assumption I was including myself in that statement.
Oh well, I tried.
You're obviously convinced of your own superiority, I'm a bit of an armchair psychologist, I'm slightly concerned that someone who self identifies as an animal abuser, even in a half arsed metaphor, apparently has prolonged access to people's children.
azreal13 wrote: Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Sorry, this made me laugh again. You're under the assumption that this experience you have grants you more knowledge than me. It doesn't. You just have more exposure to a product, it has no bearing on your overall knowledge of the product. Remember children, experience =/= knowledge.
As for me being patronizing, I get that way when people try and step on that high horse as they have been since I joined these forums.
Just think of me as the guy who shoots that horse in the knee cap whenever you try an climb atop it in an argument and we'll be golden. Not to mention, I doubt they would hear anything I had to say unless it was just as sniveling as what they are crying about. It's okay though, I've gotten all I need from this topic and am satisfied that this really is nothing but a whine fest, nobody is posting anything constructive, so I'm going to go play the game and you know, enjoy it as it is because it is very fun to play indeed.
Have a nice day!
Experience consists of knowledge of or skill of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.
All of the common arguments aside my biggest issue with 7th that is killing it for me is the open rules. I travel a lot for work. When I know where I am going to look for a FLGS, see what their popular games are and bring an army of some game accordingly.
Now after I find a place to play I have to call the FLGS and ask what house rules their players have made and make a list accordingly.
I do not have this issue with any other game. I call the FLGS, find out what is being played on the nights I will be near them and pack my X-Wing, or Warmachine or what ever game it may be. I do not have to worry about the rules because I know the rules for all the other systems are not open ended and need to be house ruled.
isatarin wrote: All of the common arguments aside my biggest issue with 7th that is killing it for me is the open rules. I travel a lot for work. When I know where I am going to look for a FLGS, see what their popular games are and bring an army of some game accordingly.
I don't necessarily think it's the biggest problem, but yeah, I've always been a proponent of clear and concise rules that are well structured and then if you want to do silly stuff, house rule in the silly stuff. GW have gone down the opposite road of making the game silly,not clear or concise and very poorly structured, so that players have to spend time before each game with a new opponent to decide how they'll house rule it.
azreal13 wrote: Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Sorry, this made me laugh again. You're under the assumption that this experience you have grants you more knowledge than me. It doesn't. You just have more exposure to a product, it has no bearing on your overall knowledge of the product. Remember children, experience =/= knowledge.
As for me being patronizing, I get that way when people try and step on that high horse as they have been since I joined these forums.
Just think of me as the guy who shoots that horse in the knee cap whenever you try an climb atop it in an argument and we'll be golden. Not to mention, I doubt they would hear anything I had to say unless it was just as sniveling as what they are crying about. It's okay though, I've gotten all I need from this topic and am satisfied that this really is nothing but a whine fest, nobody is posting anything constructive, so I'm going to go play the game and you know, enjoy it as it is because it is very fun to play indeed.
Have a nice day!
I like the way you keep trying and failing to make parting shots that would make you sound above the people you are arguing with, if only you didn't keep tripping and falling on your face. Amusing none the less.
Perhaps you should spend more time talking with adults on equal ground instead of your English students. Your arguments reek of the presupposition that you are more knowledgeable than those you are arguing with. Of course your failed parting shots confirm that, but really we didn't have to read them to know it anyway.
But really, all these arguments about whining and whining about whining and whiners whining about whiners who are whining about whining there is a common trend of ignoring the content of valid arguments either writing them off as "you're just being too negative!" or some other drivel that derides the person instead of the actual argument or simply arguing something else and ignoring the valid points completely.
azreal13 wrote: Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Sorry, this made me laugh again. You're under the assumption that this experience you have grants you more knowledge than me. It doesn't. You just have more exposure to a product, it has no bearing on your overall knowledge of the product. Remember children, experience =/= knowledge.
As for me being patronizing, I get that way when people try and step on that high horse as they have been since I joined these forums.
Just think of me as the guy who shoots that horse in the knee cap whenever you try an climb atop it in an argument and we'll be golden. Not to mention, I doubt they would hear anything I had to say unless it was just as sniveling as what they are crying about. It's okay though, I've gotten all I need from this topic and am satisfied that this really is nothing but a whine fest, nobody is posting anything constructive, so I'm going to go play the game and you know, enjoy it as it is because it is very fun to play indeed.
Have a nice day!
Do you not see your own high horse you're riding on? Add hypocrisy to your arrogance, and rudeness.
azreal13 wrote: Blimey Lobomalo, you're so green you're still squeaking.
Your attitude isn't unusual for someone new to playing the game, everything is new and shiny, and that weighs heavily on the scales against the cynicism for those who have seen a few edition cycles.
If I could offer a word of caution, your posting style is coming off as fiercely patronising, it might be worth taking a moment and remembering you're not addressing your students, but a mix of people who will vary from younger kids to those who surpass you in experience, both in game terms and life in general, and try to use that to mitigate your tone a little.
You might find it helps people hear what you are saying if they're not getting riled by the way you're expressing it.
Sorry, this made me laugh again. You're under the assumption that this experience you have grants you more knowledge than me. It doesn't. You just have more exposure to a product, it has no bearing on your overall knowledge of the product. Remember children, experience =/= knowledge.
As for me being patronizing, I get that way when people try and step on that high horse as they have been since I joined these forums.
Just think of me as the guy who shoots that horse in the knee cap whenever you try an climb atop it in an argument and we'll be golden. Not to mention, I doubt they would hear anything I had to say unless it was just as sniveling as what they are crying about. It's okay though, I've gotten all I need from this topic and am satisfied that this really is nothing but a whine fest, nobody is posting anything constructive, so I'm going to go play the game and you know, enjoy it as it is because it is very fun to play indeed.
Have a nice day!
You, sir, have a maturity issue. I feel sorry for any child in one of your "classes" that has to sit and listen to someone who thinks so highly of themselves to the point they denounce the opinions of others based on simply disagreeing with them. As a parent, I would also rather not have such a smug little bastard in the general vicinity of my kids, let alone teaching them. If you plan on deriding everyone on a public gaming forum who has a different opinion than you do, then maybe this forum thing isn't for you. You run along and play with your plastic men now...and have a wonderful day
Sorry, but have you actually read through all of my posts or only the recent ones? Just this thread or the exact conversation going on in another one?
Before you jump to conclusions, open your eyes and actually look around. I have acknowledged every Opinion as this is exactly what we are focusing on here. I am free to disagree with their opinions. They have attempted to portray their opinions as facts and came into the discussion looking for ways to bash the game in its current incarnation. There has been no conversation as to how we as players can come together to fix the issues at hands as GW has allowed us to do, there has only beem talk about how bad GW is at making products, how bad they are at keeping their players, how they only care about money, etc.
Feel free to make a judgment on me if you like, but at least look at the entire conversations across the boards.
You'll notice that I am not the only one reacted too by such hostile people for daring to think that the game as it now is actually fun and enjoyable. You'll also notice that I am also asking people to come up with solutions, rather than rants or complaints.
Am I rude, possibly, matter of opinion really. Can being blunt with the truth be considered rude? Don't we all want to hear the truth?
As for me being full of myself, dude you don't even know me nor have you actually taken the time to get to know me, which you could have easily done had you taken the time to browse my post history. I am neither full of myself, nor am I arrogant and hypocrisy, as one poster has alluded to me, I find this to be hilarious.
Mind you, this is the same poster who, in another thread, one meant to talk about the good things in the game, has made every effort he could to point out how bad things are and how unrealistic they are.
Please, do not come in here, read a few posts and jump on the same lame horse they are all riding on right now. You do not know me and you obviously have made zero effort to try, like the others, you have seen something you don't like and you immediately attack before thinking.
I will ask the same questions I posed earlier in this thread.
Rather than pointing out everything wrong with this game, what can you as a player do to fix things? How can you help others enjoy the game? How can you make things better?
I have yet to see a real answer to these questions, in any thread. All I have seen has been sarcasm and outright hostility. Have I reacted in kind, sure. But when you're dealing with children on forums, sometimes you need to get on their level. Could I have approached it better, sure. If you look back in the topics, you'll find that I indeed have done so. I started off positive, then people jumped in on their lame horse and tried to supplant their negative opinions on those who are simply enjoying the game.
So again, think what you want sir, but before you jump into a conversation, why not read the entire thread and those similar before typing that first key.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Riding a high horse is difficult, especially when you're balancing it on a soap box!
This fits better with those who refuse to acknowledge the good in the game more than it does me, or it would if you took the time and stepped back and thought about the issue at hand, but you haven't and you won't and so you ride in on your own lame horse.
I really feel bad for people who cannot enjoy the game for what it is. It's a game, for some a hobby, for others a lifestyle. Why try so hard and belittle the thing they enjoy? That is the real question here.
Why on a forum where people discuss all things 40k, can people not take a step back and think about a game that has been around for decades, how good it has been for every player. Sure it has its ups and downs as does everything else, but the negativity and hostility I see in these forums since 7th launched, it's disgusting really.
Those players, and they know who they are, who voice such negativity about the game, should wonder why they even play. And if those players are no longer playing as some have stated, why the hell are they coming into the forums to post about a game they quit anyway?
And you definitely don't have a monopoly on the truth.
You've offered nothing but arrogant dismissal of anyone that has a different opinion than you.
No one with criticisms of GW have insulted anyone for liking GW. We usually say "That's fine that you like em, Right on." But it's you that keeps bringing up the pointless negativity and saying how anyone that dare question GW has something psychologically wrong with them and refuse to acknowledge that at least some of the complaints are justified.
You're a troll and you're constant rudeness is making this thread all about you. Instead of insulting and dismissing everyone, try talking to them like they're human beings with their own experiences and ideas.
You like GW. That's great. I understand that. I used to be right where you are, defending GW against people that are attacking a game you love.
Dont' take it so personal. Stop with the insults and attacks and please stop with this hollier-than-though "I'm the font of all knowledge and wisdom" routine and realize that people will have different opinions.
I think GW as a company is disgusting. I love 40k and I want to see it get better. I'm sure you love the game. That's cool. But as it is, I can't support the company because I think it's making horrible decisions and I can't reward that sort of behavior
I hope you swallow your pride for a minute and actually listen instead of insulting everyone.
And you definitely don't have a monopoly on the truth.
You've offered nothing but arrogant dismissal of anyone that has a different opinion than you.
No one with criticisms of GW have insulted anyone for liking GW. We usually say "That's fine that you like em, Right on." But it's you that keeps bringing up the pointless negativity and saying how anyone that dare question GW has something psychologically wrong with them and refuse to acknowledge that at least some of the complaints are justified.
You're a troll and you're constant rudeness is making this thread all about you. Instead of insulting and dismissing everyone, try talking to them like they're human beings with their own experiences and ideas.
You like GW. That's great. I understand that. I used to be right where you are, defending GW against people that are attacking a game you love.
Dont' take it so personal. Stop with the insults and attacks and please stop with this hollier-than-though "I'm the font of all knowledge and wisdom" routine and realize that people will have different opinions.
I think GW as a company is disgusting. I love 40k and I want to see it get better. I'm sure you love the game. That's cool. But as it is, I can't support the company because I think it's making horrible decisions and I can't reward that sort of behavior
I hope you swallow your pride for a minute and actually listen instead of insulting everyone.
Hypocritical much? I am not arrogant, this is merely your perception of me. If you actually had anything worth saying to read, I'd respond to it but you haven't in multiple threads now. Or did you forget how many people you belittled and talked down to just yesterday in a thread meant to get people talking about the good things in this game?
You think the company is doing bad things, I accept this, you refuse to support them, I accept that. You don't need to say anything else other than that, but you've gone on and on and on incessantly.
I have acknowledged some of their complaints. But these are opinions, things they feel are issues. I do not feel they are issues so I disagree, as is my right.
You call me a troll, not only is that rude but it is completely untrue. Trolls serve no purpose but to cause arguments. I want the arguments to stop as they are pointless and destructive. I stepped away from conversations and you people continue insulting me when I was done with the discussion. That is more of a troll than anything I have done.
Did I say I was the only one with the truth? Never. And you won't find otherwise. I said the truth is simply the truth, others may find it rude but it isn't the truth just is. Telling the truth, no matter how much it pisses you off, is justified as you need to hear it.
Condescending, not really, not my style. I don't think I am above anyone nor do I act like it. In fact, it has been you and others who have come at me with your "superiority" of experience and all that crap. Not the other way around. I see most of you as equals and a couple of you as superiors to me. I don't look down or think I am better than any of you, nor do I think I am smarter. I do however think I am more open minded, but this is something that is more common with my generation as a whole, so it isn't something exclusive to me.
And none of you, not a single one of you and I have checked, have said anything positive to those who like the game. You begin with something nice, then its "But this and but that" you never let them actually enjoy the experience, you have to find some way to crush them. This is what gets me into the conversations. Look through my posts since I have joined, you will find that I only get involved in arguments when "other people" come in acting like they know better or that they are better.
You may not like what I have to say and that is fine, but do not sit there and act like you are not doing the same things you accuse me of.
Also, one last thing.
Show me exactly where I insulted anyone. Not me expressing an obvious truth, like when I say veteran players are stubborn, close minded and don't like change as this has been literally proven true in every discussion on every one of the topics on this board whenever anyone brings up anything, positive or negative about the game.
Hypocritical much? I am not arrogant, this is merely your perception of me.
Okay, valid point here. No one can REALLY know someone based purely on a conversation online...
If you actually had anything worth saying to read, I'd respond to it but you haven't in multiple threads now. Or did you forget how many people you belittled and talked down to just yesterday in a thread meant to get people talking about the good things in this game?
I...just...What?
How do you go from saying,
I am not arrogant
to
If you actually had anything worth saying to read, I'd respond to it but you haven't in multiple threads now.
That is text book arrogance. Deeming people unimportant enough to respond to because you feel that they are unworthy?
