I haven't played 40K for a while but I hear a lot of talk about new codexes being 'bland': the loss of special characters, other options being slimmed down, etc

I think in part this is due to GW wanting to add back in certain options in separate mini-dexes.

But if Codexes have lost a lot of flavour (and I don't know if this is true) then could it be linked to unbound? What I mean is, have they reduced the rules available in an attempt to prevent unforseen, over-powered combinations?

I wouldn't doubt it, and I suppose it makes sense. But it hurts the players that like playing fun, themed lists of a single codex.

They got rid of the units without models for legal reasons.

This would imply that GW cares enough about overpowered combinations to make changes in their rules, something that is obviously not true. GW's solution to overpowered things, when they're even aware that they exist, is that only WAAC TFGs would ever make an army based on what wins games instead of "forging the narrative" and therefore overpowered things aren't a problem.

Kangodo wrote:
They got rid of the units without models for legal reasons.

This.

As for the codexes being more "bland" overall, it's because they're designed by committee. It means that things are overall better balanced, but will also come with less up and downs internally (though PAWG seem to be bucking this a bit by being overcosted upgraded Blood Claws) and feel less exciting. It's actually a good thing for the game, even if it means that there are less clear "you need X" options.

HOPEFULLY its also in an attempt to wrest control over the current mess there is with too many overly specific niche rules making it impossible to think ahead of future interactions so they could actually get to balance up the game.


So far the new line of codices seems to be quite well balanced, with no real obvious duds or powerhouses, and they match up well against each other. so maybe its working.

The blandness isn't caused by Unbound. It's caused by removing special rules and units that add flavor to the faction. But the Chaos and Nid dex's were painfully bland. Even the supplements which were meant to add flavor were just boring and added very little of substance.

 Peregrine wrote:
This would imply that GW cares enough about overpowered combinations to make changes in their rules, something that is obviously not true. GW's solution to overpowered things, when they're even aware that they exist, is that only WAAC TFGs would ever make an army based on what wins games instead of "forging the narrative" and therefore overpowered things aren't a problem.

It would also imply that GW is competent enough to plan something ahead

They are blanding out code we so you can buy the data slates or extra codex with formations to get some power back. tyranids was the first. Make a crap Dex then give them extra power but at an extra $$$ price.

So far its all has a reasonable explanation

- GK's lost all the units that are in the Inquisition codex or didn't have a model
- DE lost everything that didn't have a model

So on and so forth. The only real problem is that codex's aren't really mixing up how the codex works and stay almost the same in function (unlike the Daemon codex that flipped the whole thing on its head). They aren't even doing power creep anymore its pretty much just "same codex, make a new model or two, thats it"

 CrownAxe wrote:
They aren't even doing power creep anymore its pretty much just "same codex, make a new model or two, thats it"

Which, if they can nail a tighter core rule set, is all new codexes should be. New stuff that expands things, maybe adjusts problem units to make them more balanced (either up or down) and that's it. No massive overhauls every book, no new models that steam roll everything else, just a fair and balanced game.

GW got rid of units which didn't have models so 3rd party companies couldn't fill the gap.

Anyway, I don't think Unbound is to blame for slimmed down codices. Its the above lashout against 3rd party modelers, plus GW seems to by at least trying to make a better rule set.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
They aren't even doing power creep anymore its pretty much just "same codex, make a new model or two, thats it"

Which, if they can nail a tighter core rule set, is all new codexes should be. New stuff that expands things, maybe adjusts problem units to make them more balanced (either up or down) and that's it. No massive overhauls every book, no new models that steam roll everything else, just a fair and balanced game.

The problem is when i say "same codex" I mean they don't even change the power levels. Most of same units have been the same relative strength for several codex's (CSM, Eldar, Tau, Orks, and now it looks DE will all be the same case). At least with a power creep its a new meta ever release and keeps the game artificially interesting.

Power creep is also the thing that makes vets rage far too much. I agree new stuff should make the game interesting, but invalidating old models or suffering from power creep is definitely not the way to do it. Bring new rules (say new FOCs that favor certain kinds of builds that aren't common), new ways to do things (the IG Hades Breaching Drill or the Mawloc did), new expansions (new missions, stories, ect), but don't invalidate things just to make the game "interesting" by mass forcing players to go out and drop up to $500 to update their army because GW invalidated everything with some new units or a need to fix lagging sales on a model.

I get it, if you run a constantly changing meta it works to break players out of ruts (mostly in video games), but that seems to only piss off long term players to make sales. Bring out new stuff that we'll want to play and it'll get into our army without even making use do it by making it the newest cheddar knight unit.

 Souleater wrote:
I haven't played 40K for a while but I hear a lot of talk about new codexes being 'bland': the loss of special characters, other options being slimmed down, etc

I think in part this is due to GW wanting to add back in certain options in separate mini-dexes.

But if Codexes have lost a lot of flavour (and I don't know if this is true) then could it be linked to unbound? What I mean is, have they reduced the rules available in an attempt to prevent unforseen, over-powered combinations?

Games Workshop cant win. We complain that they are too slow to release stuff. they listened. They heard all the gamers whine about power creep. they listened. They heard the gamers REALLY loudly decry 6th Edition. They listened and only a year into it started working on 7th. They heard people complain about infrequent FAQ's. They listened. They heard people complain that there were no models for certain things and they "had" to make their own. So they listened. They heard the baron was never being used for (gasp) Hellions and being abused. they listened. They heard people whine that D weapons were ridiculous. They listened.

I mean here's a company that has a VASTLY accepted reputation for not "getting the memo" yet they have gone to marvellous lengths to make people happier. Comes down to this: they're gamers. They like feeling superior for some reason and even though there ISNT a perfect world, there wasnt one BEFORE ANY of the Editions.

Unbound is a stupid way to play 40K and most people and TO's pretty much reject it. so I dont know that Unbound is really why the codex's are less ARMS RACEY. I think its just because they listened. No one wants a repeat of the 5th Edition Blood Angels. And without Serpent Shields, which they should just do a Privateer press thing on and nerf right now, the Eldar Codex would be just another codex. Most Eldar players would probably be RELEIVED that their opponents are finally shutting up about the 60 inch range and the ignores cover, neither of which makes any sense. It should be like an 18" gun, making the Wave Serpents more suitable for assaults.

But I digress. The Unbound thing I dont think had any bearing.

 Jancoran wrote:
Games Workshop cant win.

Sure they can. They just can't win by "listening" and doing stupid stuff that nobody wants.

We complain that they are too slow to release stuff. they listened.

Except what we really wanted was for every army to be updated with a proper codex, not a ridiculous release cycle where quality is sacrificed for speed and half the new releases are garbage dataslates/supplements/etc that only exist to make you pay GW another $50 to use your full codex.

They heard the gamers REALLY loudly decry 6th Edition. They listened and only a year into it started working on 7th.

That's not even close to listening because 7th doesn't fix the problems with 6th. In fact it makes the rules bloat, abuse of random tables, removal of the FOC, etc even worse. The message we were giving GW was "fix 6th", not "release a new edition that is just as bad, and do it ASAP so we can buy a new $100 rulebook".

They heard people complain about infrequent FAQ's. They listened.

Really? Because I still don't see GW taking FAQs seriously.

They heard people complain that there were no models for certain things and they "had" to make their own. So they listened.

Again, that's not listening. The message was "hurry up and release models for these units" not "remove everything that doesn't have a model because your idiot lawyers forgot how to secure the rights to your IP".

Totaly agree with Peregrin. Faster books mean little, if half of them are bad and suddenly to play an army a codex is not enough. You need a codex, formation , ally codex , fortification supplement , because the rules have been removed from the rulebook. I love to see the faces of people trying to start table top gaming and hearing that they need a 400$ investment in to books, before they even touched and models, and some of them are not buyable in stores.


As faq goes, did SW and orks finaly get their FAQ for 7th ?

