I was reading an old issue of White Dwarf (221, June 1998) and they had an article about the "Spirit of the Game" and is IIRC the first official mention of the term "beardy" (which later gave birth to the term "cheesy"). This article was written for Fantasy, but a lot of it I think applies in general. The article was written by the 1995 Warhammer Grand Champion, Dave Cain.
This was the definition of the term:
Someone who pushes the rules to th e limit or does not adhere to the background image of their army.
or, in the words of Rick Priestly himself:
Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game.
In 1998 this was GW's viewpoint on army selection:
What constitutes a "beardy" army is highly subjective. howerver there are a number of guidelines I think you should follow.
The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.
Wood Elf forces are renowned for their archery and so fielding an army with no archers just does not sit right with the background to this race. The potent imagery of the Undead features shambling hordes of Skeletons and Zombies slowly but inexorably crossing the battlefield. So using nothing but mounted Skeleton horsemen and chariots again undermines the rich heritage of the Warhammer world. Skaven armies with no Clanrats, Empire armies with no Halberdiers - the list goes on.
It then goes on to say, however, that in the right circumstances you can do a themed army for scenario games, but you should let your opponent know that you are using a themed force.
Some other quotes:
By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.
The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.
Thus are born Dwarf armies featuring predominantly the elite Iron Breakers, Long Bears and Hammerers, or Empire forces composed of mainly Knights and supporting cavalry.
Armies including large proportions of war machines or monsters should also be restricted to scenarios and the like. Speaking from experience, lining up against six Repeater Bolt Throwers or three Griffons does not make for a fun game!
I found their approach back then, even if it was in the context of Fantasy, to be quite interesting compared to what they seem to think now, and perhaps they still do think that but don't know/care that the gaps in the rules allow for the very things that they speak out against.
WayneTheGame wrote: I was reading an old issue of White Dwarf (221, June 1998) and they had an article about the "Spirit of the Game" and is IIRC the first official mention of the term "beardy" (which later gave birth to the term "cheesy"). This article was written for Fantasy, but a lot of it I think applies in general. The article was written by the 1995 Warhammer Grand Champion, Dave Cain.
This was the definition of the term:
Someone who pushes the rules to th e limit or does not adhere to the background image of their army.
or, in the words of Rick Priestly himself:
Someone who is more interested in playing the rules than playing the game.
In 1998 this was GW's viewpoint on army selection:
What constitutes a "beardy" army is highly subjective. howerver there are a number of guidelines I think you should follow.
The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.
Wood Elf forces are renowned for their archery and so fielding an army with no archers just does not sit right with the background to this race. The potent imagery of the Undead features shambling hordes of Skeletons and Zombies slowly but inexorably crossing the battlefield. So using nothing but mounted Skeleton horsemen and chariots again undermines the rich heritage of the Warhammer world. Skaven armies with no Clanrats, Empire armies with no Halberdiers - the list goes on.
It then goes on to say, however, that in the right circumstances you can do a themed army for scenario games, but you should let your opponent know that you are using a themed force.
Some other quotes:
By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.
The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.
Thus are born Dwarf armies featuring predominantly the elite Iron Breakers, Long Bears and Hammerers, or Empire forces composed of mainly Knights and supporting cavalry.
Armies including large proportions of war machines or monsters should also be restricted to scenarios and the like. Speaking from experience, lining up against six Repeater Bolt Throwers or three Griffons does not make for a fun game!
I found their approach back then, even if it was in the context of Fantasy, to be quite interesting compared to what they seem to think now, and perhaps they still do think that but don't know/care that the gaps in the rules allow for the very things that they speak out against.
Really need the quote of Jervis Johnson talking about the game basically being Rock Paper Scissors right about now to drive the point in.
Or maybe we're too harsh on their game design. Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!
Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!
I'm sure that's some of it, and it's part of why GW's rule authors are incompetent morons. If your job is to make a profitable game you're an idiot if you publish bad rules just to annoy a type of player that you don't like. A competent professional game designer would understand that balance is good for casual/narrative play, and those people you hate are still potential sales.
Maybe they're intensely aware that not everyone has fun like they do- perhaps any resemblance of balancing restraints is a deliberate consideration for the Beardies!