Anyway...back on topic that was lost so long ago. GW can never win in the way you describe. It is really that simple, all because there are thousands of people who play this game and all of them have different ideas and different goals. If someone loves Tyranids they are going to be disappointed when they pick up the 6th codex, if someone HATES Tyranids and reads the 6th codex they will be happy. If someone loves Eldar they will love the 6th codex, if someone HATES Eldar they will hate the 6th codex.
The issue here is that you are basing an argument on opinion and trying to state facts about it. The only facts that we can really argue are the clarity and the exact nature of the rules, the value of the product based on its competition, and things of that nature. You are trying to apply subjective feelings to what most people see as an objective criticism. It is really easy to see that other game companies put more time and effort into writing their rules out than GW does. That says nothing of whether or not the rules are good, just that they are not well written. We can objectively say that GW models are priced at a premium, we can not say that makes them overpriced except on a personal level.
People are very critical of GW because for a lot of us it has been ten, fifteen, twenty, or more years and thousands of dollars invested into this game. I COULD sell my armies and walk away but...I still like the game enough to swallow my problems and just go have a good time with my friends. I don't WANT to sell off hundreds of hours of my work and effort and forget that it ever happened, I WANT the company that puts of this game to do a better job then they are currently doing.
Contrary to what you believe, I have read your posts during this topic, and based on them you seem arrogant, rude, immature, and highly pretentious. I don't care if you "see it" or not, but that's exactly my perception of you at this point as well as the perceptions of the vast majority of the people who have been posting in this thread. Are we all wrong and you're the only one who's right? I'm sure that's exactly what you think. You come off as someone to avoid even speaking with, something I might attempt to do once in real life, realize what you're like, and then not bother with you again. I'll do us both a favor now and make good on that statement. I recommend everyone just dropping this entire conversation and moving on to other topics, and simply avoid interacting with this person, seeing how he is here only to judge and deride, not discuss.
Mob mentality is never a valid way to make an opinion of someone. Think what you want, but do not sit there and presume to judge me.
Sorry, you read my posts, have you bothered to acknowledge the points I have brought up? Not seeing anything yet. In fact, you have made two posts in this thread, both of which attacking me. Now tell me, who is being rude?
If you met me in person, you'd probably like me once you got to know me, most people usually do. I'm a fairly down to earth and friendly guy. I just don't like when people get on their high horse and try to bring people down to their level.
You'll notice that if you looked around my posts.
You want a discussion.
Answer some questions.
How can you as a player improve the game for yourself and others?
How can you as a player bring back that good feeling you once had when playing this game?
I have asked questions like these multiple times and received no real answer, just sarcasm and rudeness. I respond in kind.
Either way, should you not wish to converse with me again that is your choice, but look around before you make judgments, I have been on these forums 8 days and already I have had to block a few dozen people for being outright rude and hostile, so do not pretend that I am this villain you have made me out to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is text book arrogance. Deeming people unimportant enough to respond to because you feel that they are unworthy?
Anyway...back on topic that was lost so long ago. GW can never win in the way you describe. It is really that simple, all because there are thousands of people who play this game and all of them have different ideas and different goals. If someone loves Tyranids they are going to be disappointed when they pick up the 6th codex, if someone HATES Tyranids and reads the 6th codex they will be happy. If someone loves Eldar they will love the 6th codex, if someone HATES Eldar they will hate the 6th codex.
The issue here is that you are basing an argument on opinion and trying to state facts about it. The only facts that we can really argue are the clarity and the exact nature of the rules, the value of the product based on its competition, and things of that nature. You are trying to apply subjective feelings to what most people see as an objective criticism. It is really easy to see that other game companies put more time and effort into writing their rules out than GW does. That says nothing of whether or not the rules are good, just that they are not well written. We can objectively say that GW models are priced at a premium, we can not say that makes them overpriced except on a personal level.
People are very critical of GW because for a lot of us it has been ten, fifteen, twenty, or more years and thousands of dollars invested into this game. I COULD sell my armies and walk away but...I still like the game enough to swallow my problems and just go have a good time with my friends. I don't WANT to sell off hundreds of hours of my work and effort and forget that it ever happened, I WANT the company that puts of this game to do a better job then they are currently doing.
Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.
It is rather impossible for GW to satisfy everyone.
Citing your answer in regards to Tyranids and 6th. Tyranids were the army I began with and to be honest, I thought the codex for them wasn't that great. I saw my friends codex for the DA, loved it. You cannot satisfy everyone, only the majority. The majority of the players at the time were spamming Tau/Eldar/IG, this can be seen simply by looking at purchase history and special orders from hobby shops. Of course they would shift things to focus attention on that, that is what is selling.
Above all, GW is a business, they are in this to make money. We are in this to play games and enjoy a wonderful hobby. We knew their prices were outrageous when we got into the game, yet here we are, playing it still, buying into it still. Is this then a fault in GW for over-pricing, or a fault with us for continuing to buy from them?
Me, I only buy used now. Bought my last new product today, I would much rather pay %50 of retail, strip and repaint then dump double and pay full price.
Lobomalo wrote: And none of you, not a single one of you and I have checked, have said anything positive to those who like the game. You begin with something nice, then its "But this and but that" you never let them actually enjoy the experience, you have to find some way to crush them.
Why should we say anything positive when there is nothing positive about the game to praise? You're right back to complaining about how negative everyone is without addressing the substance of any of their criticism.
Lobomalo wrote: And none of you, not a single one of you and I have checked, have said anything positive to those who like the game. You begin with something nice, then its "But this and but that" you never let them actually enjoy the experience, you have to find some way to crush them.
Why should we say anything positive when there is nothing positive about the game to praise? You're right back to complaining about how negative everyone is without addressing the substance of any of their criticism.
Wait...what?
Am I correctly understanding that you're saying, Peregrine, that there is not one single positive aspect to Warhammer 40k?
I can't possibly be reading that right, can I? I have to have missed something in the last seven pages, where we shifted topics.
The only negative things I have when it comes to the game are the pricing, metal models, resin models and the inability to buy bits in bulk in stores.
From the armies I have played with and against, they have their good points and their bad, but all are awesome in their own way. I love the new addition but have had issues with some players from older editions who prefer things played differently, we roll off and determine from there or defer to hobby store manager.
I generally discount any perceived balance issues because any imbalance can be countered by tactics and forethought which I have seen multiple times. Interestingly, most of my places to play, the dominating armies aren't even ones people would consider very strong right now.
Lobomalo wrote: How can you as a player improve the game for yourself and others?
By playing other games instead, and by supporting other people in finding new games to play instead.
How can you as a player bring back that good feeling you once had when playing this game?
Not possible. That good feeling, at least in my case, depends on ignorance of the game's flaws. Once you've learned how bad the game is you can't go back and pretend you don't know about those things.
Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.
MTG has way more complexity than 40k and has none of 40k's rule problems and much less of 40k's balance issues. 40k runs badly because 40k's rules are badly designed and balance is nonexistent, not because of how big the game is.
Above all, GW is a business, they are in this to make money. We are in this to play games and enjoy a wonderful hobby. We knew their prices were outrageous when we got into the game, yet here we are, playing it still, buying into it still. Is this then a fault in GW for over-pricing, or a fault with us for continuing to buy from them?
It's GW's fault, because they're sacrificing long-term growth in favor of immediate profit. This isn't outrage at GW running a business, it's about GW running a business badly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: Am I correctly understanding that you're saying, Peregrine, that there is not one single positive aspect to Warhammer 40k?
About the game itself (as opposed to the models/fluff/etc)? Nope, not really. The absolute best I can say about anything in the 40k rules is that they're kind of adequate for playing occasional games with your models, as long as you don't have very high expectations and mostly just want an excuse to take your toys off the display shelf. If I had to update the game I would be surprised if a single rule survived intact.
Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.
It is rather impossible for GW to satisfy everyone.
Citing your answer in regards to Tyranids and 6th. Tyranids were the army I began with and to be honest, I thought the codex for them wasn't that great. I saw my friends codex for the DA, loved it. You cannot satisfy everyone, only the majority. The majority of the players at the time were spamming Tau/Eldar/IG, this can be seen simply by looking at purchase history and special orders from hobby shops. Of course they would shift things to focus attention on that, that is what is selling.
Above all, GW is a business, they are in this to make money. We are in this to play games and enjoy a wonderful hobby. We knew their prices were outrageous when we got into the game, yet here we are, playing it still, buying into it still. Is this then a fault in GW for over-pricing, or a fault with us for continuing to buy from them?
Me, I only buy used now. Bought my last new product today, I would much rather pay %50 of retail, strip and repaint then dump double and pay full price.
No, it is not because they are smaller. I think Warmahordes rules are terrible, even when held up next to 40k. But you have to give it to Warmahordes that their rules are written much better and much clearer than GW.
And maybe YOU got into this game while the prices were outrageous but as I said, some of us have been here a long time. GW being a business doesn't excuse them from terrible practices, just like it doesn't excuse any other business with predatory business tactics. I don't buy EA games because EA has proven time and time again that they do not care about quality or their customers. GW at least cares about quality in their models. A business has to compete for customers, so it is in their interest to treat their customers right, so no they are no in this to make money and only make money. They are in this to make money and to cultivate their business, which means caring for their customers. This mentality to me is far more disturbing than anything else you have exhibited in this thread. As a culinary professional I can tell you a thing or two about price gouging and taking advantage of customers, I can also tell you how it is a short term stagey that quickly leads to shut down. The current GW business model is focused solely on the short term and making a quick buck off of their customers. The numbers are all out in the open for the public to see and it shows that GW is not doing so hot and unless they change something 40k/WFB could well be on their way to a buyout. Sadly I can see GW being the vindictive kind and looking to make another quick buck off of the IP and refusing the sell it less than their asking price and thus completely destroying the IP rather than see it carried on under another company.
Magic the Gathering, something I've played competitively since Arabian Knights has never really been balanced. Tournaments have boiled down to whoever throws the most money into their deck, especially in the states. Also, rule issues galore, especially in Elder Dragon Highlander as this is where you will find the bulk of the veteran players as standard has boiled down to a money pit. Similar issues in over-pricing if you play standard or extended that GW has and Wizards has on multiple occasions had to flat out ban cards the instant they were released as they were over-powered and broke the game, not to mention their stock takes dives every other set or so it seems, with the biggest dip coming from the original Mirrodin block.
Lobomalo wrote: Sorry, but have you actually read through all of my posts or only the recent ones? Just this thread or the exact conversation going on in another one?
Before you jump to conclusions, open your eyes and actually look around. I have acknowledged every Opinion as this is exactly what we are focusing on here. I am free to disagree with their opinions. They have attempted to portray their opinions as facts and came into the discussion looking for ways to bash the game in its current incarnation. There has been no conversation as to how we as players can come together to fix the issues at hands as GW has allowed us to do, there has only beem talk about how bad GW is at making products, how bad they are at keeping their players, how they only care about money, etc.
I'm not paying $90 fething dollars for an incomplete ruleset. I'm sorry, I wouldn't even do it for a free ruleset. The fact that Games Workshop lets us fix their own mistakes in their books does not excuse those mistakes.
Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.
It is rather impossible for GW to satisfy everyone.
Citing your answer in regards to Tyranids and 6th. Tyranids were the army I began with and to be honest, I thought the codex for them wasn't that great. I saw my friends codex for the DA, loved it. You cannot satisfy everyone, only the majority. The majority of the players at the time were spamming Tau/Eldar/IG, this can be seen simply by looking at purchase history and special orders from hobby shops. Of course they would shift things to focus attention on that, that is what is selling.
Above all, GW is a business, they are in this to make money. We are in this to play games and enjoy a wonderful hobby. We knew their prices were outrageous when we got into the game, yet here we are, playing it still, buying into it still. Is this then a fault in GW for over-pricing, or a fault with us for continuing to buy from them?
Me, I only buy used now. Bought my last new product today, I would much rather pay %50 of retail, strip and repaint then dump double and pay full price.
No, it is not because they are smaller. I think Warmahordes rules are terrible, even when held up next to 40k. But you have to give it to Warmahordes that their rules are written much better and much clearer than GW.
And maybe YOU got into this game while the prices were outrageous but as I said, some of us have been here a long time. GW being a business doesn't excuse them from terrible practices, just like it doesn't excuse any other business with predatory business tactics. I don't buy EA games because EA has proven time and time again that they do not care about quality or their customers. GW at least cares about quality in their models. A business has to compete for customers, so it is in their interest to treat their customers right, so no they are no in this to make money and only make money. They are in this to make money and to cultivate their business, which means caring for their customers. This mentality to me is far more disturbing than anything else you have exhibited in this thread. As a culinary professional I can tell you a thing or two about price gouging and taking advantage of customers, I can also tell you how it is a short term stagey that quickly leads to shut down. The current GW business model is focused solely on the short term and making a quick buck off of their customers. The numbers are all out in the open for the public to see and it shows that GW is not doing so hot and unless they change something 40k/WFB could well be on their way to a buyout. Sadly I can see GW being the vindictive kind and looking to make another quick buck off of the IP and refusing the sell it less than their asking price and thus completely destroying the IP rather than see it carried on under another company.
The rules are indeed clearer, but this could be due to size. As for price gouging, as a culinary professional, you know first hand how over-priced things can get, its sickening, I agree, but it doesn't make it a bad business practice. You make less money overall when everyone can afford your product. I do not agree with this mentality at all. People shouldn't need to dump paychecks to play a game. I don't think GW will go out of business though. People said the same thing about Wizards of the Coast multiple times over the last 15+ years and it's never happened, the same held true for Blizzard and EA. Prices stay how they are because people continue to buy them. If people stop buying, owners notice, then prices drop.
Also, it's less of an issue if you buy from 3rd parties like Amazon or Ebay.
Lobomalo wrote: Sorry, but have you actually read through all of my posts or only the recent ones? Just this thread or the exact conversation going on in another one?
Before you jump to conclusions, open your eyes and actually look around. I have acknowledged every Opinion as this is exactly what we are focusing on here. I am free to disagree with their opinions. They have attempted to portray their opinions as facts and came into the discussion looking for ways to bash the game in its current incarnation. There has been no conversation as to how we as players can come together to fix the issues at hands as GW has allowed us to do, there has only beem talk about how bad GW is at making products, how bad they are at keeping their players, how they only care about money, etc.