 Jancoran wrote:
Games Workshop cant win.

*facepalm*

We complain that they are too slow to release stuff. they listened.

Yeah, totally what we asked for was low quality codices recycled at a fast rate for a high price.

They heard the gamers REALLY loudly decry 6th Edition. They listened and only a year into it started working on 7th.

Yeah because what gamers were asking for was v6.1, copypasta edition with full edition pricing.

They heard people complain about infrequent FAQ's. They listened.

Orly? Where's my Lizardmen FAQ? All they've done is some half arsed FAQ's for old codices to make more sense with the new edition.

They heard people complain that there were no models for certain things and they "had" to make their own. So they listened.

You aren't really serious? Are you? Really?

gamer: "There's no model for Mycetic Spores, I've had to make my own or buy 3rd party but it'd be really awesome if this weren't the case"
GW: "Umm, yeah, sure." **delete**
gamer: "WTF???"

Is that SERIOUSLY what GW thought gamers wanted? To have the models they spent long hours creating being totally invalidated

No, it's some pathetic attempt to protect their IP after the failed lawsuit and it's in spite of gamers not because of them.

Yeah because what gamers were asking for was v6.1, copypasta edition with full edition pricing.

They didn't even fix the glaring issues from the former codex either, so it's barely .1

They heard people complain that there were no models for certain things and they "had" to make their own. So they listened.

Ask Dark Eldar whether or not they "Enjoy" the fact they may lose 4+ special characters because of it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yeah because what gamers were asking for was v6.1, copypasta edition with full edition pricing.

They didn't even fix the glaring issues from the former codex either, so it's barely .1

They heard people complain that there were no models for certain things and they "had" to make their own. So they listened.

Ask Dark Eldar whether or not they "Enjoy" the fact they may lose 4+ special characters because of it.

As a DE player, I know I am excited about the loss of Special Characters! GW must surely have a good reason for doing it. The whole "converting" fad is just blasé, my opinion is "if GW doesn't make it, I can't have it!" I converted up a Baron and built my army up to work in that playstyle, but what a fool I was to go against GW in such a fashion!

The loss of all of those DE characters is a justified price I must pay as a loyal customer. And I'm sure GW will one day reward my loyalty with a new DE codex with a couple more units removed for good measure (I'm looking at you, resin Grotesques!)

/s

But the culling isn't equal. Marine guys can still take jump packs and bikes even though there is not chapter master on a bike model. Etc.

The worst part about all this is that modeling is why I started 40K in the first place. Also, and what stacks GW ultimate failure is that there are many models that are easy stand ins for their generic HQ options that come from other companies and there is nothing stopping people from using them at their local stores. So what if you can't play it in offical GW sanctioned tourniments. It doesn't stop garage games from looking awesome.

I think if there is any blandness it's due to the crazy release schedule. Seems more like management is saying you will have this codex done in 3 weeks I don't care how you do it just get it done. Then they have very little time to think of cool new stuff and end up cutting out a ton but not adding much back in. Forget play testing.

Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

In Warhammer, youre just praying the other guy is reasonable and that he will be willing to roll off disagreements. If it goes the other way...

 Jayden63 wrote:
But the culling isn't equal. Marine guys can still take jump packs and bikes even though there is not chapter master on a bike model. Etc.

They didn't start removing units without models until Orks which was after marines.

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em.

Sure you can.

Plenty of successful games with happy fan bases.

Almost like they operate entirely differently than GW...

Odd.

Its almost as though producing a clean, balanced game with rewarding, tactical gameplay, offered at a reasonable price with a solid release pace previewed properly by the company will somehow manage to please most of that game's fan base and recruit more from other games.

Strange how that works.

Clearly GW's strategy is the best, and we're all just to ungrateful to appreciate the genius behind their pricing and overall balance and quality of the ruleset.

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

In Warhammer, youre just praying the other guy is reasonable and that he will be willing to roll off disagreements. If it goes the other way...

Unless of course the DM is a whiny malcontent.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em.

Sure you can.

Plenty of successful games with happy fan bases.

Almost like they operate entirely differently than GW...

Odd.

Its almost as though producing a clean, balanced game with rewarding, tactical gameplay, offered at a reasonable price with a solid release pace previewed properly by the company will somehow manage to please most of that game's fan base and recruit more from other games.

Strange how that works.

Clearly GW's strategy is the best, and we're all just to ungrateful to appreciate the genius behind their pricing and overall balance and quality of the ruleset.

I'm with Jancoran on this one: gamers are never satisfied. I don't know any WarmaHordes players, but I'm almost certain they too would whine about some aspect of the hobby. It doesn't matter if it's videogames or tabletop ones, the majority of players (or perhaps a very vocal minority) will b!tch about every single thing. I play Diablo III a lot and read the forums every now and then. People spend thousands of hours in that game and if you didn't know any better, you'd think they hated the damn thing, based on what they say. It's the same everywhere you look.

The only thing that makes 40K worse are the people who believe that just because they don't like things, no one should. God, I hate those gits.

Oh, and before anyone jumps at me and starts putting words in my mind, I don't think the GeeDubs way of doing things is flawless. I don't agree with everything they do, but I like a lot of things about 7th. Still don't think it's perfect. It's just such a shame that on the internet, you either have to love everything completely or despise it with every molecule of your being. I wish people were allowed to have actual opinions, like they do in real life. Oh well!

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
But the culling isn't equal. Marine guys can still take jump packs and bikes even though there is not chapter master on a bike model. Etc.

They didn't start removing units without models until Orks which was after marines.

Tyranids and Sisters both disagree.

The difference is the things lost in those books were units or characters without models like Kyrinov (who went OOP), or the Spore Pod which they had to deal with 3rd party competition and had no model ready for it so they cut it completely.

All it takes to make a Captain or Chapter Master with a Jump Pack or a bike is to point at an appropriately equipped model and go "That's my Chapter Master". Not quite the same thing as Jayden was saying.

Pull out some units. Add them back via formation dataslates that cost extra.

The equation is simple and does not depend on Unbound.

However it is fine for GW to pull whatever outrageous whacky gak they like because wargamers are never satisfied so any complaints are invalid.

Is that SERIOUSLY what GW thought gamers wanted? To have the models they spent long hours creating being totally invalidated

models are one thing, but game play is more important. Someone decides he likes the style of a paladin army, and GW removes the option. Same with henchman armies. Or IG using chenkov. Marbo was our mini drop pod gone now.

I got my hands on some WD scanes and been reading what their designers are writing and I must say that their are either crazy or in GW the game is played in such a different way, then what they play and what people here play may as well be two separate games.

CSM was bland in 6th edition.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pull out some units. Add them back via formation dataslates that cost extra.

The equation is simple and does not depend on Unbound.

However it is fine for GW to pull whatever outrageous whacky gak they like because wargamers are never satisfied so any complaints are invalid.

Gawd, what a bunch of whining!!

None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

Well, technically the assassins dataslate does it, but other than that, not really.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
None of the Formations have actually added new models into their armies. I'm not sure where that idea comes form.

Well, technically the assassins dataslate does it, but other than that, not really.

That's not a formation though, that's a dataslate which is a stand alone thing. You don't need a codex to use it, but you need specific codexes to use formations. Like I need the CSM codex to use the Helbrute dataslate.

The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

 Souleater wrote:

But if Codexes have lost a lot of flavour (and I don't know if this is true) then could it be linked to unbound? What I mean is, have they reduced the rules available in an attempt to prevent unforseen, over-powered combinations?

I highly doubt it.

If their intention was to improve balance, then they would have shot the guy who wrote 'Invisibility' and burned all his other writing just to be sure. Likewise, putting a blanket ban on rerolling invulnerable saves would have stopped a lot of death stars in their tracks.

I think what they're actually doing is putting as little effort into new books as possible, so that they can churn them out more quickly. Frankly, I think it's a sign of desperation on their part - since their finances are looking shaky and, since they don't do market research, they have no idea how to actually appeal to their customers.

Looks like a whole heap of "balance" was applied to Dark Eldar. Lord knows those Special Characters didn't have mode---I mean, weren't balanced! Yeah, that's the word we're using now!

Hurray for blandness...

 Accolade wrote:
Looks like a whole heap of "balance" was applied to Dark Eldar. Lord knows those Special Characters didn't have mode---I mean, weren't balanced! Yeah, that's the word we're using now!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

In Warhammer, youre just praying the other guy is reasonable and that he will be willing to roll off disagreements. If it goes the other way...

Unless of course the DM is a whiny malcontent.

Sure but then, he's not your DM very long is he?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

In regards to the Force Org Manipulation, I don't feel that is really relevant to codex blandness. I mean, it does hurt it a little, but with everything now being capable of scoring, you don't need the force org manipulating. I also like the feeling that my ACTUAL troops have more relevance with being capable of 'super scoring' instead of being a mere tax to get more and more of my 'troops but not troops'.

Will I miss being able to fill my Troops slots with Nob Bikers? Bet your ass I will. But will I cry about it? No. Because it's not that bad. It's also dumb that my super durable nob bikers could super score. It's also dumb that my Deff Dread could super score. Troops have value now. Though I do understand not every codex has 'good' troops. But that's the weakness of those armies when it comes to objective based games.

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You can win. Its easy. You listen to people.

People will talk to you. If you ignore them, they think you can't hear them.

People will yell at you. If you ignore them, they realize you're not listening.

People will scream at you. If you ignore them, they leave.


Dropzone and Xwing are two games that have really happy communities. Yes the games are smaller... but I primarily believe its because they KNOW the developers are listening to the community, are engaging the community, and are there for the community (and to take the community's hard earned money in exchange for plastic crap).

So much stuff is infinitely more 'acceptable' if you talk it over with the other person. If you screw me over, I'd really appreciate it if you tried to explain why. Even if I don't agree, at least you made the effort to acknowledge you've wronged me (injury perceived or real).

Personally I don't mind bland books. This whole game is at a level of crazy I just can't get behind. The kind of game that lets a tranny c'tan hit the table isn't a game I'm very interested in anymore.

What I have a problem with is the fact that a). GW will not keep on this course forever and we'll be back in crazytown in no time b). GW's own current releases are inconsistent as they randomly put crap like knights and supplements and dataslates in. If you're going to rein in the game, rein it in. Don't pull back with your left hand but shove crazy forward with the right.

Can anyone actually think of any other games with a fanbase they would consider generally unhappy?

I mean D&D I would have said so a year back but 5th ed seems to have been really well revived by the vast majority of the fanbase.

Warmachine I have met some players I could only describe as donkey caves, but that is me being put off the game by them, not the company putting them off the game.

I honestly can't think of any other company that attracts this much flak from their customers.

I do: Every single company.
GW hardly gets any flak, it's just how a forum works if excessive whining isn't a bannable offence.

Melevolence wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The blandness in the codices in regards to units being straight up removed is directly related to Games Workshop being butthurt about the Chapterhouse defeat. Any unit that doesn't have a model gets tanked, that way 3rd party companies like Chapterhouse can't sell models for that unit. It's dumb and petty on GW's part, because it doesn't actually benefit GW in any way. They don't actually gain anything from, say, Chapterhouse no longer having a demand for their "Not-Doom-of-Malantai-Doom-of-Malantai" model. Games Workshop doesn't actually gain anything from 3rd-partyX's "not-a-mycetic-spore-mycetic-spore" model. It hurts those companies, yeah, but it doesn't directly benefit Games Workshop. So it's just petty foot-stamping on their part, which feths over the 40K fanbase.

The blandess of the codices in regards to things like the removal of all FoC-manipulations is directly related to Unbound. It's apart of the same strategy that GW is using for LoW, which is to subtly coerce players into using these game features. "Oh, you're used to having Wracks as troops and want to continue to do so? Go Unbound then!" and "oh, you're used to using Logan Grimnar and want to continue to do so? Go LoW then!"

Why is GW obsessed with trying to get you to play with Unbound lists and LoW's? Because they want you to buy more models, of course, and LoW's and Unbound are gateways toward enticing you into buying more models. "You're already using Unbound lists so that you can continue playing that Nob-biker army you've been using for 5 years- now that you've dipped your foot in the pool, why not wade in and think about buying some more bikerz so you can field an entire army of Nob Bikerz?! Haven't you always wanted to play a full-on Speed Freakz army? Unbound's got your back." "You're \using the Lord of War slot so that you can continue fielding Logan Grimnar like you've been doing for 5 years. Why not take the plunge and buy a couple of those rad Super-Heavies? I mean, you're already using LoW's anyway..."

In regards to the Force Org Manipulation, I don't feel that is really relevant to codex blandness. I mean, it does hurt it a little, but with everything now being capable of scoring, you don't need the force org manipulating. I also like the feeling that my ACTUAL troops have more relevance with being capable of 'super scoring' instead of being a mere tax to get more and more of my 'troops but not troops'.

Will I miss being able to fill my Troops slots with Nob Bikers? Bet your ass I will. But will I cry about it? No. Because it's not that bad. It's also dumb that my super durable nob bikers could super score. It's also dumb that my Deff Dread could super score. Troops have value now. Though I do understand not every codex has 'good' troops. But that's the weakness of those armies when it comes to objective based games.

It's a bit inconsistent to start off your post with saying "everything scores now so it doesn't matter if they're troops anyway" and then repeatedly say throughout said post "troops are valuable now instead of being a tax". Do troops have value or don't they? If they do then yeah, your nob bikers losing the option to become them for no reason other than to coerce more money out of people sucks balls.

That aside, I don't know see anyone "crying" about it, unless in your mind pointing out that removing all the FoC manipulations and flavor from the codices was a completely arbitrary and moronic decision that was only made for the sake of getting more money out of the fanbase and had absolutely no benefit on the game at all constitutes as crying.

Kangodo wrote:
I do: Every single company.
GW hardly gets any flak, it's just how a forum works if excessive whining isn't a bannable offence.

I didn't explicitly state that I meant within this hobby, but I thought it was implied. Keeping that in mind can you actually provide evidence to back this up?
None of the official forums I have seen, nor the other sections of Dakka not covering GW games, have mods banning people or removing posts and yet there is almost no negativity there.

Back to the subject of blandness -

No. Unbound is NOT the cause of the "blandness". As was already pointed out, unbound in combination with some of the 7th ed. rules changes may be responsible for the lack of HQ's shifting force org slots but that's about it. I say this because I was around for the shift from 2nd. to 3rd. Does anyone else remember that? The original 3rd ed. books were basically pamphlets passed off as codexes. If you think Orks have it bad now, you should have seen them then. They went from a super fluffy race consisting of multiple clans and styles to just "Orks". Almost all of their history and character got removed and all the fun bits were left on the cutting room floor. Pretty much all the books went through that and it's why I sat that entire edition out. Gav Thorpe even said at one point that, looking back, they went way too far in "streamlining" those books and feels they took a good deal of fun out of the game.

So no, unbound isn't causing "bland" books and, if I'm being honest, while the new books aren't the best we've ever had, they're a damn site better than some of the previous editions. It's just another hill in the roller-coaster ride that is GW imo.

Kangodo wrote:
They got rid of the units without models for legal reasons.

This seems to work like this:
1. Codex gets written, and includes entries without models.
2. Models for the codex entry gets made by 3rd party.
3. CHS lawsuit happens.
4. GW now cannot make models for codex entries because 3rd parties beat them to it, and GW would be copying their models.

So, GW now cannot make models for their own units and characters, as the legal ownership is relevant to the medium of the item.
GW owns the entry in print, and rules, and usually in pictures.
But now, as the model was created when GW didn't have one, only the 3rd party can create that model now, and GW are stumped. Even if it was based on the codexes description, or even GW's pictures, they cannot make a model that looks like that.