I'm not paying $90 fething dollars for an incomplete ruleset. I'm sorry, I wouldn't even do it for a free ruleset.
Neither would I, hence why I downloaded mine. I won't pay more than $40 for a book and it better be a damn good book. Though to be fair, judging by the amount of work put into the art and design of the book, it does warrant the pricing. Look at the larger full color graphic novels or comics, and I mean the big ones. Easily $50-$60 on average.
Lobomalo wrote: I love the new addition but have had issues with some players from older editions who prefer things played differently, we roll off and determine from there or defer to hobby store manager.
The fact that this happens at all should be a sign that the game is broken. A good game has clear rules and doesn't require constant roll-offs to decide how to do something. Even when you have players who started in previous editions the most you should ever have to do is open the rulebook to the appropriate page and see what it has to say.
I generally discount any perceived balance issues because any imbalance can be countered by tactics and forethought which I have seen multiple times.
And this is just wrong. If you think "tactics" is a magic word that makes all of the balance problems go away then you really don't understand the game very well. If you have a game between players of equal skill, one with a list full of GW's overpowered balance mistakes and one with a starter set and some tactical squads it isn't going to be a game, it's going to be an execution.
Interestingly, most of my places to play, the dominating armies aren't even ones people would consider very strong right now.
In my experience this is a "big fish in a small pond" thing. You have a bunch of people with limited skill and really bad armies, and then you add a person or two with a mid-tier army and decent skill. The mid-tier players are going to slaughter the weak armies and newbies with their battleforces even if they would have no chance against a top-tier tournament list with a skilled player. As long as the community never gets any of those top-tier lists/players the mid-tier player will continue to dominate simply because they never encounter any tough competition. In contrast, you'll notice that large events (which attract good players from all over the country) tend to be much more predictable. There might be an occasional surprise with the winning list, but the top few players overall will be pretty representative of what the community as a whole considers overpowered.
Jimsolo wrote: Am I correctly understanding that you're saying, Peregrine, that there is not one single positive aspect to Warhammer 40k?
About the game itself (as opposed to the models/fluff/etc)? Nope, not really. The absolute best I can say about anything in the 40k rules is that they're kind of adequate for playing occasional games with your models, as long as you don't have very high expectations and mostly just want an excuse to take your toys off the display shelf. If I had to update the game I would be surprised if a single rule survived intact.
I guess I'm confused. Aren't the models/fluff an intrinsic part of the game?
Here is the problem with that argument: Letting fans fix the rules is misguided at best and a completely foolish at worst. See, proffesional companies lack (for the most part) bias towards certain armies and playstyles but your average 40k player has a fixed idea of how the game should play. Some players want assault to be buffed to hell while others want further nerfs, for example. Neither is ideal but if it were in the hands of the fans you would end up in situations that would be unfair to some players.
TheCustomLime wrote: Here is the problem with that argument: Letting fans fix the rules is misguided at best and a completely foolish at worst. See, proffesional companies lack (for the most part) bias towards certain armies and playstyles but your average 40k player has a fixed idea of how the game should play. Some players want assault to be buffed to hell while others want further nerfs.
I agree and disagree with this. Citing other games for example.
MtG, Elder Dragon Highlander was purely a player driven concept and had no set rules from Wizards at all. It even had an accepted ban list composed by the majority of players. It thrived very well and then Wizards incorporated it into a valid game format, made money off of it and named it Commander.
For 40k, I can see minor changes as good, like ditching the rolls for Traits and Powers, its too time consuming. But if I recall correctly, and I know I do, GW allows for players to freely adjust rules as they see fit. This could both be very good and dangerously bad depending on the player.
Lobomalo wrote: Tournaments have boiled down to whoever throws the most money into their deck, especially in the states.
Nope. There's a certain price factor since cards that appear in popular decks will increase significantly in price as a result of that popularity, but "buy all the expensive stuff" has never been substitute for good skill. And if you manage to discover a new deck before everyone else starts buying the key cards and driving up the price you can win a tournament without spending much money.
Also, rule issues galore, especially in Elder Dragon Highlander
Nope. If EDH has any rule issues it is because of the extra rules the EDH community has added to their game. The MTG rules do not have any rule questions that can not be answered by simply consulting the rulebook and reading the answer (and if you do find one, expect it to be fixed very quickly).
Similar issues in over-pricing if you play standard or extended that GW has and Wizards has on multiple occasions had to flat out ban cards the instant they were released as they were over-powered and broke the game,
Nope, not even close. Instant bans happened exactly once, in the entire history of the game, and it was for one card in extremely unusual circumstances. Since then cards have not been banned without extensive tournament use proving that they are a balance problem, and bans overall have been pretty rare in the "modern" era.
not to mention their stock takes dives every other set or so it seems, with the biggest dip coming from the original Mirrodin block.
You realize that Mirrodin was ten years ago, right? Yes, they did have some problems around that time, but the game has grown significantly since then.
I don't know that I'd go about holding MTG up as an 'enjoyable' game.
It's like heroin. You might like it when you start, but nobody with any real time under their belt is doing it because they enjoy it anymore. They do it because they're addicted.
That being said, as a GW apologist, even I've had to admit that they need to make some changes. (Not total capitulation to the whiniest elements of the fanbase, but changes.) Possibly big ones. There has been a noticeable, and very serious hit to their revenue, and while I try not to armchair quarterback business decisions, given that I have no background in business or finance, even I think it's reached the point where they need to address it in a serious way. I don't know what that might be, but something's got to give.
Jimsolo wrote: I guess I'm confused. Aren't the models/fluff an intrinsic part of the game?
Nope. I'm talking about the rules, which are entirely independent of the model I happen to be painting. The fluff/models provide a reason to play the game, but they aren't part of the rules.
Lobomalo wrote: MtG, Elder Dragon Highlander was purely a player driven concept and had no set rules from Wizards at all. It even had an accepted ban list composed by the majority of players. It thrived very well and then Wizards incorporated it into a valid game format, made money off of it and named it Commander.
The difference is that WOTC actually cares about their game, does extensive research on what the players want to see, and acts on that information. GW, on the other hand, declares that they already know everything, ignores everyone who doesn't enjoy the "casual at all costs" style of gaming the authors prefer, and publishes idiotic statements about how awesome games day is because it lets fans participate in their favorite part of the hobby: buying GW products. The only way a player-made 40k variant is ever going to have any impact on the official rules is if/when GW finally goes bankrupt and someone with more sense takes over the IP.
Jimsolo wrote: I don't know that I'd go about holding MTG up as an 'enjoyable' game.
It's like heroin. You might like it when you start, but nobody with any real time under their belt is doing it because they enjoy it anymore. They do it because they're addicted.
I have no legitimate argument for this. +1 Internets for you lol, game is like crack
Peregrine wrote: You realize that Mirrodin was ten years ago, right? Yes, they did have some problems around that time, but the game has grown significantly since then.
Would have been nice if after 7 editions 40k would have little to no problems left too.
Peregrine wrote: You realize that Mirrodin was ten years ago, right? Yes, they did have some problems around that time, but the game has grown significantly since then.
Would have been nice if after 7 editions 40k would have little to no problems left too.
Except Wizards still has issues with Magic. Certain blocks bring in players, others make them quit. I know of some pro players who have flat out quit because certain editions came out. Not to mention, there is still nothing out there that can actually significantly take out U/W control, the best anyone can do is go U/W and break even, but that is off topic.
TheCustomLime wrote: Here is the problem with that argument: Letting fans fix the rules is misguided at best and a completely foolish at worst. See, proffesional companies lack (for the most part) bias towards certain armies and playstyles but your average 40k player has a fixed idea of how the game should play. Some players want assault to be buffed to hell while others want further nerfs.
I agree and disagree with this. Citing other games for example.
MtG, Elder Dragon Highlander was purely a player driven concept and had no set rules from Wizards at all. It even had an accepted ban list composed by the majority of players. It thrived very well and then Wizards incorporated it into a valid game format, made money off of it and named it Commander.
For 40k, I can see minor changes as good, like ditching the rolls for Traits and Powers, its too time consuming. But if I recall correctly, and I know I do, GW allows for players to freely adjust rules as they see fit. This could both be very good and dangerously bad depending on the player.
The 40k community isn't like the magic community, though. Sure, there may be a lot of overlap in terms of attitude but it has it's own idiosyncrasies. People tend to show bias towards one army or playstyle since they invested significantly into it whereas in Magic: The Gathering investing into different play styles isn't nearly as costly. So, those players who spent a ton of cash on a crappy force are probably going to dislike rules that do not favor their army as much and want those gone.
However, if you are talking about small change like that it's still not a convincing argument for me since the problems with 40k go much deeper. I won't go into it because other people have covered it in detail but fixing 40k simply isn't a project for the community. The community should be involved, yes, but a design studio needs to make the rules.
No, it is not because they are smaller. I think Warmahordes rules are terrible, even when held up next to 40k. But you have to give it to Warmahordes that their rules are written much better and much clearer than GW.
And maybe YOU got into this game while the prices were outrageous but as I said, some of us have been here a long time. GW being a business doesn't excuse them from terrible practices, just like it doesn't excuse any other business with predatory business tactics. I don't buy EA games because EA has proven time and time again that they do not care about quality or their customers. GW at least cares about quality in their models. A business has to compete for customers, so it is in their interest to treat their customers right, so no they are no in this to make money and only make money. They are in this to make money and to cultivate their business, which means caring for their customers. This mentality to me is far more disturbing than anything else you have exhibited in this thread. As a culinary professional I can tell you a thing or two about price gouging and taking advantage of customers, I can also tell you how it is a short term stagey that quickly leads to shut down. The current GW business model is focused solely on the short term and making a quick buck off of their customers. The numbers are all out in the open for the public to see and it shows that GW is not doing so hot and unless they change something 40k/WFB could well be on their way to a buyout. Sadly I can see GW being the vindictive kind and looking to make another quick buck off of the IP and refusing the sell it less than their asking price and thus completely destroying the IP rather than see it carried on under another company.
I'm very late and don't care to read all 7 pages so if you don't want to answer just say so. I'll be ok =)
I have been collecting and playing GW games since approx. 1991..
Why is GW making terrible business practices when they have been in the business for 20+ years and are still doing well?
How is their business predatory? You are in no way obligated to buy anything they sell. You do not suffer harm if you do not get GW products. People have a tendency to think that the fact that they can't afford something does not make bad business, predatory, or any other adjective one may choose to use.
I have never had a non caring issue with GW in 23 years. How do they not care?
TheCustomLime wrote: Here is the problem with that argument: Letting fans fix the rules is misguided at best and a completely foolish at worst. See, proffesional companies lack (for the most part) bias towards certain armies and playstyles but your average 40k player has a fixed idea of how the game should play. Some players want assault to be buffed to hell while others want further nerfs.
I agree and disagree with this. Citing other games for example.
MtG, Elder Dragon Highlander was purely a player driven concept and had no set rules from Wizards at all. It even had an accepted ban list composed by the majority of players. It thrived very well and then Wizards incorporated it into a valid game format, made money off of it and named it Commander.
For 40k, I can see minor changes as good, like ditching the rolls for Traits and Powers, its too time consuming. But if I recall correctly, and I know I do, GW allows for players to freely adjust rules as they see fit. This could both be very good and dangerously bad depending on the player.
The 40k community isn't like the magic community, though. Sure, there may be a lot of overlap in terms of attitude but it has it's own idiosyncrasies. People tend to show bias towards one army or playstyle since they invested significantly into it whereas in Magic: The Gathering investing into different play styles isn't nearly as costly. So, those players who spent a ton of cash on a crappy force are probably going to dislike rules that do not favor their army as much and want those gone.
However, if you are talking about small change like that it's still not a convincing argument for me since the problems with 40k go much deeper. I won't go into it because other people have covered it in detail but fixing 40k simply isn't a project for the community. The community should be involved, yes, but a design studio needs to make the rules.
I see your point, but GW has also allowed for players to take some control in how they play the game. Using this, we can freely adapt things to how we want them, we don't really need them to come and change the rules for us. From what I've seen just on this forum, most people have house rules anyway so having GW make new rules or fix rules players have fixed themselves isn't really necessary.
Pricing issue, $800 for a top tier magic deck is a ton for MtGtbh, drop in the bucket for GW
No, it is not because they are smaller. I think Warmahordes rules are terrible, even when held up next to 40k. But you have to give it to Warmahordes that their rules are written much better and much clearer than GW.
And maybe YOU got into this game while the prices were outrageous but as I said, some of us have been here a long time. GW being a business doesn't excuse them from terrible practices, just like it doesn't excuse any other business with predatory business tactics. I don't buy EA games because EA has proven time and time again that they do not care about quality or their customers. GW at least cares about quality in their models. A business has to compete for customers, so it is in their interest to treat their customers right, so no they are no in this to make money and only make money. They are in this to make money and to cultivate their business, which means caring for their customers. This mentality to me is far more disturbing than anything else you have exhibited in this thread. As a culinary professional I can tell you a thing or two about price gouging and taking advantage of customers, I can also tell you how it is a short term stagey that quickly leads to shut down. The current GW business model is focused solely on the short term and making a quick buck off of their customers. The numbers are all out in the open for the public to see and it shows that GW is not doing so hot and unless they change something 40k/WFB could well be on their way to a buyout. Sadly I can see GW being the vindictive kind and looking to make another quick buck off of the IP and refusing the sell it less than their asking price and thus completely destroying the IP rather than see it carried on under another company.
I'm very late and don't care to read all 7 pages so if you don't want to answer just say so. I'll be ok =)
I have been collecting and playing GW games since approx. 1991..
Why is GW making terrible business practices when they have been in the business for 20+ years and are still doing well?
How is their business predatory? You are in no way obligated to buy anything they sell. You do not suffer harm if you do not get GW products. People have a tendency to think that the fact that they can't afford something does not make bad business, predatory, or any other adjective one may choose to use.