Or something.

But yes, bland codexes can ally more easily.
Supplements can fill in some colour, but hardly enough.

One thing I'll say is that I don't think FoC switching was ever a good idea.

I can't recall a single instance that didn't lead to one of the following scenarios:
a) The unit is underpowered in its own slot, so needs the FoC switch just to be worthwhile (Wracks and Hellions both come to mind).
b) The unit is strong in its own slot, and becomes overpowered as a troop choice.

Neither seems good for the game.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You didnt read what I said. i said there were whiners...actually....if you had read it... But that there was someone to crush the silly behavior. A way to rid yourself of it.

Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Like I said: gamerz. Can't please 'em. I didnt start war gaming will 2000, and when I got into it I almost jumped right out again and hid behind my D&D players handbook. There's no bigger pool of whiney malcontents. Obviously i found enough that werent that way to proceed, but i am constantly reminded unfortunately of why I love having DM's to squash the bahavior. it isnt that D&D players dont whine. Its that theres someone around with the authority to crush it. And I do like that.

You're seriously using D&D as an example of a community that is not a "pool of whiney malcontents", with the amount of constant whining over 4E? We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis, unless you regularly have conversations about the merits of Games Workshop's policies while playing the game. WoTC are far more competent at pleasing their fanbase. They also don't charge nearly as much, and they aren't anywhere near as stupid as Games Workshop (please see anything ever uttered by Tom Kirby, of which there are some real gems that grace various signatures on Dakka). Furthermore, D&D is a non-competitive game that is extremely accepting of house ruling due to its freeform nature and DM format, so problems caused by the developer are far less problematic. You're also very rarely forced to use the latest rules for D&D.

Speaking of non-existent models and Chapterhouse, I love that line by the GW guy that goes something like "People say that [Chapterhouse owner] is providing a service to wargamers who just want those models. But he's not! He's evil and a money thief! If he was even slightly into the hobby - which he is not at all - then he would know that every unit in every book we have ever made is a model we intend to make and sell and provide to our legions of mindless fans". That is a funny joke, Games Workshop man. Surely they intended to graciously provide me with a Mycetic Spore and a Doom of Malan'tai to put in it, but they couldn't because the stars weren't aligned properly.

You didnt read what I said. i said there were whiners...actually....if you had read it... But that there was someone to crush the silly behavior. A way to rid yourself of it.

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
We're not talking about it on a game-by-game basis

Unless DMs regularly wade into forums and use their DM powers to "crush the silly behaviour". People complain about things. Sometimes their complaints are valid. When it's GW, complaints are almost always valid. As other people have said, this is demonstrable by looking at the communities of other wargames (Infinity, Warmahordes, etc) and how they are generally much more positive. This isn't because Warhammer players are of a particularly nasty breed, but because of the producers of the games in question (especially considering that a lot of people who play other wargames started with 40k or Fantasy).

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

 vipoid wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

Stop giving Kirby ideas.

 vipoid wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Anything GW removed, for fear of someone else making it first, can be added back in with a White Dwarf article and Dataslate when and if GW decides to make the model.

So, in addition to charging twice as much for each new codex, GW might be kind enough to throw us a crumb and allow us to purchase one of the units they removed as DLC?

Option 1. Gone and lost forever

Option 2. New model and White Dwarf Article/DLC

Yeah, I'll take option 2.

This all works a lot better when you stop pretending that GW is interested in anything other than making money.

Or...

Option 3. Produce codices that are full and complete with no need to produce DLC/WD/dataslates to include stuff that was once in the book.

I'll take 3.

 adamsouza wrote:

Option 1. Gone and lost forever

Option 2. New model and White Dwarf Article/DLC

Yeah, I'll take option 2.

Or, option 3, don't remove existing units in the first place.

 adamsouza wrote:

This all works a lot better when you stop pretending that GW is interested in anything other than making money.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. I just don't see how taking a metaphorical dump in your customer base helps business.

Alienating your player base is never a good way to make money, even if the goal was to make money.

 vipoid wrote:
One thing I'll say is that I don't think FoC switching was ever a good idea.

I can't recall a single instance that didn't lead to one of the following scenarios:
a) The unit is underpowered in its own slot, so needs the FoC switch just to be worthwhile (Wracks and Hellions both come to mind).
b) The unit is strong in its own slot, and becomes overpowered as a troop choice.

Neither seems good for the game.

that seemed to have happened with codex space marines and bikes. even while fluffy for one chapter, they are almost the byword for Codex space marine troops.


As for "dlc", I prefer to have something like the looted wagon come out as a little extra thing. you don't have to buy the White dwarf, but someone who likes the looted wagon might still want it

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

As for "dlc", I prefer to have something like the looted wagon come out as a little extra thing. you don't have to buy the White dwarf, but someone who likes the looted wagon might still want it

You mean the same looted wagon they removed from the book, then sold back to their players?

It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

Should they applaud?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

And statements like this are why GW gets away with treating its customers like magpies attached to wallets.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
It's better than loosing it completely and having the playerbase winge about it imho

And statements like this are why GW gets away with treating its customers like magpies attached to wallets.

as I said it's my humble opinion. there are no benefits to having the looted wagon in an army, and the same effect could be achieved through ally shenanigans. I just like how they added it later even if it was taken out of a book because it had no models besides custom built ones.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

as I said it's my humble opinion. there are no benefits to having the looted wagon in an army, and the same effect could be achieved through ally shenanigans. I just like how they added it later even if it was taken out of a book because it had no models besides custom built ones.

1) Many people don't like using allies.

2) I'm sure many people built custom models for said Looted Wagon - just as many people have converted Special Characters with no models - so taking out that unit is a massive slap in the face to them.

Here's the thing - I'm not arguing that the Looted Wagon is a great unit or anything, but if you don't want to use it then having it in the codex anyway is hardly hurting you. Conversely, if you do want to use it - for whatever reason - then GW removing it and demanding that you pay extra for its rules are a massive slap in the face.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread

your probably right, so i'm not arguing against you any more and I wash my hands of this thread.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".
.

and yet...you'rte wrong and need to read again.

all things are a matter of degree. did i need to EXPLAIN that to you? okay. Here's me explaining what is obvious: things are a matter of degree. War gamers have a LOT higher propensity to whine and complain and further, MORE OF THEM do it online. that isn't...I thought obviously...to say D&D players do not. what I told you was there is a DM to STOMP on it.

As DM I know i do. Ive been playing it since 1984 and i do indeed wear an iron gauntlet when it comes to that stuff. I dont have that power or freedom in Wargaming, the other guy knows it and the social contract forces me to put up with his crap a LOT more because there arent as MANY wargamers as their are role players. So its different.

So lets just be straight: a) lots of whiny gamers in Wargaming. B) almost enough to make me not want to keep playing. Almost. c) has gotten worse because the internet has grown by leaps and bounds and d) GW cant win no matter what they do, but Unbound isn't to blame for any of the alleged blandness fo the codex. it has more to do with trying to maximize the number of NON Donkey Caves they can please with more balance and less models that make people feel like they can never catch up.

Remember: allies and multiple Detachments do nearly enough damage on their own as tomake Unbound essentially kind of unnecessary in a LOT of the cases,

...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Rouge Trader did and honestly I feel the game does play better when a third party arbitrates (like a judge does in tournaments). That said a tighter rule set that has less gray areas is always a good thing and I do sincerely hope that 8th edition, when it inevitably rolls out, will be a tighter edition than we have now. I also hope it isn't rushed and wouldn't mind if every codex got a second round d of updates later in the edition with new models/ units and the return of some of what was previously lost.

But that might be more " delusion" than hope.

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

And i know that and said that you have to HOPE your opponent is willing to roll for it. if not you just end up caving to keeop the game going and have a miserable time. Which is... why i said that I almost shrunk back from wargaming. alomsot./

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

Yep, it sure was.

And I'm embarrased to say I was on the complaining side.

Until a friend finally convinced me to try it about a year ago, and what do ya know? it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.


What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.
most of the "bizarre new races and classes that came from nowhere" are in fact direct imports from some 3.5 splatbooks that just got themselves some new mechanics, and the ones that arn't, well-its a "generic setting" book set, the generic does not need to be the SAME generic every time, nothing hurts by throwing extra options when there is an actual player who's job is to set the rules, including what races and classes actually exist.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

You did not put the D&D community into the "pool of whiney malcontents" that are impossible to please (and if you are, it makes your point totally invalid because you were using them to contrast the 40k fanbase). Your point wasn't that "D&D and 40k players whine just as much about silly things, but in D&D you can ignore them". You were specifically complaining about the wargaming community is the "bigg[est] pool of whiney malcontents".
.

and yet...you'rte wrong and need to read again.

all things are a matter of degree. did i need to EXPLAIN that to you? okay. Here's me explaining what is obvious: things are a matter of degree. War gamers have a LOT higher propensity to whine than whom? and complain and further, MORE OF THEM do it online more than what?. that isn't...I thought obviously...to say D&D players do not. what I told you was there is a DM to STOMP on it. online?

As DM I know i do. Ive been playing it since 1984 and i do indeed wear an iron gauntlet when it comes to that stuff. I dont have that power or freedom in Wargaming, the other guy knows it and the social contract forces me to put up with his crap a LOT more because there arent as MANY wargamers as their are role players. So its different. You never have that freedom online.

So lets just be straight: a) lots of whiny gamers in Wargaming. but what about D&D? B) almost enough to make me not want to keep playing. Almost. c) has gotten worse because the internet has grown by leaps and bounds and d) GW cant win no matter what they do, but Unbound isn't to blame for any of the alleged blandness fo the codex. it has more to do with trying to maximize the number of NON Donkey Caves they can please with more balance and less models that make people feel like they can never catch up.

Remember: allies and multiple Detachments do nearly enough damage on their own as tomake Unbound essentially kind of unnecessary in a LOT of the cases,

How are you simultaneously talking about communities as a whole (you have twice mentioned the internet) and on a personal, game-by-game basis? Whining about things happens primarily on forums. DMs cannot magically force people on forums to not complain, and it is not often that people will "whine" about Games Workshop while playing 40k, or whine about Wizards/4E while playing D&D. You're also talking about wargamers by using terms like "higher" and "more of". It is perfectly reasonable to assume that you are saying that wargamers "have a higher propensity" to whine than D&D players.

So you aren't really making any sort of point, here. What is it? That all gamers are whiny, but when you're playing the game, at least in D&D you can threaten people to shut up with rocks falling? In which case, that has absolutely no bearing on either community, so once again it is not a point because it is totally irrelevant to your original complaint. What you actually said was that wargamers are the worst, are never happy, and that D&D players do complain but not as much, and when they do it to you in person you can stop them by being a DM.

If you're going to be massively patronising, at least bother to use correct English. You don't need to "EXPLAIN" to me that things are a "matter of degree", which doesn't even make sense for you to say considering the point you're trying to iterate. Do you or do you not believe that the D&D community is better or worse than the 40k community for "whining"? DM powers are totally irrelevant.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.

I played 4E. I liked 4E. Then I found out that the internet foams at the mouth whenever it is mentioned, and not in a good way. I had a serious discussion with someone whose complaint is "you spend too much time doing combat", despite the exact amount of combat and time spent is entirely up to the DM. They insisted that there was absolutely nothing in 4E that wasn't combat-geared, nothing at all, and refused to comment when I asked them how that one spell that makes a magical cylindrical curtain, large enough for one person inside, is made for combat (it's for changing clothes in privacy). They refused to believe that the insane number of character backgrounds weren't all combat bonuses.

I have played 3.5 and 5, and have not enjoyed them as much.

Well, any time is too much time in combat, when 3.5 has made people used to the fact a wizard can end a combat against pretty much anything in a single turn :\

With real powergamers-even before his turn.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
...you must have missed gaming forums when 4E dropped. Though that wasn't whining, that was legitimate complaints. I'm sure 4E is a great game, but it isn't Dungeons & Dragons.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. 40K doesn't have a GM or a Ref, so both players are pretty much on equal footing when it comes to settling disputes. Hence "roll for it".

Legitimate complaints feth, it was mostly baseless fests of grognards.

Yep, it sure was.

And I'm embarrased to say I was on the complaining side.

Until a friend finally convinced me to try it about a year ago, and what do ya know? it was fun and fluid, much more than 3.5 ever was, and far less abusable and inherently imbalanced too,
Sure, you can't customize as much, but you don't need to. and your noncasters are no longer mindless "I hit it with a stick" drones but actually got their own tricks and abilities.


What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.
most of the "bizarre new races and classes that came from nowhere" are in fact direct imports from some 3.5 splatbooks that just got themselves some new mechanics, and the ones that arn't, well-its a "generic setting" book set, the generic does not need to be the SAME generic every time, nothing hurts by throwing extra options when there is an actual player who's job is to set the rules, including what races and classes actually exist.

If you played D&D before 4E, you would recognize immediately the internal logic of it was completely uh...reimagined... and while it might actually BE a fine game, it wasn't D&D. It was some kind of Fantasy game that someone "always thought would be cool" and one day they ended up in charge. Hehehe. How do we digressso fast on these threads. sigh. But I couldnt help myself on this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


How are you simultaneously talking about communities as a whole (you have twice mentioned the internet) and on a personal, game-by-game basis? Whining about things happens primarily on forums....

If you're going to be massively patronising, at least bother to use correct English.

Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

 BoomWolf wrote:

What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.

I believe one of the aspects was that there was barely anything to do out of combat, and it was too tight to encourage creativity.

e.g. D&D3.5 had a lot of spells that were usable both inside and outside of combat.

For example, take the Lv3 spell 'Shrink Item' - which reduces an item to 1/16 of its size, after which it can be made to grow back with a command word. Out of combat there are a variety of uses (including removing a troublesome door ), and in combat creative players can easily put a shrunken item to good use.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

Considering that letting magic be used everywhere without a casting time (Which was removed from 3E btw, it used to be a common thing to have back in 2E), effectively made anything that wasn't a caster or caster like unit be useless, it effectively made it so you had to think about what spells you casted with your rituals rather then the "Magic FIXIT" buttons.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

There wasn't much restrictive, just bad DM's for the first two, as for the third many played quite differently, they just looked somewhat similar from the way the skills were ordered.

If you played D&D before 4E, you would recognize immediately the internal logic of it was completely uh...reimagined... and while it might actually BE a fine game, it wasn't D&D. It was some kind of Fantasy game that someone "always thought would be cool" and one day they ended up in charge. Hehehe. How do we digressso fast on these threads. sigh. But I couldnt help myself on this one.

Have, infact I've been told 3E wasn't a DnD either because of all the modifiers and stat upgrades and generally the fact that it didn't "Feel like DnD" anymore, but considering most everyone apparently started with 3E instead of 2 and below they consider 4E not DnD...Because the rules don't match 3E.

 Jancoran wrote:


Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

Just ignore everything I said and absolutely fail to address any of the actual problems that I brought up, then dismiss me as "grasping at straws". That is a fine way to participate in a discussion, especially when all you came on this thread to say was to dismiss anything other than praise for GW as "whining". Welcome to my Ignore list.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

What about it is NOT dungeons and dragons? its a hack-and-slash centered game with wizards, knights and mythological creatures roaming around in adventures set up by a DM or a module. pure D&D.

I believe one of the aspects was that there was barely anything to do out of combat, and it was too tight to encourage creativity.

e.g. D&D3.5 had a lot of spells that were usable both inside and outside of combat.