I have never had a non caring issue with GW in 23 years. How do they not care?
Honest answer, at least from what I can gather from people just in this thread, they don't care because they have yet to fix some imagined issues and their prices are too high. I read through their reasons, its nothing more than opinion and frustration.
Lobomato, the cognitive dissonance on display here is just...flat out amazing. You wont buy GW products from GW, admit to downloading the rule book, yet you sit here and say that GW is in no financial troubles? You are not in the minority here, hell I just funded a Necron army and picked up the 7th rule book after about a month of release by trading in a couple of Underground Seas from MTG.
You yourself are saying that you wont buy GW products because they are to expensive, yet you tell the rest of us that their business isn't going to be hurting and isn't going away anytime soon. If GW continues on their current track I can see that they will be gone in ten years. When the time comes for them to liquidate their assets it will come down to one thing, how much money they owe. If they owe enough money to be forced to liquidate their IPs then 40k will continue on. If they go quietly without debt and just decide to close their doors then it could very well mean the end of 40k forever.
For comparison I bring up the MMO City of Heroes. NCSoft, the company that owned it, was not doing so great financially and had invested most of their resources into Guild Wars 2. When their investors started putting pressure on them they decided to shut down City of Heroes as it wasn't making a fantastic profit, EVEN THOUGH it was on an upswing and recovering with reinvestment. Other companies put in bids for the IP but rather than let any competition potential make a profit they decided to let the IP die.
I would no be surprised if GW did the same thing.
EDIT:
I'm very late and don't care to read all 7 pages so if you don't want to answer just say so. I'll be ok =)
I have been collecting and playing GW games since approx. 1991..
Why is GW making terrible business practices when they have been in the business for 20+ years and are still doing well?
How is their business predatory? You are in no way obligated to buy anything they sell. You do not suffer harm if you do not get GW products. People have a tendency to think that the fact that they can't afford something does not make bad business, predatory, or any other adjective one may choose to use.
I have never had a non caring issue with GW in 23 years. How do they not care?
They are not doing well though, their financial reports from the past year to two years have been on the decline and the trend continues to get worse. For the vast majority of the 90's and into the new millennia GW had no real competition. Lately war gaming has seen a lot of new options come onto the field and while a lot of people play multiple games, very few new players are coming to 40k because of the price of entry.
I would describe their business practice as predatory because they know that the majority of their player base is not about to drop thousands of dollars in product and hundreds of hours of work any time soon, so they release poor rule sets, rushed codices, and laughable supplements. You've been around long enough that you should remember things like Chapter Approved and how White Dwarves used to have entire rule sets for armies that amounted to more than what we now get from a supplement. GW is banking on nostalgia and the connection we have to our collections by giving us constant little bits of hope that MAYBE things will get better. You are wrong in that we ARE obligated to buy the new codices and new rules, otherwise we have to right off the time and money we have invested into this hobby.
The difference is that WOTC actually cares about their game, does extensive research on what the players want to see, and acts on that information. GW, on the other hand, declares that they already know everything, ignores everyone who doesn't enjoy the "casual at all costs" style of gaming the authors prefer, and publishes idiotic statements about how awesome games day is because it lets fans participate in their favorite part of the hobby: buying GW products. The only way a player-made 40k variant is ever going to have any impact on the official rules is if/when GW finally goes bankrupt and someone with more sense takes over the IP.
Are you assuming that because you don't like certain aspects of the game that GW does no research?
OR that they haven't done many things that people want?
How do you address the many happy customers that continue to buy and play?
Arbiter_Shade wrote: Lobomato, the cognitive dissonance on display here is just...flat out amazing. You wont buy GW products from GW, admit to downloading the rule book, yet you sit here and say that GW is in no financial troubles? You are not in the minority here, hell I just funded a Necron army and picked up the 7th rule book after about a month of release by trading in a couple of Underground Seas from MTG.
You yourself are saying that you wont buy GW products because they are to expensive, yet you tell the rest of us that their business isn't going to be hurting and isn't going away anytime soon. If GW continues on their current track I can see that they will be gone in ten years. When the time comes for them to liquidate their assets it will come down to one thing, how much money they owe. If they owe enough money to be forced to liquidate their IPs then 40k will continue on. If they go quietly without debt and just decide to close their doors then it could very well mean the end of 40k forever.
For comparison I bring up the MMO City of Heroes. NCSoft, the company that owned it, was not doing so great financially and had invested most of their resources into Guild Wars 2. When their investors started putting pressure on them they decided to shut down City of Heroes as it wasn't making a fantastic profit, EVEN THOUGH it was on an upswing and recovering with reinvestment. Other companies put in bids for the IP but rather than let any competition potential make a profit they decided to let the IP die.
I would no be surprised if GW did the same thing.
I played city of heroes, I've played every mmo ever launched in America besides Ragnarok, there was never an upswing.
If you read through all of my posts, you will see that my answer to GW overpricing is to outsource, whereas others have simply whined. I also said did not say their business wouldn't be hurt, I said it wouldn't really matter, because it would need to be at a massive scale for them to change prices. A few handful of people here and there won't change stuff.
Also, never said there were no financial troubles IIRC I stated that these troubles happen and they'll bounce back
Also, GW2, flopped. Aeon, flopped. NCSoft has a horrible history with MMO's.
Honest answer, at least from what I can gather from people just in this thread, they don't care because they have yet to fix some imagined issues and their prices are too high. I read through their reasons, its nothing more than opinion and frustration.
Maybe the questions went to the wrong person.
So should I assume you and I are on the same page...
GW is doing a decent job. If you can't afford...sorry, save more money. The rules are fine for many people. Myself in that group. I don't get offended because a unit got nerfed because it may get better
Get over it GW isn't out to get you
And if you hate it so much and it is as bad as you say...find a new game and quit ruining our good time.
???
Honest answer, at least from what I can gather from people just in this thread, they don't care because they have yet to fix some imagined issues and their prices are too high. I read through their reasons, its nothing more than opinion and frustration.
Maybe the questions went to the wrong person.
So should I assume you and I are on the same page...
GW is doing a decent job. If you can't afford...sorry, save more money. The rules are fine for many people. Myself in that group. I don't get offended because a unit got nerfed because it may get better
Get over it GW isn't out to get you
And if you hate it so much and it is as bad as you say...find a new game and quit ruining our good time.
???
No I agree with you. GW is doing fine, stocks rise and fall whenever something new comes out, it is normal. I have seen this happen in too many games to even bother being concerned.
I also agree, if you don't like the game, stop playing, don't whine or complain, play or go away.
Lobomalo wrote: Except Wizards still has issues with Magic. Certain blocks bring in players, others make them quit. I know of some pro players who have flat out quit because certain editions came out. Not to mention, there is still nothing out there that can actually significantly take out U/W control, the best anyone can do is go U/W and break even, but that is off topic.
Lol, seriously? If you're going to make ridiculous claims about other games you should at least try to make claims that take more than a minute or two of google searching to disprove. Your claim that nothing can beat U/W control is just laughably wrong. Here's the top-8 decklists from the most recent major tournament. Oh look, a single U/W control deck in the top 8, a R/W aggro deck won the whole thing, and control decks as a whole didn't even make up half of the top 8. Go look at other tournaments and you see the same thing, U/W control isn't even close to dominating. I think the problem with U/W control is probably that you're just not a very good player and someone in your area happens to beat you a lot with U/W control decks.
Throt wrote: Why is GW making terrible business practices when they have been in the business for 20+ years and are still doing well?
Because of inertia. GW got huge when there was no competition, and the fact that they have the biggest share of the market means that they get a lot of new customers simply because their games are the ones everyone is already playing. The aren't really doing anything to improve their products or grow the company, they're just taking advantage of the fact that they're so big that it will take them longer than the CEO's retirement date to fail completely.
And GW isn't in good shape. They're still making a profit, but only because of aggressive price increases and cost cutting. Sales volume and market share are decreasing, and GW is running out of things to cut. And that's what the most recent financial report showed, even the christmas shopping season couldn't prevent them from seeing a drop in profits and stock price. Expect to see a similar report soon, where the same structural flaws exist and GW just barely manages to avoid disaster despite having the cash cow of a new 40k edition.
Throt wrote: Are you assuming that because you don't like certain aspects of the game that GW does no research?
OR that they haven't done many things that people want?
Because even a superficial look at GW's rules is enough to reveal issue after issue that shouldn't exist, while GW authors openly admit that "beer and pretzels" (which is really "casual at all costs") is the only way to play the game and you're TFG if you enjoy anything else.
How do you address the many happy customers that continue to buy and play?
People love the fluff and models. That doesn't mean that the game is good.
Lobomalo wrote: I see your point, but GW has also allowed for players to take some control in how they play the game. Using this, we can freely adapt things to how we want them, we don't really need them to come and change the rules for us. From what I've seen just on this forum, most people have house rules anyway so having GW make new rules or fix rules players have fixed themselves isn't really necessary.
This was a joke, right? The game is fine! We can fix all of the problems, therefore those problems don't exist!
Honest answer, at least from what I can gather from people just in this thread, they don't care because they have yet to fix some imagined issues and their prices are too high. I read through their reasons, its nothing more than opinion and frustration.
Clearly you haven't read anything if you think that our concerns are just "imagined issues". But I guess that kind of arrogant attitude is what I should expect from you.
Lobomalo wrote: I'm loving this ignore feature, should have used it much sooner.
Yep. I guess eventually you had to get tired of using "BUT UR SO NEGATIVE" as a way to avoid addressing the substance of any arguments, so now you can just block everyone who disagrees with you!
Jimsolo wrote: I guess I'm confused. Aren't the models/fluff an intrinsic part of the game?
Usually in the context of these discussions when I think of "game" I think of the actual rules part of the game, the thing that makes it a "game" rather than just collecting models to put on a display shelf and not the entire hobby in general.
About the only good thing I have to say about 40k rules is that they're a good excuse to line up a bunch of (mostly) cool looking models. That's not a bad thing, when I started playing WHFB I can honestly say 90% of what I enjoyed about the game was simply lining up my army against another army. My tactics were simplistic, I didn't really care all that much if I won or lost, the content of my army was far from optimal and I won most my games simply because my opponents were even worse, but it was damned fun! As I've gotten older, I've developed more of an appreciation of the actual "game" part of the hobby, and when it comes to 40k, the game part is lacking.
Lobomalo wrote: I also agree, if you don't like the game, stop playing, don't whine or complain, play or go away.
But we like whining! And this is our designated whining zone...
People are generally good at making decisions when it comes to playing or quitting GW. But when they want to discuss GW and their opinion of it, they go here. I can't overemphasize how useless saying 'don't complain' is. You are essentially saying that there shouldn't be free discussion about GW, or that all discussion should be positive. We won't be censored.
Ooh, edgy. I'm not sure about this forum (?) but calling someone a troll in a forum is generally a pretty severe thing. Be careful, don't try to piss people off.
Lobomalo wrote: I'm loving this ignore feature, should have used it much sooner.
Yep. I guess eventually you had to get tired of using "BUT UR SO NEGATIVE" as a way to avoid addressing the substance of any arguments, so now you can just block everyone who disagrees with you!
I can't tell who he's ignored. It's not you, because he's responded to you since praising the ignore feature.
Yeah, because everyone who disagrees with you is just posting offensive stuff to get a reaction, and not giving their sincere opinion on an issue they care a lot about. Remember how people have accused you of being arrogant and condescending? This is why.
This Lobomalo guy doesn't seem to get it. He can't argue against anyone because he refuses to engage anyone in a meaningful discussion. He'll call anyone who disagrees with him all the usual Internet watch-words - 'whiner', 'hater', 'troll' - anything to avoid having to make a substantive rebuttal to anything anyone says to him or back up anything he's said. Worse, he'll often just say something like "Had you written anything worth reading..." with one breath, and then deny his arrogant and petulant nature with the next breath. Kind of amazing. I mean wow... "... written anything worth reading..."? Who talks like that?
I mean just look at some of the quotes above:
"GW is doing fine"
"If you don't like the game, stop playing"
I mean how many people have we seen come along and say those things? It's just crazy that people like this exist. Disagree all you like, but a wilful intentional blindness and the audacity to engage with other members in such bad faith and with such dishonesty is mind boggling.
Lobomalo wrote: Sure it has its ups and downs as does everything else, but the negativity and hostility I see in these forums since 7th launched, it's disgusting really.
Why should people like what the game has become? I liked 6th Ed, it was the first time I'd jumped back into 40K for a few editions. I had issues with the Codices, but I could live with and was enjoying the general rules. Less than 2 years later a new version of the game comes out and changes a whole bunch of stuff, invalidates other things (like all the damned cards I had), and leaves us with a edition of the game that quite a few of us dislike. And we should just be ok with this because we enjoyed the game in the past?
You focus on negativity, as if someone's negativity is reason enough to ignore what they have to say. You also hate abject negativity. I hate abject positivity - wilful blindness, ignorant joy, the inability to not only acknowledge the potential for criticism but the blind belief that no criticism is valid because you're enjoying it.
Didn't Mark Bolger..eh..I mean Lobomalo said he'd be out of this thread a few pages ago?
This was a thread that was supposed to be about the good GW or rather their games have and he purposefully turned it into a boiling pot of hate fueled with naivitee, ignorance, presumptuousness and rudeness.
Could we just delete the last 4 pages?
Excluding him, what are the good points that have been brought up yet?
-> Good looking models
-> allows for casual fun
-> widely accepted / played, easy to find new players
-> unique, interesting background
Throt wrote: Why is GW making terrible business practices when they have been in the business for 20+ years and are still doing well?
Because of inertia. GW got huge when there was no competition, and the fact that they have the biggest share of the market means that they get a lot of new customers simply because their games are the ones everyone is already playing. The aren't really doing anything to improve their products or grow the company, they're just taking advantage of the fact that they're so big that it will take them longer than the CEO's retirement date to fail completely.
GW did become a big company when there was very little competition, as did Apple, Microsoft and countless others. Having many players is not the only reason that they are gaining new customers. Does it help? Of course, but tit is far from the only or the main reason.
You don't think they are improving their product? New miniatures, codex, rulebooks, formats, data slates, book lines, specialty(forgeworld)..None of those are improvements?
Growth is difficult right now with global economy but GW are trying to make adjustments. Some successful, some not so much. A company of that size cannot make 180 changes overnight.
You make your CEO assumptions based on what?
And GW isn't in good shape. They're still making a profit, but only because of aggressive price increases and cost cutting. Sales volume and market share are decreasing, and GW is running out of things to cut. And that's what the most recent financial report showed, even the christmas shopping season couldn't prevent them from seeing a drop in profits and stock price. Expect to see a similar report soon, where the same structural flaws exist and GW just barely manages to avoid disaster despite having the cash cow of a new 40k edition.?
GW has had challenges within their financial report. They are also a luxury niche market. Most companies showed a drop or stayed flat(or close) in the last holiday season as economies struggled.
GW stock took its big hit in January and climbed back to 647. 37% higher than it's lowest point in march and less than 100 points below its peak.
Their lowest dip was still around 250 points higher than they were in 2009.
They probably have some structural flaws and are hopefully working to correct those.
Because even a superficial look at GW's rules is enough to reveal issue after issue that shouldn't exist, while GW authors openly admit that "beer and pretzels" (which is really "casual at all costs") is the only way to play the game and you're TFG if you enjoy anything else.
I would disagree. A heavy in depth look into the rules reveals issues that may or may not exist. Many people are not affected by these issues. Someone may be unhappy with the 'issue' but that doesn't make it an actual problem.
I believe you are over exaggerating the beer and pretzels comment. GW has never said it was the only way to play just as they do not say you can only play 1500 points. They make recommendations.
TFG is dependent on the gaming groups. As mature adults we should be able to work out the ways we want to play and a looser gaming system allows that.
Do you need GW to tell you every game should be played like 'x'. I don't need it and definitely don't want it.
So what issue should not exist? Not one that you don't like, but actually makes the game unplayable?
People love the fluff and models. That doesn't mean that the game is good.
What part of the game is bad?
Good and bad is entirely subjective.
I think it is good. As do all the people in my gaming groups.
If it's not good, why do you play?
Lobomalo wrote: I see your point, but GW has also allowed for players to take some control in how they play the game. Using this, we can freely adapt things to how we want them, we don't really need them to come and change the rules for us. From what I've seen just on this forum, most people have house rules anyway so having GW make new rules or fix rules players have fixed themselves isn't really necessary.
This was a joke, right? The game is fine! We can fix all of the problems, therefore those problems don't exist!
I don't think Lobomalo was joking.
What needs fixing?
What happens when they 'fix' what you say is broken and then someone else says the 'fix' is broken.?
If group A 'fixes' rule 7 and thinks 10 is fine and group B plays 7 as it is and 'fixes' rule 10 doesn't necessarily mean they are broken. Amd it doesn't mean that they are perfect either, but it shows that the rule is still playable. Then group C thinks all the rules are good and on and on.
Unless it doesn't function broken is subjective.
Honest answer, at least from what I can gather from people just in this thread, they don't care because they have yet to fix some imagined issues and their prices are too high. I read through their reasons, its nothing more than opinion and frustration.
Clearly you haven't read anything if you think that our concerns are just "imagined issues". But I guess that kind of arrogant attitude is what I should expect from you.
I wouldn't say they are imagined. but they are opinions. They are entirely valid but assumed that opinion makes it fact.
I believe you are over exaggerating the beer and pretzels comment. GW has never said it was the only way to play just as they do not say you can only play 1500 points. They make recommendations.
TFG is dependent on the gaming groups. As mature adults we should be able to work out the ways we want to play and a looser gaming system allows that.
This is the problem. I would agree with you as your point makes sense. On the other hand, they charge a HUGE amount of money for the rules. For so much cash, I don't want "rough guidelines", I want quality rules. Well-thought out and playtested. Right now, we are not paying for GWs rules, none of us, at the entire club, because we are not paying someone whose work *we* have to do. If they are supposed to be rough guidelines, that's all fine and well, but you have to charge less for it then.
You really need to look at what other games offer at a better value than Games Workshop and do it objectively. Cheaper rules, better rules, more support for the game, more support for the community, lower costs for entry, etc. etc. etc.
Whether or not you like the game or have some sort of irrational attachment to a corporation, this mentality ain't cuttin' the mustard. And there's plenty of actual data and smart business minded folks saying Games Workshop is in the realm of ain't looking so hot to abandon ship. That kinda bad.
Sigvatr wrote: Didn't Mark Bolger..eh..I mean Lobomalo said he'd be out of this thread a few pages ago?
This was a thread that was supposed to be about the good GW or rather their games have and he purposefully turned it into a boiling pot of hate fueled with naivitee, ignorance, presumptuousness and rudeness.
Could we just delete the last 4 pages?
Excluding him, what are the good points that have been brought up yet?
-> Good looking models
-> allows for casual fun
-> widely accepted / played, easy to find new players
-> unique, interesting background
I will add...
flexible rule system that allows me to bring all my toys or not.
Plenty of options for, play style, appearance, model counts, etc.
In a nut shell, variety.
The list seems short, but in this sort of hobby, it is the same list for any other similar sort of game system.
One Warhammer 40k army that could go from good to bad to good again based on $50~$85 rules changes or armies in four other games with different play styles to master.
I ask, which one is more variety, aesthetics and fluff aside?
*shrug* We like 40k, but Games Workshop is a terrible mess. No reason to support that terrible mess until we see a positive change.
GW lacks in so many aspects compared to Wizards, I don't even see how it is a discussion
The lead designer of Magic operates a blog where he takes on all player questions and freely admits mistakes they have made the game, that is a company I can stand behind, they aren't afraid to admit when they screw the pooch
I believe you are over exaggerating the beer and pretzels comment. GW has never said it was the only way to play just as they do not say you can only play 1500 points. They make recommendations.
TFG is dependent on the gaming groups. As mature adults we should be able to work out the ways we want to play and a looser gaming system allows that.
This is the problem. I would agree with you as your point makes sense. On the other hand, they charge a HUGE amount of money for the rules. For so much cash, I don't want "rough guidelines", I want quality rules. Well-thought out and playtested. Right now, we are not paying for GWs rules, none of us, at the entire club, because we are not paying someone whose work *we* have to do. If they are supposed to be rough guidelines, that's all fine and well, but you have to charge less for it then.
They do charge quite a bit but the idea that they are obligated to charge a lesser amount doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok. If you don't find the value in it then that is your option. Other feel that they still get value. Some even find value in the expensive limited editions.
There are other cheaper games out there.
I often hear that game 'x' is better because they gave their rules for free...well maybe no one was willing to pay for the rules so they had to give them away so more would buy the models. The street runs 2 ways.
I have yet to find anything actually unplayable?
There is a difference between disliking a part of the game and it actually not working.
Can you help me to see what part of the game is just a rough guideline?
I believe you are over exaggerating the beer and pretzels comment. GW has never said it was the only way to play just as they do not say you can only play 1500 points. They make recommendations.
TFG is dependent on the gaming groups. As mature adults we should be able to work out the ways we want to play and a looser gaming system allows that.
This is the problem. I would agree with you as your point makes sense. On the other hand, they charge a HUGE amount of money for the rules. For so much cash, I don't want "rough guidelines", I want quality rules. Well-thought out and playtested. Right now, we are not paying for GWs rules, none of us, at the entire club, because we are not paying someone whose work *we* have to do. If they are supposed to be rough guidelines, that's all fine and well, but you have to charge less for it then.
They do charge quite a bit but the idea that they are obligated to charge a lesser amount doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok. If you don't find the value in it then that is your option. Other feel that they still get value. Some even find value in the expensive limited editions.
There are other cheaper games out there.
I often hear that game 'x' is better because they gave their rules for free...well maybe no one was willing to pay for the rules so they had to give them away so more would buy the models. The street runs 2 ways.
I have yet to find anything actually unplayable?
There is a difference between disliking a part of the game and it actually not working.
Can you help me to see what part of the game is just a rough guideline?
And their stocks have suffered heavily . So it seems they might really have priced too high in conjunction with several bad business actions.
Well you could have opted for Legion of the Damned that auto-tabled turn 1 unless 7th fixed that. Another example was the time when a GK army could auto-table chaos daemons turn 1. Then there's units such as the Pyrovore or KSons or Haemonculi which are just so bad they really aren't worth being brought out. There was a bomber that didn't have bombs until updated, and several more clunky rules that existed here and there. I'll think of some serious unplayable ones though.
It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...
How about this:
Spoiler:
That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.
But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...
Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:
One Warhammer 40k army that could go from good to bad to good again based on $50~$85 rules changes or armies in four other games with different play styles to master.
I ask, which one is more variety, aesthetics and fluff aside?
*shrug* We like 40k, but Games Workshop is a terrible mess. No reason to support that terrible mess until we see a positive change.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.
Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.
Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
What is the positive change you are looking for?.
Price is not subjective. You have folks in the modeling industry who create and produce miniatures that state directly that Games Workshop is highway robbery.
I really don't know how to address your other statements as they are seriously left field. And left field baseball when everyone else is playing football. And there is plenty of evidence that the "as long as that continues" portion of your statement will be not much longer; all dependent on the next financial statement and how Games Workshop reacts.
If you want to really dig into why people would be upset, take the words from someone who has played 40k just as long as yourself, or longer, has been a corporate executive for an international company, and produces his own products for the miniatures hobby:
This also ties strongly into what has killed Fantasy, primarily the rules and the ever expanding cost of starting the game. The game doesn't work until 2000+, something that Warhammer 40k is approaching, and requires you to buy multiple boxes of the same model to just make one effective unit. Fantasy tanked with 7E and never really recovered in 8E.
No, it really isn't in this case. Producing injection-molded plastic model kits is a subject that is pretty well understood by now, and when you compare GW kits to other manufacturers the GW kits are incredibly expensive for their size and level of detail. They're, at best, adequate gaming models where you're willing to put up with lower quality and higher prices because you enjoy the game and they're game pieces, not display kits.
People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast.
You're missing the reason WHY people are complaining: the increase in the speed of releases has come at the cost of a decrease in the quality of new releases. Even ignoring blatant DLC-style spreading of the same content into multiple $50 books and reduction of page counts in each new codex there's a general feeling that GW is rushing out half-finished products in a desperate attempt to keep sales numbers up.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
Any game can do this. Praising 40k for having a range of point values makes about as much sense as praising it for letting you play on a 6x4 table or a 6x4 space on the floor.
They do charge quite a bit but the idea that they are obligated to charge a lesser amount doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
Comparison is inadequate. Mercedes puts a lot of effort into new car designs, manages a huge team of (quality!) employees and produces products at a very high quality level. Even if we, for a second, look over the fact that the two industries are vastly different, there's the huge difference to GW: quality. GW simply asks for a premium yet fails to deliver a premium. This isn't completely subjective either. Poor editing, poor rules-writing, no (!) or extremely late reaction to glaring problems, rushed products - etc. It's different for models as those usually come at a good quality and therefore a higher-than-usual price is appropriate. The rules, however, are extremely lacking.
Thereis a difference between disliking a part of the game and it actually not working.
Precisely. And nobody claimed that it isn't actually working. People complain about a lack of quality - which is there, as much as some might want to wish it away.
Can you help me to see what part of the game is just a rough guideline?
Have you considered that the reason why other games run better is that they are smaller? Warmachine for instance is much easier to manage, it's small scale skirmishes and while fun, get old rather fast and tend to favor certain things.
From one of my earlier replies in this very thread:
Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.
Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.
And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.
You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?
Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.
Also Warmachine and 40k have a very similar number of distinct units on the table. Despite whatever GW says, 40k is also a skirmish game in scope and rules, only the model count has risen dramatically but those models are more often then not, just wound counters that have almost no practical impact in the game...
So please stop making posts about something that you obviously know nothing about. Every single one of your claims about lack of balance in any game has been clearly disproved by simple google searches. Do you even understand the concept of balance in any game?!
1) GW's rules *are* bad. This is an objective fact. It may or may not impact *your* gameplay, but the rules are pretty crap by any stretch of game design. The proliferation of random charts that serve no purpose other than to add a random element, the unclear and often ambiguous rules, the complete lack of caring any lick towards a balanced force, these all mean that in the context of game design 40k would rank pretty low. However, keep in mind that this does *NOT* mean the game can't be fun.
2) Telling people who are negative/criticize the company to "just stop playing" is not only useless, it's also rude and insulting. Many of us who complain used to play, likely longer than the people who think everything is sunshine and roses, and maybe, just maybe, wish that GW would finally clean out their ears and come down from their ivory tower to see what is wrong with the game, and address it. Dismissing all complaints as "Don't like it? Don't play it!" is bullgak. The fact GW has stuck its head in the sand like an ostrich and ignores all communication and feedback just infuriates peole more, because it is an outright ridiculous way to act for a modern business.
3) The old "They've been in business 30 years, they must be doing something right!" argument is a fallacy. While not on GW's scale I've worked for companies that were in business for 10 or more years, and they still collapsed quickly and spectacularly when all their bad business decisions caught up with them. GW had almost no competition for years, while now there are a ton of competition and the internet allows for more startups to chip at the market via things like Kickstarter. GW's business model is not in any way, shape or form sustainable.
4) A big part of the problem with 40k's rules is that the rules are still designed for a skirmish game, despite everything being pushed larger. The ruled have not had a significant change since 2nd to 3rd edition in I believe 1998 (I forget the specific date), and even then 3rd edition was still largely a smaller-level game. Armies went up, this is true, but it was still like a platoon-level game. All the little nuances in the rules have zero place in a large-scale game and bog things down to an enormous scale. There's a reason why virtually every other large-scale game does not use model removal or umpteen special rules for each army: Speed and ease of learning the game. 40k takes the opposite approach, trying to cram as much gak as possible in the game so games are an all-day affair; the conspiracy theorist in me wants to say this is deliberate to push the "investment" that 40k players have in the game, similar to how casinos don't have clocks so you aren't aware of the time you spend in them, which equates to spending more money.