For example, take the Lv3 spell 'Shrink Item' - which reduces an item to 1/16 of its size, after which it can be made to grow back with a command word. Out of combat there are a variety of uses (including removing a troublesome door ), and in combat creative players can easily put a shrunken item to good use.

In 4th, virtually every spell is just a blasting spell of some kind. You blast them with fire, you blast them with ice, you blast them with lightning, you blast 2 different enemies with fire, you blast adjacent enemies with ice. It's just boring. And, even if you can think of an in-combat use for what few utility spells there are, they take 10 minutes or even an hour to cast them. Good luck using that in combat.

It's a perfectly functional game system, but it just didn't feel like D&D. It was far too restrictive, had negligible opportunities or rewards for creativity, and every class just felt the same.

That's the most accurate explanation of what I really disliked about 4th. I loved 3.5. Loathed 4.
And no, I do not believe gamers are more whiny than other groups, but we geeks do tend to be more passionate about our hobbies than most.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Grasping at straws are we? If you dont understand what I said clearly...then thats a problem I cant solve.

Just ignore everything I said and absolutely fail to address any of the actual problems that I brought up, then dismiss me as "grasping at straws". That is a fine way to participate in a discussion, especially when all you came on this thread to say was to dismiss anything other than praise for GW as "whining". Welcome to my Ignore list.

Ill miss you. A lot.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Considering that letting magic be used everywhere without a casting time (Which was removed from 3E btw, it used to be a common thing to have back in 2E), effectively made anything that wasn't a caster or caster like unit be useless, it effectively made it so you had to think about what spells you casted with your rituals rather then the "Magic FIXIT" buttons.

In 3.5 mages were certainly the strongest classes (though then I've never been particularly bothered about balance in D&D. I just don't feel it's as important in a cooperative game).

In any case, the problem with 4th was that instead of giving non-wizards more things to do outside of combat, it just removed all the interesting options from wizards.

Giving utility spells a stupidly long casting time doesn't make players 'think about what spells you casted' it just stops them doing anything remotely creative with them.

"Here are your spells. You will use them only IN ZE DESIGNATED AREA."

If you liked that sort of thing, fine. But, at least understand why a lot of people like to have more interesting options, and spells that can be used in creative ways.

Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

I don't think it's Unbound, I think it's that GW knows sales are falling and rather than actually fix the game they are trying to band-aid it (likely in the hopes they can be bought out). So codexes are bland to sell you $50 supplements and $X dataslates on top of the codex. Coupled with the move to weekly releases means that there's probably not a lot of time involved with actually writing the rules (to say nothing of playtesting). Bare minimum amount of work, and the GWombies still eat it up and can't wait for the next one.

If they really do believe that GW fans will buy anything GW produces because GW produces it, then they are likely deluded enough to test the waters and see. If people buy a lackluster Codex that barely had any work put into it, and then still eagerly await the supplements/dataslates that are little more than first day DLC, then it just reinforces their delusional idea that their "customers" buy their products because it's their products.

It's a glorified scam at this point.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.

Nor is it healthy for magic to be dull and frequently worse than just shooting the target with an arrow. it makes you wonder why wizards even bother.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

Thing is, I still saw these work in 3.5. In fact, I saw skills and roleplaying come into 3.5 a lot more than they did in 4th.

It's not just about magic being dull, it's about the system being incredibly rigid. It's like playing one of the D&D computer games - where you can't use any spells or ability in a way that the designers didn't specifically think of and program in. Though, even they tend to have more interesting spells and more creative possibilities than 4th.

 vipoid wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Or, yaknow, just let magic take a backseat for a moment and realize its not healthy to the game for it to be the answer to every possible scenario in the game.

Nor is it healthy for magic to be dull and frequently worse than just shooting the target with an arrow. it makes you wonder why wizards even bother.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sometimes its time for skills or roleplay to kick in.

Thing is, I still saw these work in 3.5. In fact, I saw skills and roleplaying come into 3.5 a lot more than they did in 4th.

It's not just about magic being dull, it's about the system being incredibly rigid. It's like playing one of the D&D computer games - where you can't use any spells or ability in a way that the designers didn't specifically think of and program in. Though, even they tend to have more interesting spells and more creative possibilities than 4th.

You mean you didn't? It's not like someone could've used them outside of combat. A fireball is still a fireball, it'll heat things up, a ray of frost will chill things.

As people kept thinking of fighters: "It's not hardcoded into the game, just roleplay it"

AS for skills and roleplay, once again bad players and bad DM, groups can do what they will and make sure to use things as they wish to, they just now have actual options to make combat interesting for everyone rather then "Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing" while casters have 200+ Hardcoded spells.

Honestly, it just sounds like your lamenting the fact that magic can't do everything anymore.

SO the D&D thing is a terrible comparison for a couple of reasons.

1.) RP groups are much more like/able to just stick with old editions, so there is no reason to complain about changes to the game...you just don't play that game. I know I stuck with 3.5 when D&D switched to 4th, I already had a ton of books...and the new edition wasn't compatible, so why buy in...when my small group of friends that I play with was fine playing the old edition.

2.) House ruling happens far more often in RP games...again because it is typically a small group that plays at somebodies house.

Wargames can function like this and some groups are still playing old editions in their home, or homebrew rules and not complaining on forums because they don't come here. But pick up play happens far more often in Wargames, and play of old editions is far less common.

All that said, I think the blandness is in part due to legal issues with model removal, and part due tothe accelerated release schedule (getting a codex every other month.). Neither of which are something players really wanted I don't think.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

You mean you didn't? It's not like someone could've used them outside of combat. A fireball is still a fireball, it'll heat things up, a ray of frost will chill things.

Oh good, I can heat and chill things. Because, fire is completely impossible to make outside of magic.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

As people kept thinking of fighters: "It's not hardcoded into the game, just roleplay it"

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Unless every wizard is a pyromaniac, you don't exactly have much to work with.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

AS for skills and roleplay, once again bad players and bad DM, groups can do what they will and make sure to use things as they wish to, they just now have actual options to make combat interesting for everyone rather then "Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing, Swing" while casters have 200+ Hardcoded spells.

Ironically, the situation you describe is exactly what 4th boiled down to. Encounter power, encounter power, encounter power, daily (if it looks like a boss fight), then move on to At-Wills. The 4th edition techniques are interesting precisely once. After that, you quickly realise that you're just doing the exact same thing every combat.

That is simply not true.
Even as a low-level melee character in 4th I had to choose what to do every single turn, and adapted to situation in order to make the most of my tools.
One manuver is when I want to block escape, or enable my own. another for damage, a third when I'm hurt and want to play safe, etc.

In 3.5? "i attack X" was literally all a melee/archery type could do. ever-as they probably didn't have meaningful skill-wise either. (unless rouge type, who are slightly more diverse, but still stack up to "do action X to unlock extra damage dice on attack")

Oh good, I can heat and chill things. Because, fire is completely impossible to make outside of magic.

Oh good, you can make sarcasm at a few simple spells I picked for an example, maybe we should go into the utility spells, like Expeditious retreat, Feather fall, Mage Hand, light, ghost sound, prestidigiation, dimension door, disguise self, dispel magic, invisibility, levitate, wall of fog, arcane gate, and more that can be used outside of combat as well as in combat without a ritual.

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. Unless every wizard is a pyromaniac, you don't exactly have much to work with

Considering I can actually read my 4E book and see that otherwise no, this isn't exactly right, I just remember being told as a fighter I have more freedom because all I do is swing at things I can roleplay like slinging sand into a persons eyes at a horrible dice rate that it'd be better to swing instead.

Ironically, the situation you describe is exactly what 4th boiled down to. Encounter power, encounter power, encounter power, daily (if it looks like a boss fight), then move on to At-Wills. The 4th edition techniques are interesting precisely once. After that, you quickly realise that you're just doing the exact same thing every combat.