I love 40K, but it is really hard to be positive and not feeling disappointed. I got into the game by starting Dark Angels and despite the encouraging drivel by the local 40K Guru that they were a good codex, they sucked. Against Tau? They sucked. Against Imperial Guard? They sucked. Against the new Space Marine codex? They sucked. That expensive,but glorious Nephilim Jetfighter? It sucked, especially against the units it was supposed to be good against. Those iconic and awesome terminators? Sure, they sucked. In the beginning it was easy to chalk all this up to my inexperience, but in truth, the power gap between the factions was huge. So my interest in the game waned and I stopped playing altogether.
I got into the game again by buying a Tyranid army second hand in the eve of the codex release, thinking that it would be on par with the latest releases. Guess what? Well, it sucked less than the Dark Angels. Actually I loved the 'nids I started collecting,playing and painting vigorously . I bought two of the 40 quid Hive Crone kit, just to have some decent answer to armor. And then 7th edition arrives prematurely and nerfs vector stike, smash, shadow in the warp and my only semi-reliable unit that can cope with AV13+, due to the addition of psychic phase. And makes Landraiders scoring... Maybe it is just unfortunate turn of events and bad planning on my part, but it is hard not to feel bitter, especially when you play against two Riptides on Hammer and Anvil.
I won't be selling my army. I will continue playing , as I owe it to the great guys from my club . I love the Tyranid models and the core rules of the game are decent, despite being archaic and baroque. But I won't be buying any GW models soon. Especially when the are great companies like Hawk Miniatures, who actually make an effort to balance their game (Dropzone Commander) . I've just bought 2000pts Scourge army for 170 pounds, including paints and terrain, due to the great starter. Yes, the models are smaller, but most of them are high-quality resin and their detail is phenomenal. Just saying...
There are incidents within the game where there just isn't any way of resolving a situation,mor where the rules as written simply fail to work.
The Legion Of The Damned codex being a good one, where the whole army is obliged to start in reserve, but has no exception to the "lose if nothing on the table" rule, or permission to arrive on turn 1 in some capacity, therefore making a pure LotD army automatically lose at the end of it's first turn, every time.
Another would be where the number of powers a Psyker can cast per turn is "dependent on their mastery level" but that relationship is never explicitly defined.
Now, nobody is arguing these things can't be fixed easily, or logical assumptions be made as to intent, what the argument is, is that a company that has been in the business of rules writing since the 80s, and that is charging the highest price on the market for it's rules, should not be relying on it's players to fix such elementary mistakes, and should certainly be acting quickly to errata/FAQ the things that do slip through the net.
Then I think perhaps its not all bad. Please hear me out on this.
"Bad" is not a very precise term so a statement that something is bad, I feel should be qualified. For example, I agree that GW rules are bad in terms of precision. There are some vague areas which make it difficult to resolve and encourages rule lawyering.
However, it is good that it has a forge the narrative "rule" because it allows the player to have multiple types of play and replayability, with the same army. I could, for example, play renegade sisters who have broken off in disillusion and developed their own psychic prowess. That is quite bizarre but with unbound or allies, I can try to make that happen.
Unbound has its bad sides too I'll admit. My point is that it is not so clear cut to say "it is 100% bad and other games are better in every way."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I believe, by looking at the number of disappointed players here, that GW has run out of good will, thus supporting the statement from the op that even if they have changed their styles, they might not be given another chance because they have cried wolf probably hundreds of times but this time, they are telling the truth.
One has to consider the qualities that are necessary for a set of rules to be considered "good" surely?
Wouldn't clarity and precision be right at the very top of what is desired from a ruleset (alongside playability and flexibility?)
So, while, yes, you could suggest that GW rules aren't "bad" in every sense, but I think you'd struggle to prove that they weren't lacking in areas that are key to a "good" ruleset, essentially making it a distinction without a difference.
Please don't fall for the "forge the narrative" spiel either, there is nothing inherent to 40K over any other ruleset that allows or encourages this style of play, as it 99% depends on the player generating it regardless. It is just a catchphrase that was generated in 6th edition, largely to hand wave away the lack of precision and clarity in the rules.
In fact, I'd contend forging the narrative is harder in a game when you have to look up rules all the time, and repeatedly stop playing in order to discuss with your opponent about how something is supposed to work.
Once I stepped away from GW and tried other games, I saw how "bad"* 40k rules really were. Now I doubt even a proper Sisters of Battle release would bring me back unless there were improvements to the core rules and a change in corporate behavior.
GW going after fan sites, independent stores and serious IP paranoia needs to change.
*unnecessarily complex, vague, RANDOM and unfluffy.
I feel I should, at this point, before someone pops up and starts yelling "you're just a negative hater!!1!!" In my face, say I think 7th is actually, despite no real, substantive changes outside of the psychic phase, a big improvement over 6th, I think the cumulative effect of all the smaller changes has had a real impact in a positive sense.
That said, it still isn't perfect, but if I could say to my gaming group "give me 10 wishes" for rules or units that I wanted to adjust, I could probably get something close to a very playable and fair game.
Of course, if I wanted it perfect, I'd need to start from the ground up, but I really think 7th has moved in the right direction, just perhaps not far enough (and obviously, core rules can't always do anything about OP stuff in the codexes)
I highly agree with the point about taking a step away from GW. As can be seen with special individuals in this very thread, if you stick too close to one set of rules, you lack the overall perspective.
When I picked up Flames of War, I was completely flashed - insanely complex but pretty darn well balanced. Takes a lot of time to get into because you can see that the developers actually thought about what they're doing and thought of anything possible that might happen. It's the little details that really make an awesome ruleset.
I actually did read up on Flames or War and Warmachines. Mostly just for interest in gaming and also, I wanted to be able to see both sides of the argument. However, I problem is lack of players in my group. We are all pretty much tied for time most days so what time we have is 40k. Starting another miniature games takes time to assemble and paint, which is a premium these days as well.
A little off topic but I actually wanted to start Flames of War. but unless my play group/area has a good distribution of early vs late war and different countries, I can't really start the army I like. I may be constrained in my choice so I wasn't keen on that. In 40k, I find that it doesn't matter which army I pick, I can still play a game.
Still I probably will pick up a Warmachine rulebook once I get the chance. Just to get a good read.
These little onesie codecs like inquisition, knights, legion of the damned, temptus, etc should have been condensed into one book ie chapter approved. Fluff should go to white dwarf
Kal-El wrote: These little onesie codecs like inquisition, knights, legion of the damned, temptus, etc should have been condensed into one book ie chapter approved. Fluff should go to white dwarf
And supplements should be things that change the faction's playstyle. Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter are too similar to the CSM for me to care.
Another would be where the number of powers a Psyker can cast per turn is "dependent on their mastery level" but that relationship is never explicitly defined.
This was solved in the locked thread in YMDC, it just wasn't widely accepted by this forum.
Also, to the poster who says I am not here to discuss the game, pros and cons wise, I have been and I have asked numerous questions that only a few have answered.
Also, the google searches for balance in other games, inherently skewed. Specifically for the local tournaments that both the players looked up. You don't look at the regular season and see how things are as they are constantly in flux with patches and fixes. Also seeing as I still play those games myself, I can attest real world knowledge.
Moving on.
Warmachine is definitely more stable, no argument there, but it is designed for small scale skirmishes with a handful of units on either side so it becomes much easier to run and manage, 40k is significantly larger and when you have larger games, you get serious issues.
And supplements should be things that change the faction's playstyle. Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter are too similar to the CSM for me to care.
Definitely something that should be done. There are plenty of ways that GW could improve the game and it would help them if they did, but as someone said earlier in answer to one of my own posts, if you fix one problem players find in a game, chances are you'll create an entire new one. It's why you never really have true balance as players will consistently want something changed so it is in their favor which is also why no company will ever be able to satisfy all players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TychoTerziev wrote: I love 40K, but it is really hard to be positive and not feeling disappointed. I got into the game by starting Dark Angels and despite the encouraging drivel by the local 40K Guru that they were a good codex, they sucked. Against Tau? They sucked. Against Imperial Guard? They sucked. Against the new Space Marine codex? They sucked. That expensive,but glorious Nephilim Jetfighter? It sucked, especially against the units it was supposed to be good against. Those iconic and awesome terminators? Sure, they sucked. In the beginning it was easy to chalk all this up to my inexperience, but in truth, the power gap between the factions was huge. So my interest in the game waned and I stopped playing altogether.
My roommate got into this game with DA, I got in with Tyranids. He won most of his initial games against Tau, albeit close ones, destroyed IG and broke even with SM. You'll have bad games and some armies will have inherent advantages, but you change your play style, invest in different unit types and try again. Also, Nephilim is absolute garbage.
It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...
How about this:
Spoiler:
That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.
But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...
Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:
Spoiler:
Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.
Different time. New players have trended away from Metal models actually. Don't think anyone likes the prices of GW models which seems to be one of your biggest issues. There's a simple fix though, everyone stop buying new models and buy used or buy from 3rd party sources. Like other games, they'll notice sales have dropped and prices will drop.
One of the LGS I frequent sells all GW merchandise at %20 less than retail, not a bad deal at all. Another one gives you %10 off and gives you a %10 bonus towards membership points for buying GW. Then there is Amazon, Ebay and other places you could easily shop from. Bought 2 Vindicators yesterday for $50. Sure they're used, but some Simple Green, some paint, good as new and nobody would ever be able to tell the difference.
It doesn't take any extreme effort to find cheaper models, just need to accept that they'll be used.
It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...
How about this:
Spoiler:
That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.
But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...
Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:
Spoiler:
Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.
The first image is a beautiful model.
But it doesn't have rues to play in my game, with all the articulation it is probably too fragile to be moved around in a case and all over my gaming table, doesn't fit the theme of any of my armies, probably takes 20 times as long to assemble, is prepainted when I want to paint my own etc.
So $110 is priced way too high for me.
Comparison pricing need to be within the scope of what you are using. You can't accurately compare a drinking glass to a swimming pool.
Yep Dire Avengers did go up. If you want Dire Avengers they are going to cost you. I would suggest forgetting about it.
Personally I don't concern myself with what was because it is in my control whether or not I buy it. You are not happy with it so you wont buy, but I wonder what the sales of Dire Avengers are..if its 'x' thousand units, people are buying them.
It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
IF you feel the price is too high, that is ok...
How about this:
Spoiler:
That's about $110 kit that stands eye to eye with a Reaver Titan in multi-colored plastic and probably a bajillion times the sprues of a Wraithknight or Riptide. And utterly crushes either of them in detail, articulation, etc.
But nah, them being of poor value is entirely subjective if you don't compare them to anyone else... Oh, wait...
Or should we forget this being just $33 a year or so ago:
Spoiler:
Now it's $35 for five. NOPE.
The first image is a beautiful model.
But it doesn't have rues to play in my game, with all the articulation it is probably too fragile to be moved around in a case and all over my gaming table, doesn't fit the theme of any of my armies, probably takes 20 times as long to assemble, is prepainted when I want to paint my own etc.
So $110 is priced way too high for me.
Comparison pricing need to be within the scope of what you are using. You can't accurately compare a drinking glass to a swimming pool.
Yep Dire Avengers did go up. If you want Dire Avengers they are going to cost you. I would suggest forgetting about it.
Personally I don't concern myself with what was because it is in my control whether or not I buy it. You are not happy with it so you wont buy, but I wonder what the sales of Dire Avengers are..if its 'x' thousand units, people are buying them.
I used to live in Japan and bought an obscene amount of Gundam models. They are not fragile and are quite posable without fear of breaking. My Turn A has an insane amount of posability and is very sturdy. It takes a heck of a lot to make them, but that's half of the gundam model hobby. Also, they come in the basic colors but painting is essential to make them look how they're supposed to.
But that's not really the point of what he was saying. He wasn't saying "hey, use this in your 40k games" he was saying "Hey, look, here's a much more posable, articulated, complex, more detailed model that's higher quality in very objective way......and its cheaper." He's saying that the value of GW large models are a rip off and there's no reason they should cost so much.
And you can absolutely compare plastic models to plastic models.
Plastic to plastic yes, quality to quality of the stuff becomes an issue. Beautiful models though, love Gundam. But we've already established that GW are greedy bastards who want money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason they cost so much is that people will that much for them.
This right here.
As long as people continue to pay the prices for them, there is no reason to change the prices.
MWHistorian wrote: Not everyone but apparently enough to keep GW afloat.
True enough. Not to mention all the other products they sell as well including fantasy, books, audiobooks, paints. Stuff adds up fairly quickly. And with no real competition for the genre, they can take a massive hit in their stocks and still bring in more of a profit than any other wargaming company
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.
Fixed that for you.
The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.
To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.
The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.
Fixed that for you.
The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.
To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.
The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.
Such prices are a huge barrier for new players. Last year GW trimmed everything that could be trimmed, came out with Space Marines and still their report wasn't good. This year they had knights and a new lackluster edition, only they have nothing left to trim. And GW most certainly has stiff competition.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason they cost so much is that SOME people will pay that much for them.
Fixed that for you.
The "they charge because people will pay" is only half the equation. There's plenty of people who won't. Who knows what the curve actually looks like, I don't think GW themselves know what the curve looks like. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales of Dire Avengers dropped massively with the price hike. It also wouldn't surprise me if back in the day when GW had sales in the mid 90's, they actually made more money off the sales than they would have if they'd held the price constant.
To an extent, I'm sure many people spend the same on GW products regardless of the price of the models as they have fixed spending money and/or fixed time to paint/play with them. But there's also a large element of people who have quit the game because they felt it was getting too expensive and a large element of people who buy elsewhere.
The "they charge what they do because people pay for it" is like saying "everyone is just whining". It's a massive over simplification of a multifaceted discussion. I think GW went well past the "because people pay for it" wall with Australian pricing... so many people have quit 40k in my area that I can barely find a game at the local FLGS's anymore.
Such prices are a huge barrier for new players. Last year GW trimmed everything that could be trimmed, came out with Space Marines and still their report wasn't good. This year they had knights and a new lackluster edition, only they have nothing left to trim. And GW most certainly has stiff competition.
I imagine GW came out with 7th edition primarily to ward off a bad financial statement, so we'll have another year of customers abandoning GW but them maintaining good numbers as they milk the ones who stay... however it really doesn't seem like a sustainable business model, it's not irreparable, but if they continue on their merry way I think a lot of people are predicting a collapse.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.
Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
What is the positive change you are looking for?.
Price is not subjective. You have folks in the modeling industry who create and produce miniatures that state directly that Games Workshop is highway robbery.
I really don't know how to address your other statements as they are seriously left field. And left field baseball when everyone else is playing football. And there is plenty of evidence that the "as long as that continues" portion of your statement will be not much longer; all dependent on the next financial statement and how Games Workshop reacts.
If you want to really dig into why people would be upset, take the words from someone who has played 40k just as long as yourself, or longer, has been a corporate executive for an international company, and produces his own products for the miniatures hobby:
This also ties strongly into what has killed Fantasy, primarily the rules and the ever expanding cost of starting the game. The game doesn't work until 2000+, something that Warhammer 40k is approaching, and requires you to buy multiple boxes of the same model to just make one effective unit. Fantasy tanked with 7E and never really recovered in 8E.
Maybe I should have been more specific. Whether or not a price is too high is subjective. Value is driven by the individuals. I get my desired value, you don't we are a wash. The numbers show that people are getting their value because they are buying
GW is very similar in price to other similar systems within the market.
You can look through to a very recent post and GW financials are doing very well. With good recovery since their big 25% hit.
The' as long as' could end tomorrow and is not solely based on GW. This is the point that I have attempted to make in many discussions. Each person decides their level of enjoyment, your unhappiness is not the doom and gloom of the company. As long as the majority are still entertained and happy they will continue without you.
The gentleman at Masterminis does have valid points. He is also speculating on GW.
GW has internal issues that need addressing especially since they are responsible to share holders, making things much more difficult.
I do have worries that GW could fail. But their mismanagement of business is not directly related to the vocal few that claim a rule is broken.
I would disagree on fantasy as well. Everything 'fantasy' is struggling these days.
You never said what the positive chane is that you are looking for.
The new starter set, well not really new anymore, but DV sold out in all the stores I play at and were that way until a month or so after I started playing. Now this could be new and current players buying as it is a very good deal, but the prices for getting into the game varies depending on the army and the set you buy. Seen new players dump the $300+ on the SM Strifeforce Ultra without hesitation and seen others hesitate to spend $90 for a Battleforce so it varies considerably.
Citing actions of other companies that sell an over expensive product, EA being one of the largest has gone on strong for years with the playerbase knowing how bad EA is with pricing. They've gone up and down in their stock for the last few years and they are continuing to go strong. It is unlikely that GW will flat out collapse based purely on their pricing. They have more than enough avenues for revenue to keep them afloat.
A forced change in business practice and pricing may happen in a few years but the game will easily go on for another 5 or so years. People are going to pay buttloads for the new Ork stuff coming out, the new BA codex later this year and the rumored starter set will bring in players and cash.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence but I'll try.
Price is subjective as well. And if you don't feel you are getting the desired value I can see you not buying.
I have been playing since 1991. IF the game never changed people would complain that it is old and stale. People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast. We all have a camp that we are part of. I am part of the I enjoy this and will do it for as long as that continues'.
Again not sure what you mean as far as which is more variety..
I'm guessing you mean what variety not including different army options and stories.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
What is the positive change you are looking for?.
Price is not subjective. You have folks in the modeling industry who create and produce miniatures that state directly that Games Workshop is highway robbery.
I really don't know how to address your other statements as they are seriously left field. And left field baseball when everyone else is playing football. And there is plenty of evidence that the "as long as that continues" portion of your statement will be not much longer; all dependent on the next financial statement and how Games Workshop reacts.
If you want to really dig into why people would be upset, take the words from someone who has played 40k just as long as yourself, or longer, has been a corporate executive for an international company, and produces his own products for the miniatures hobby:
This also ties strongly into what has killed Fantasy, primarily the rules and the ever expanding cost of starting the game. The game doesn't work until 2000+, something that Warhammer 40k is approaching, and requires you to buy multiple boxes of the same model to just make one effective unit. Fantasy tanked with 7E and never really recovered in 8E.
GW is very similar in price to other similar systems within the market.
Product for product? Possibly, but there are some decidedly unfavourable match ups, and when you look at the total cost required to start a game from scratch, Warhammer suffers really badly.
You can look through to a very recent post and GW financials are doing very well. With good recovery since their big 25% hit.
No, their most recent financials are terrible for a PLC, and continue to be so, as their financial report is a semi-annual document.
Their share price has recovered somewhat, but a company's share price is no indicator of it's financial health, it is an indicator of the market's perception of it's financial health, and I haven't checked the dates, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was an uptick in share price that correlated nicely with GW announcing a dividend and setting the date for which ownership of shares was required to qualify.
GW has internal issues that need addressing especially since they are responsible to share holders, making things much more difficult.
I do have worries that GW could fail. But their mismanagement of business is not directly related to the vocal few that claim a rule is broken.
I would disagree on fantasy as well. Everything 'fantasy' is struggling these days.
This is a common misconception. "Having shareholders" does not somehow prevent a company from operating normally day to day. There is a theory that maintaining share value and paying dividends encourages a certain degree of short-termism in the way the company is run, and GW's recent past would certainly appear to endorse that theory, but, apparently surprisingly to some, a company with a strong product, mature and content customer base who are consequently spending freely, and a consistent, profitable, financial performance is actually really popular with shareholders.
The market is also, relatively speaking, quite understanding, and if action was deemed necessary for the long term health of GW that would negatively impact the short term, then if that was announced, in advance, with well supported reasons, the damage could be managed very effectively. What the market doesn't react well to is nasty surprises, with little explanation to support them. This is what happened in January, and why the GW share price took such a kicking.
This is a common misconception. "Having shareholders" does not somehow prevent a company from operating normally day to day. There is a theory that maintaining share value and paying dividends encourages a certain degree of short-termism in the way the company is run, and GW's recent past would certainly appear to endorse that theory, but, apparently surprisingly to some, a company with a strong product, mature and content customer base who are consequently spending freely, and a consistent, profitable, financial performance is actually really popular with shareholders.
The market is also, relatively speaking, quite understanding, and if action was deemed necessary for the long term health of GW that would negatively impact the short term, then if that was announced, in advance, with well supported reasons, the damage could be managed very effectively. What the market doesn't react well to is nasty surprises, with little explanation to support them. This is what happened in January, and why the GW share price took such a kicking.
Very true, but let me ask, have you seen this anywhere else in companies? I've seen it in a few and they've bounced back no problem. One company almost went entirely out of business, took two years to fix the problems then came back fully stable and are turning a profit. Companies have their ups and downs, so GW is in a downward turn right now, but that is the key thing, right now. It is too early to do anything more than theorize as to what "may" happen.
But just to play devil's advocate. Let's say they are in a downward spiral, dropping their prices and fixing rules is nowhere near enough to turn that around. If GW goes down, it is going to plummet and the entire company will go belly up.
Some companies manage to turn things around, normally by being humble enough to admit they've cocked up and look at things again, GW hasn't given any indication it is one of those companies.
It isn't just the downturn, so much as the downturn which dovetails so nicely with what was anticipated by so many based on previous reports and actions.
This is the reason, for those with a specific interest, that the next report is so interesting, it will mark whether we're looking at a blip or a trend.
If, after a double digit drop in revenue in the interim, and the release of a new version of their absolutely dominant core product, the best they can muster is another year of essential non growth, when information from other companies within the same sector constantly suggests fairly healthy increases, then that doesn't look good, especially when there's no real indication of a change in approach of any substance.
If, after the release of a Knights and 7th, they STILL can't even maintain the same level as last year, then that could be a sign of real problems.
If they were to actually demonstrate a genuine desire to reconnect with the community, develop the rules etc, etc, I think they'd turn around, and quick. The sole reason threads like this exist, go in for pages, and get so heated is because there's still a huge amount of affection for Warhammer, and that's allied with a degree of frustration that it seldom reaches the potential it appears it could, with apparently little effort or cost.
Address the core problems that come up again and again, and I suspect you'd see a massive influx of returning players, and many more players happy to introduce new blood, rather than directing new players to other systems.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone can have their opinion but at the end of the day last year people spent £130 million on GW stuff.
(I wasn't one of them FWIW.)
It's not so much opinion as facts... facts that we don't know so can only guess at beyond the GW financial statements.I'm sure they could raise the price 200% beyond here and there'd still be a few sick puppies who would buy it.
azreal13 wrote: It isn't just the downturn, so much as the downturn which dovetails so nicely with what was anticipated by so many based on previous reports and actions.
This is the reason, for those with a specific interest, that the next report is so interesting, it will mark whether we're looking at a blip or a trend.
If, after a double digit drop in revenue in the interim, and the release of a new version of their absolutely dominant core product, the best they can muster is another year of essential non growth, when information from other companies within the same sector constantly suggests fairly healthy increases, then that doesn't look good, especially when there's no real indication of a change in approach of any substance.
If, after the release of a Knights and 7th, they STILL can't even maintain the same level as last year, then that could be a sign of real problems.
Agreed. Then we can have this discussion against in another year and talk about what could be done. GW isn't a stupid company, once shareholders start losing a lot of money, they'll put pressure on the company to change tactics. From there GW will need to figure out the best solution. But short of a complete overall, if this downward spiral occurs, everything is a complete band-aid.
azreal13 wrote: If, after the release of a Knights and 7th, they STILL can't even maintain the same level as last year, then that could be a sign of real problems.
I do think that 7th edition will keep the reports looking decent. Even if a large portion of people ignore it or quit, there will be a large portion who buy the expensive books and push up the revenue.
If GW are implementing a strategy of releasing expensive things required to play with the current rules more frequently, I'm sure that will prop up the numbers a little bit longer.
Lobomalo, you fail to understand that almost all the negativity on these boards is born from a genuine love for the game."Go play something else" is an easy advice to give, but it doesn't fly in the face of the people who spent mountains of cash and hundreds of hours of their time, only to be mocked by GW's total disregard of its fans. I won't support them anymore because I know what follows- quick cash grabs, more DLC's , more broken hopes of a good ruleset... Our resident Ork player was getting excited about the new codex and the only thing I could say to him was "Don't get you hopes up". And sadly I turned up right, judging from the leak. I tried to stay positive,but in the end it started to smell too much like a Stockholm Syndrome.
azreal13 wrote: It isn't just the downturn, so much as the downturn which dovetails so nicely with what was anticipated by so many based on previous reports and actions.
This is the reason, for those with a specific interest, that the next report is so interesting, it will mark whether we're looking at a blip or a trend.
If, after a double digit drop in revenue in the interim, and the release of a new version of their absolutely dominant core product, the best they can muster is another year of essential non growth, when information from other companies within the same sector constantly suggests fairly healthy increases, then that doesn't look good, especially when there's no real indication of a change in approach of any substance.
If, after the release of a Knights and 7th, they STILL can't even maintain the same level as last year, then that could be a sign of real problems.
Agreed. Then we can have this discussion against in another year and talk about what could be done. GW isn't a stupid company, once shareholders start losing a lot of money, they'll put pressure on the company to change tactics. From there GW will need to figure out the best solution. But short of a complete overall, if this downward spiral occurs, everything is a complete band-aid.
No they won't.
"The Shareholders" are, by and large, Tom Kirby and a handful of large institutions. If GW ceases to make money for the large investors, they'll dump their stock and buy something else (which has already happened this year) and what's Kirby going to do? Fire himself?
The rest are made up of small private investors, and they're unlikely to all pull in the same direction effectively enough to affect change.
No, it really isn't in this case. Producing injection-molded plastic model kits is a subject that is pretty well understood by now, and when you compare GW kits to other manufacturers the GW kits are incredibly expensive for their size and level of detail. They're, at best, adequate gaming models where you're willing to put up with lower quality and higher prices because you enjoy the game and they're game pieces, not display kits.
The quality is fine for what it needs to be. You are right, they are game pieces. They are priced in line with other similar systems. If you don't find value in it that is your call. Not the fault of the company. I find value in their models
People complained that they weren't releasing things, now they complain that they are releasing them too fast.
You're missing the reason WHY people are complaining: the increase in the speed of releases has come at the cost of a decrease in the quality of new releases. Even ignoring blatant DLC-style spreading of the same content into multiple $50 books and reduction of page counts in each new codex there's a general feeling that GW is rushing out half-finished products in a desperate attempt to keep sales numbers up.
I'm not missing why people are complaining. The same 5 people are screaming it at the top of their lungs. Did you know book publishers re publish books with new covers every few years. They even change font and page size charging more for the collectors book It's standard practice.
You may not agree with the content but they have not declined in quality. Hard covers, full color, large amounts of artwork, heavy weight pages.
I can play a game from 500-3000 points.
I have rules to pay tens of thousands of points.
I can play just vehicles, infantry,. This versus that.
Scenario's, campaigns.etc.
Any game can do this. Praising 40k for having a range of point values makes about as much sense as praising it for letting you play on a 6x4 table or a 6x4 space on the floor.
Not quite. It is subjective.
Chess tells me I must play on 8x8 square board and must use specific pieces.
Risk tells me that this is what I start with, so does Axis and allies. Tells me my board to use
40k could tell me all these things. They don't and I praise them for it. Because I like 40k better than those other games. I like the openness. Not being more specific is not a fault, it is a freedom (IMO)
Any game CAN do this. And how do you praise them? By buying the product and playing it.
Do you sit down at a chess board and complain that your pawn only goes straight one space, or that your bishop only moves diagonal. You should be playing it for what it is.