And yet you still have more customization in your build then the standard 3.5 fighters, whose feats of..Feats weren't exactly empowering. Every other thing was Stat Bonus, Mechanical bonus, even the Barbarian and other "Martials" bound down to. I suppose it's better for Wizards and them to be overpowered and have all the options at once then? I mean sure once you got to (Save or Die Spell) S&D of the right type, spell breaker, abilities that circumvent spell resistance, anti-magic, and other such things.

Ironically it just comes down to "I want a better wizard with more options then the martials hardcoded into my character".

I actually preferred the balance, I've had way to many games where I just ended up a caster sort so I wouldn't be overshadowed in every single event.

The D&D discussion is really off topic but part of the issue with magic in 3.x was that it was open to interpretation by virtue of being an RPG and therefore open to abuse. Nearly all of the uber-builds from the WotC CharOp forums were either creative combinations of classes/feats/items or outright dubious rules interpretations or using the rules specifically as written versus intent (which RAI is much more acceptable in what is basically a freeform RPG with loose rules than a wargame)

4th edition was more streamlined and got crap for feeling more like a tabletop MMO; there was a lot of focus on your party role (e.g. Tank/DPS/Healer) and less on customizing what you wanted to play, so certain archetypes or concepts couldn't be realized without playing a role you didn't like. Personally I liked 4th edition as much as 3.x, and from everything I've seen 5e has gone back to AD&D/OD&D style stuff.

In any event though an RPG isn't a fair comparison to a tabletop wargame because the wargame doesn't usually have a GM to arbitrate or set up a scenario (I know Rogue Trader did, but that's a long time ago. Outside of large map based campaigns a la Tony Bath and Don Featherstone, tabletop games don't tend to need or require a third party to determine what happens, so the rules need to be tighter to allow for a fairly balanced competition since ultimately the difference is that the RPG is a cooperative storytelling game, where while you might have the confrontational GM they are rare. A wargame is basically a duel with a winner and a loser.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

As for "dlc", I prefer to have something like the looted wagon come out as a little extra thing. you don't have to buy the White dwarf, but someone who likes the looted wagon might still want it

You mean the same looted wagon they removed from the book, then sold back to their players?

You mean the same looted wagon that may not have been given any rules screwing over players who had taken the time to make their own just because it didn't have an official model so we're probably lucky GW even gave players that much attention?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Oh good, you can make sarcasm at a few simple spells I picked for an example, maybe we should go into the utility spells, like Expeditious retreat, Feather fall, Mage Hand, light, ghost sound, prestidigiation, dimension door, disguise self, dispel magic, invisibility, levitate, wall of fog, arcane gate, and more that can be used outside of combat as well as in combat without a ritual.

Are all of those in the 4e player's handbook?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And yet you still have more customization in your build then the standard 3.5 fighters, whose feats of..Feats weren't exactly empowering. Every other thing was Stat Bonus, Mechanical bonus, even the Barbarian and other "Martials" bound down to.

Oh, I quite agree. Fighters weren't very good in 3.5 and, for the most part, lacked any interesting mechanics. Though, I have seen some pretty entertaining ones that used feats from a variety of sourcebooks.

That said, I think the martial classes in the Book of 9 Swords were pretty good and a lot more interesting.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I suppose it's better for Wizards and them to be overpowered and have all the options at once then?

I just don't think it's a good idea to take away so much diversity from magic and turn it into endless blasting spells.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I actually preferred the balance, I've had way to many games where I just ended up a caster sort so I wouldn't be overshadowed in every single event.

And, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But, don't assume that everyone feels the same way. Many people prefer options and imbalance to balance and uniformity. Or, hell, maybe different people just have different experiences when it comes to 3.5 and 4e.

e.g. In my 3.5 games it was rarely the casters who overshadowed the fighters. In fact, a lot of the most memorable moments involved fighters, rather than casters (Or, God forbid, teamwork).

Are all of those in the 4e player's handbook?


I just don't think it's a good idea to take away so much diversity from magic and turn it into endless blasting spells.

Yes and no, considering I just listed some of the Wizard Spells that aren't "blasty", all of them are in the Players Handbook 1.

That said, I think the martial classes in the Book of 9 Swords were pretty good and a lot more interesting.

I suppose that some would, I just remember people hating on it for "Weebaboo Fightin' Magic"

I'm probably a bit sensative to this, what with being told I'm not a DnD player despite..playing DnD, and even the makers of 5E constantly berating 4E players.

 Souleater wrote:
I haven't played 40K for a while but I hear a lot of talk about new codexes being 'bland': the loss of special characters, other options being slimmed down, etc

I think in part this is due to GW wanting to add back in certain options in separate mini-dexes.

But if Codexes have lost a lot of flavour (and I don't know if this is true) then could it be linked to unbound? What I mean is, have they reduced the rules available in an attempt to prevent unforseen, over-powered combinations?

The issue of bland codexes isn't about between codex balancing. The codexes are bland because there's such poor internal balance. Imagine a chess board, every piece has a purpose, and among great players a single pawn can be the difference between winning or losing. In 40k though, most armies have a small core of essential units and the rest of the codex is full of just fluffy/flavor units.

IG for example, my army, have excellent choices in HQ and Troops, with competitive heavy support units too. But time after time I keep realizing that I'm building lists with no elites and no fast attack. Units like ogryns, wyrdvanes, bane wolf, rough riders, etc. are in the codex for flavor but they don't substantially contribute to the army. There are lots of other units that are weak choices, often out performed by other choices in the codex.

The codexes are bland because they're built around a couple core units and then a bunch of filler units. In my perfect 40k world, any decent TAC list would need units from each slot, but in reality most armies lack the internal balance, to the point that armies with units from each slit are almost always derided as "fluffy lists."

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yes and no, considering I just listed some of the Wizard Spells that aren't "blasty", all of them are in the Players Handbook 1.

I know now why I didn't remember most of the utility spells - because they're all sodding dailies.

Also, invisibility has more options when you can cast it on others and it has a reasonable duration. As it stands, in order for the subject to remain invisible, you have to run behind them to sustain the effect. And, since you'll still be visible, it does seem to defeat the point somewhat.

Likewise, I suspect Wall of Fog would be more useful if you didn't have to concentrate on sustaining the thing.

You're right, these spells do have out of combat uses - I just dislike the number of hoops you have to jump through to get them to work.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I suppose that some would, I just remember people hating on it for "Weebaboo Fightin' Magic"

I thought it was quite well received, but I could be wrong.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I'm probably a bit sensative to this, what with being told I'm not a DnD player despite..playing DnD, and even the makers of 5E constantly berating 4E players.

But then, it doesn't help when you go on counter-offensives and start attacking other game systems.

In any case, I'm not trying to attack you or your game, I'm just trying to explain why some people don't consider 4e to be D&D. I'm not saying they're right, I'm just trying to explain their possible reasoning.

 TheSilo wrote:

The issue of bland codexes isn't about between codex balancing. The codexes are bland because there's such poor internal balance. Imagine a chess board, every piece has a purpose, and among great players a single pawn can be the difference between winning or losing. In 40k though, most armies have a small core of essential units and the rest of the codex is full of just fluffy/flavor units.

IG for example, my army, have excellent choices in HQ and Troops, with competitive heavy support units too. But time after time I keep realizing that I'm building lists with no elites and no fast attack. Units like ogryns, wyrdvanes, bane wolf, rough riders, etc. are in the codex for flavor but they don't substantially contribute to the army. There are lots of other units that are weak choices, often out performed by other choices in the codex.

I definitely know what you mean with regard to IG lists. I use elites and FA choices, but only 1 choice from each (Storm Troopers and Armoured Sentinels).

I think what I really hate though is how expensive the character wargear is. Paying half of a character's base cost for a power fist seems counter-productive, and either the Death Mask is overcosted by 50% or there was a printing error that accidentally removed it's 3 other abilities. Also, I'm glad our melee weapon relic has the list interesting combination of abilities possible, which amounts to a poor-man's power axe (but more expensive, obviously).