OK, assuming the next report is bad. (which it might not be) what could GW do to turn it around?
It would have to lower prices or make more entry level stuff for beginners and people on a budget.
It would have to restart communication with the player base that they have destroyed. This will help restore good will and ease the growing frustrations of a player base that feels ignored and despised. (A few statements by GW employees and Kirby himself haven't helped.)
It would have to repair its relationship with independent stores.
That would be a start but it would go a long way, I think.
Then there's the issues with poor external and internal codex balance. Some units are grossly OP and some are ridiculously useless. That creates less variety in armies and frustration for new players when they find out their shiny new toys don't work. This could lead them to quit. Thus creating yet another barrier to entry.
Lately the codex's have gained a reputation for being uninspired and boring. Many changes seem arbitrary and random and the fluff is just recycled from the previous codex. All with a high price tag. This lowers the value for some players. A new codex is supposed to be exciting and bring a new burst of energy from the player base. After reading the nid, Guard and now the Ork dex threads, I see a whole lot of confusion and apathy.
Other side games like Blood Bowl and Necromunda. This fills the gap for people that like GW but don't have the time, money or patience for building a 2000 pt army. (But then other companies have filled these niches so I'm not sure how good that approach would be.)
TychoTerziev wrote: Lobomalo, you fail to understand that almost all the negativity on these boards is born from a genuine love for the game."Go play something else" is an easy advice to give, but it doesn't fly in the face of the people who spent mountains of cash and hundreds of hours of their time, only to be mocked by GW's total disregard of its fans. I won't support them anymore because I know what follows- quick cash grabs, more DLC's , more broken hopes of a good ruleset... Our resident Ork player was getting excited about the new codex and the only thing I could say to him was "Don't get you hopes up". And sadly I turned up right, judging from the leak. I tried to stay positive,but in the end it started to smell too much like a Stockholm Syndrome.
I understand where it comes from, stop making presumptions. But coming onto the forums to vent frustrations helps nobody and nothing. Don't just talk about the issues, do something about them. If you don't like the prices, buy used, buy from 3rd parties. If you don't like their business practices, stop supporting them. I say if you don't like it move on because really, it's either that or you sit here and vent, your choice.
catharsis
kəˈθɑːsɪs/
noun
1.
the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.
"music is a means of catharsis for them"
synonyms: purging, purgation, purification, cleansing, release, relief, emotional release, freeing, deliverance, exorcism, ridding; More
antonyms: repression
MWHistorian wrote: OK, assuming the next report is bad. (which it might not be) what could GW do to turn it around?
It would have to lower prices or make more entry level stuff for beginners and people on a budget.
It would have to restart communication with the player base that they have destroyed. This will help restore good will and ease the growing frustrations of a player base that feels ignored and despised. (A few statements by GW employees and Kirby himself haven't helped.)
It would have to repair its relationship with independent stores.
That would be a start but it would go a long way, I think.
Then there's the issues with poor external and internal codex balance. Some units are grossly OP and some are ridiculously useless. That creates less variety in armies and frustration for new players when they find out their shiny new toys don't work. This could lead them to quit. Thus creating yet another barrier to entry.
Lately the codex's have gained a reputation for being uninspired and boring. Many changes seem arbitrary and random and the fluff is just recycled from the previous codex. All with a high price tag. This lowers the value for some players. A new codex is supposed to be exciting and bring a new burst of energy from the player base. After reading the nid, Guard and now the Ork dex threads, I see a whole lot of confusion and apathy.
Other side games like Blood Bowl and Necromunda. This fills the gap for people that like GW but don't have the time, money or patience for building a 2000 pt army. (But then other companies have filled these niches so I'm not sure how good that approach would be.)
Dropping prices would only increase the downward spiral. Making stuff for new players to get into it is a better idea.
Balancing codex issues honestly is nowhere near as important to turn things around as players will play what they feel like playing either way and the "op" stuff is expensive so players will buy it. As for destroying communication with the player base, that is nothing more than opinion, as you have seen, there are those who are fine with the game as is, otherwise they wouldn't keep buying and playing. They may have pissed off some of the older players and maybe some trust issues could be resolved, but this honestly won't turn their profit margin up. They would need new players to get involved rather than having the same people buy a few models here and there.
The fluff is also not an issue when determining profit, only what lore players want out of the game, improvements could be done to this.
As for a new codex ""supposed" to be exciting" that is just an opinion. It really is nothing more than a rules update, what other games would call a patch to fix what is broken and bring things up to par. This brings some excitement to some people but isn't a necessity, the excitement part I mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: catharsis
kəˈθɑːsɪs/
noun
1.
the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.
"music is a means of catharsis for them"
synonyms: purging, purgation, purification, cleansing, release, relief, emotional release, freeing, deliverance, exorcism, ridding; More
antonyms: repression
Oh I know what it is. Whining and complaining is also a release of emotion and purging as well. But again, how is that helping the problem? People are free to complain and vent, but offer solutions.
No, destroying communication with the player base isn't opinion. They've shut down almost all ways to communicate with them and all they have left is the White Dwarf that less and less people are buying.
They shut down their forums. Shut down their FB page. Shut down fan sites that talked about them. Even shut down the artists FB page. They've closed themselves off from the world.
As for destroying communication with the player base, that is nothing more than opinion.
No that is a fact. They closed their official forums and almost completely retreated from social media (Despite several of their offshoots pages (Black Library and Forge World) being very well run with a surprising lack of venom from fans due to the open and engaging way they operated their pages.)
azreal13 wrote: catharsis
kəˈθɑːsɪs/
noun
1.
the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.
"music is a means of catharsis for them"
synonyms: purging, purgation, purification, cleansing, release, relief, emotional release, freeing, deliverance, exorcism, ridding; More
antonyms: repression
Oh I know what it is. Whining and complaining is also a release of emotion and purging as well. But again, how is that helping the problem? People are free to complain and vent, but offer solutions.
It's not fething whining, stop it.
So if you know what it is, why are you having such a hard time grasping why people are doing it?
GW have retreated from the community to the point where there is no channel that these thoughts, emotions and ideas can be expressed in a manner where they might be able to actually affect any sort of change, so what else is there but to express frustration amongst other people who feel similarly in the hope of achieving an element of catharsis?
As for destroying communication with the player base, that is nothing more than opinion.
No that is a fact. They closed their official forums and almost completely retreated from social media (Despite several of their offshoots pages (Black Library and Forge World) being very well run with a surprising lack of venom from fans due to the open and engaging way they operated their pages.)
What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.
So if you know what it is, why are you having such a hard time grasping why people are doing it?
GW have retreated from the community to the point where there is no channel that these thoughts, emotions and ideas can be expressed in a manner where they might be able to actually affect any sort of change, so what else is there but to express frustration amongst other people who feel similarly in the hope of achieving an element of catharsis?
We'll agree to disagree on the bolded point, I have too many people in agreement on this when I bring this up with both other players and those who don't even play.
I don't have a hard time grasping why people are doing it, I just want them to be productive while they do it. Venting for the sake venting is pointless imo as again, it doesn't serve to help alleviate any problems.
They do charge quite a bit but the idea that they are obligated to charge a lesser amount doesn't make any sense. It's like saying Mercedes should charge less so I can afford one.
Comparison is inadequate. Mercedes puts a lot of effort into new car designs, manages a huge team of (quality!) employees and produces products at a very high quality level. Even if we, for a second, look over the fact that the two industries are vastly different, there's the huge difference to GW: quality. GW simply asks for a premium yet fails to deliver a premium. This isn't completely subjective either. Poor editing, poor rules-writing, no (!) or extremely late reaction to glaring problems, rushed products - etc. It's different for models as those usually come at a good quality and therefore a higher-than-usual price is appropriate. The rules, however, are extremely lacking.
You missed the context of the Mercedes comparison. It was strictly based on people being able to afford it.
GW delivers on everything required. Everything else is subjective. That is the point I am trying to get across.
How about we discuss a single appalling rule that is ruining the game? If it plays fine for me and not for you then it is not broken it is subjective.
Thereis a difference between disliking a part of the game and it actually not working.
Precisely. And nobody claimed that it isn't actually working. People complain about a lack of quality - which is there, as much as some might want to wish it away.
Subjective. See question above.
Can you help me to see what part of the game is just a rough guideline?
You made the claim in your previous posts...
True my mistake.
But as I have said in other posts,
The guidelines are good. as they allow flexibility The rules that need to be specific are.
The guidelines are good. as they allow flexibility The rules that need to be specific are.
The flexibility allows us to solve our own problems. Which some of us have done, whereas others feel the need to have everything be explicitly written, thus taking away a lot of what GW was working towards when they put this concept into the game.
There's a section on proposed rules on this forum and people daily come up with great ideas and its amazing, even more so as GW has allowed us to do this.
They supply the product and guidelines to use the product, from there it is entirely up to us.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Personally my main issue is not the outright "you're not allowed to like GW blah blah blah, GW sucks ass" thing that others are saying on this thread
That's a good thing, having an issue with something that doesn't exist would be peculiar.
I was actually referring to people saying that they had an issue to that, not to the people giving the person those issues etc.
Lobomalo wrote: I understand where it comes from, stop making presumptions. But coming onto the forums to vent frustrations helps nobody and nothing. Don't just talk about the issues, do something about them. If you don't like the prices, buy used, buy from 3rd parties. If you don't like their business practices, stop supporting them. I say if you don't like it move on because really, it's either that or you sit here and vent, your choice.
Discussing the issues on a forum is part of the process of doing something. GW may have shut itself off from communication with consumers, it doesn't stop consumers communicating with other consumers to talk about it.
I don't know about you, but when I get frakked over by a business, I don't just take my business elsewhere, I tell me friends not to go there as well and just for the fun of it I'll talk about how they frakked me over and what they should have done instead.
I also like the fact that the anti-GW complaints creates a large volume of reasons as to WHY people aren't buying anymore, so if GW or indeed any company that wants to compete with GW can read what not to do.
Also, people aren't just sitting here and venting, I'm sure most of the people with complaints are still enjoying the hobby and quite possibly still enjoying certain aspects of 40k while complaining about it.
All that said, why don't you just "move on" yourself? You've spent as much time here complaining about people being negative as people have spent being negative. You do have the option of just ignoring the comments or even just not entering the thread in the first place.
Lobomalo wrote: I understand where it comes from, stop making presumptions. But coming onto the forums to vent frustrations helps nobody and nothing. Don't just talk about the issues, do something about them. If you don't like the prices, buy used, buy from 3rd parties. If you don't like their business practices, stop supporting them. I say if you don't like it move on because really, it's either that or you sit here and vent, your choice.
Discussing the issues on a forum is part of the process of doing something. GW may have shut itself off from communication with consumers, it doesn't stop consumers communicating with other consumers to talk about it.
I don't know about you, but when I get frakked over by a business, I don't just take my business elsewhere, I tell me friends not to go there as well and just for the fun of it I'll talk about how they frakked me over and what they should have done instead.
I also like the fact that the anti-GW complaints creates a large volume of reasons as to WHY people aren't buying anymore, so if GW or indeed any company that wants to compete with GW can read what not to do.
Also, people aren't just sitting here and venting, I'm sure most of the people with complaints are still enjoying the hobby and quite possibly still enjoying certain aspects of 40k while complaining about it.
All that said, why don't you just "move on" yourself? You've spent as much time here complaining about people being negative as people have spent being negative. You do have the option of just ignoring the comments or even just not entering the thread in the first place.
I have, I am currently engaging in discussion right now, ignored those who have done nothing but complain and spam.
They probably are enjoying the hobby, but there are those in the thread who have admitted to quitting the game which makes their participation in a 40k discussion interesting. And I haven't complained at all actually. I have asked them to do something besides complaining as its pointless. I have asked them to provide solutions.
You won't find a single complaint post from me, merely observations, opinions and solutions. To some these would be called my arrogant, condescending and rude posts.
All that said, why don't you just "move on" yourself? You've spent as much time here complaining about people being negative as people have spent being negative. You do have the option of just ignoring the comments or even just not entering the thread in the first place.
All that said, why don't you just "move on" yourself? You've spent as much time here complaining about people being negative as people have spent being negative. You do have the option of just ignoring the comments or even just not entering the thread in the first place.
Picture's worth 1000 words....
Your signature, doesn't flow with your actions across the forums, just an FYI.
Again, show me one complaint I made and I'll retract everything I've said.
Then I think you've misunderstood my signature, and you've definitely misunderstood my intent behind the pic if you think I'm accusing you of complaining about anything
I'm also interested how you feel comfortable commenting on my actions in 5k+ posts over 3 years when you've been here barely a week.
azreal13 wrote: Then I think you've misunderstood my signature, and you've definitely misunderstood my intent behind the pic if you think I'm accusing you of complaining about anything
I'm also interested how you feel comfortable commenting on my actions in 5k+ posts over 3 years when you've been here barely a week.
It's almost like you've been here before....
Recent post history is more than enough tbh.
I may have misunderstood your pic, and if so then I apologize for that.
Your signature, I like it because it's true. Except you've shown to be more argumentative to those who disagree with you in your post history, especially in YMDC
What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.
"Damn, our sales are way down, if only there was some way to ask customers why they've stopped buying our products, or foster some kind of relationship with them to increase their loyalty. Like...some kind of.. public forum, where they could give us feedback? Maybe our products are too cheap and our rules are too clear? We'll just have to assume thats what it is until some kind of mass communication is invented, increase prices and make more vauge, badly worded rules, that'll sort it out!"
What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.
"Damn, our sales are way down, if only there was some way to ask customers why they've stopped buying our products, or foster some kind of relationship with them to increase their loyalty. Like...some kind of.. public forum, where they could give us feedback? Maybe our products are too cheap and our rules are too clear? We'll just have to assume thats what it is until some kind of mass communication is invented, increase prices and make more vauge, badly worded rules, that'll sort it out!"
It's hilarious that people think GW isn't aware of the feelings of their player base, it truly is.
Will do, going to the game store myself and bringing four different games with me. I already have, it's called variety! 