I've just come back to 40k after a 15 year absence and having bought the ork codex to find there is another book i need to buy is quite disheartening especially when army books were bigger and cost £10 back in the day!

bertmac wrote:
I've just come back to 40k after a 15 year absence and having bought the ork codex to find there is another book i need to buy is quite disheartening especially when army books were bigger and cost £10 back in the day!

what other book do you have to buy to play orks? presuming you dont mean BRB

Formation one. The supplement that has rules for fortifications any codex for ally orks run nowadays, Once it was necrons, no idea what it is right now as no one plays orks here anymore and we had 0 new ork players when new codex came.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The D&D discussion is really off topic .

Indeed.

So no more of it please.

thank you.

Makumba wrote:
Formation one. The supplement that has rules for fortifications any codex for ally orks run nowadays, Once it was necrons, no idea what it is right now as no one plays orks here anymore and we had 0 new ork players when new codex came.

wait what? formations books? supplement for fortifications? you mean the 6th ed rulebook that has them in it.? or that you dont HAVE to have fortifications? infact i rarely even use an ADL these days. oh and orks HAVE to be run with allies hey? i doubt it.

My personal thoughts on unbound and the current state of play.

First, a bit of background so you can see where I'm coming from. I'm a very casual player of 40k and have played both 40k and WHFB since the early 90s. I've been in and out of both the GW end of the wargaming hobby and the overall hobby a number of times over the years and own thousands of dollars in GW product. I don't participate in tournaments, never use special characters and don't do a lot of modeling/converting. I'm a pretty horrid painter but all my toys are painted to my best level of ability (meager though it is) and generally build armies by buying units, painting them and then buying the next unit. I often buy a model because it looks nice rather than from a utility perspective on the tabletop and have no problem losing a game because I tried something off the wall when I build a list.

Ok, all of that said. I strongly believe that a game's rules should be tight and leave as little as possible up to interpretation; not because I'm against "forging a narrative" but because I believe it's easier to make exceptions to established rules than making loose rules tight. It would be easier for me to create a scenario with wonky exceptions to shooting or force org than try to play a regular game with incomprehensible rules. Unbound would be a good example of throwing the rules out the window to create scenarios for play if it weren't for the terrible condition of the regular-game rules.

GW has always had a problem with game rules (thus my on-again/off-again relationship with the company) but 40k is the most heavily played game in my area. I should say, used to be the most heavily played game in my area; it seems that X-Wing has taken the #1 spot in the local gaming club.

I do agree that army books are becoming more "bland". I don't believe the current state of blandness has much to do with unbound. I do believe that it is in part due to a realization at GW that their market-share is shrinking and one of the large, contributing factors is the state of the rules. Instead of just throwing the game out and starting over, they're rebuilding the army books and removing all of the "broken" exceptions to the usual rules. The net effect is that the resulting armies are becoming more balanced against each other, by and large, but more "bland".

Another factor is the Chapterhouse lawsuit; since they became a publicly traded company, GW has tried to maintain a stranglehold on what they believe is "their" IP. Yes, we all know that it's neurotic and a bit daft for a company to think they own sole rights to the use of roman numerals in tabletop wargaming....when there are companies making actual roman soldiers with roman numeral and use latin on the heraldry...be that as it may, GW's loss of so many of their claims in court has resulted in a sort of petulant attitude whereby any character or unit without a model is being removed from the army books. This coming from a company that used to offer tutorials on how to make a grav tank from a deodorant container. Loss of characters and units = more blandness and less..well, character in the armies.

Just a few of my thoughts. The sad thing is in how this board is so polarized; this thread is rife with people who disagree and instead of just having a rational discussion dismiss each other's opinions as being obtuse or whining. I suppose it'd make a shorter thread if people were to just say, "I understand your opinion but I disagree on X, Y, Z grounds." Mature discussion seems to be in short supply.

There are too many posts saying "Gamers are never satisfied." Its really not helping to stay in your neutral ambiguous happy-with-anything-fed-to-them position. There are tons of gaming communities that are satisfied and content.

GW should listen to their customers and stop abusing their loyal fanbase.

 Vigilant wrote:
There are tons of gaming communities that are satisfied and content.

I may be looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vigilant wrote:
There are tons of gaming communities that are satisfied and content.

I may be looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen them.

I frequent the Privateer Press forums (you know, official forums for a game. What kind of silly idea is that?) and while there's a few complaints (generally about PVC plastic) it's respectful and not people yelling about getting ripped off or the company ignoring anything said as whining. In fact the last PVC plastic thread I recall had a PP staff member post saying that they are aware of issues and are looking at ways to improve it or alternative methods.

"Satisfied and content" implies no complaints at all which was more the thing I was point at with my post.

The fact that PP is able to respond quickly and directly to them is great, but let's not pretend that there is a utopian community where problems aren't raised and complaints are never uttered.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

bertmac wrote:
I've just come back to 40k after a 15 year absence and having bought the ork codex to find there is another book i need to buy is quite disheartening especially when army books were bigger and cost £10 back in the day!

what other book do you have to buy to play orks? presuming you dont mean BRB

Red waagh? or ghazkull supplement not sure which but there are apparently a bunch of useful formations etc in there.
Don't get me wrong a special character turning up in white dwarf from time to time is fine but a codex that misses another books worth of special rules for an army is a piss take!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Satisfied and content" implies no complaints at all which was more the thing I was point at with my post.

The fact that PP is able to respond quickly and directly to them is great, but let's not pretend that there is a utopian community where problems aren't raised and complaints are never uttered.

I don't think satisfied and content means there are zero complaints. I'm not mathologist, but I'm fairly certain that'd be impossible to please everyone to their fullest.

Unless of course when you joined the game community you were initiated into a cult in which your life was monitored constantly and you were told to never speak ill of the game, under penalty of death or worse...melting down your army.

There, however, plenty of games where the general feeling is one of satisfaction and general content. No game is without issues or unhappy players over some issue or another, but in more content communities, the complaints are fewer and less severe in their call for change.

I know that on the Spartan Games community forum, the Firestorm Armada section is pretty pleased with the game. We had some issues over one particular model, but if that's the worse I can say about the game, I think its doing pretty well in terms of keeping people happy.

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Satisfied and content" implies no complaints at all which was more the thing I was point at with my post.

The fact that PP is able to respond quickly and directly to them is great, but let's not pretend that there is a utopian community where problems aren't raised and complaints are never uttered.

I don't think satisfied and content means there are zero complaints. I'm not mathologist, but I'm fairly certain that'd be impossible to please everyone to their fullest.

Unless of course when you joined the game community you were initiated into a cult in which your life was monitored constantly and you were told to never speak ill of the game, under penalty of death or worse...melting down your army.

There, however, plenty of games where the general feeling is one of satisfaction and general content. No game is without issues or unhappy players over some issue or another, but in more content communities, the complaints are fewer and less severe in their call for change.

I know that on the Spartan Games community forum, the Firestorm Armada section is pretty pleased with the game. We had some issues over one particular model, but if that's the worse I can say about the game, I think its doing pretty well in terms of keeping people happy.

And then you have GW which is basically divided into haters and fanboys who are at constant odds between wanting a balanced game and stating the game is fine so shut up and leave if you don't like it...

And as some people seem to think, it's just a handful of internet trolls whining everywhere, can't be anything serious because people have been saying GW will go bankrupt any day now for the past 25 years, and they're still around so they must be doing things right. And don't get me started with the argument that no other game compares to 40k based on a list of 40k's own criteria.

 Blacksails wrote:
Unless of course when you joined the game community you were initiated into a cult in which your life was monitored constantly and you were told to never speak ill of the game, under penalty of death or worse...melting down your army.

That won't happen until Disney buys WotC.