I'm sure that's some of it, and it's part of why GW's rule authors are incompetent morons. If your job is to make a profitable game you're an idiot if you publish bad rules just to annoy a type of player that you don't like. A competent professional game designer would understand that balance is good for casual/narrative play, and those people you hate are still potential sales.
But their job isn't to make a profitable game, it's to have something resembling rules so you can use all those pretty jewel-like objects of wonder that you are expected to buy.
If this is the same article I remember they had a blue box titled "beards anonymous" which acknowledged that like minded players choosing competitive and "beardy" armies could be an environment for good fun too.
Although I don't agree with some of the statements you quoted, in general I do agree with their point that the best way to play any Games Workshop game is to approach it from the angle of both players having fun trumping making an uber competitive list.
Interesting read, on the one hand I see their point and agree with the general idea of fair play and how fluffy lists are more satisfying to collect, but it also reads to me like they're saying there's a "right" and "wrong" way to play. I've always maintained that your attitude is more conducive to a good game than list selection and one attitude I don't like is this right vs wrong mentality.
If they thought there were certain units that were "essential" to an army's character then they should have made them mandatory. Also, if it was possible to use nothing but elite or otherwise strong units and they thought that was wrong, they should've put harder limits on them. Players are only using legal options in the books that GW has written, so it seems pointless to offer these options then complain when people pick them.
I prefer characterful lists. For example, in Bolt Action I've sometimes taken the "worse" choice for the sake of historical accuracy, because I find it more satisfying to build that kind of army. But if someone uses a "beardy" list, there's nothing I can do, so might as well do my best to enjoy the game.
Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.
The reason they have moved away from restrictions more is clearly that they want to make the kinds of fluffy, themed lists mentioned in article always possibly. They want to make it so that if you want to play an all-Veteran First Company list or a HS/FAIG armoured column you can, and it leaves the for much more open than any kind of Slot-shifting or the like. Saying anything goes gives players that absoloute power of freedom.
But with great power, there does come a responsibility. They are trusting you, within these slight restrictions, to use them to make fun lists, to theme your army, and also to take your opponent's experience into account. Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list. So the article, and GW, ask that you respect that. Like any kind of game in a non-competitive environment (in other words, where wins and losses are the result, but not the point or focus), 40k is a social event, and as far as I'm concerned, in any situation like that, your primary concern should be on ensuring the people you are playing with are enjoying themselves.
Now, I would never presume to tell anyone how, why or for what reason to play a game of 40k, but I think it's quite clear how GW mean the game to be played, and what they work towards in writing it.
GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game. Unless everyone uses un-optimized armies, there will be gross imbalance, but then some people find handicapping yourself to be un-fun.
A better solution would be to either make all units viable and/or give bonuses to themed lists.
Bottle wrote: If this is the same article I remember they had a blue box titled "beards anonymous" which acknowledged that like minded players choosing competitive and "beardy" armies could be an environment for good fun too.
Although I don't agree with some of the statements you quoted, in general I do agree with their point that the best way to play any Games Workshop game is to approach it from the angle of both players having fun trumping making an uber competitive list.
MWHistorian wrote: GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.
I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.
.
A better solution would be to either make all units viable and/or give bonuses to themed lists.
All units are viable, like I say, in a non-optimised list, no one option is going to win or lose you a game unless you run up against a hard counter. And bonuses to themed lists are exactly what they are giving in droves with Formations, new Detachments and the like. A themed GK list will be elite heavy, and you guessed it, the GK detachment has more Elite slots and gives a bonus to that army!
Paradigm wrote: Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.
The reason they have moved away from restrictions more is clearly that they want to make the kinds of fluffy, themed lists mentioned in article always possibly. They want to make it so that if you want to play an all-Veteran First Company list or a HS/FAIG armoured column you can, and it leaves the for much more open than any kind of Slot-shifting or the like. Saying anything goes gives players that absoloute power of freedom.
But with great power, there does come a responsibility. They are trusting you, within these slight restrictions, to use them to make fun lists, to theme your army, and also to take your opponent's experience into account. Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list. So the article, and GW, ask that you respect that. Like any kind of game in a non-competitive environment (in other words, where wins and losses are the result, but not the point or focus), 40k is a social event, and as far as I'm concerned, in any situation like that, your primary concern should be on ensuring the people you are playing with are enjoying themselves.
Now, I would never presume to tell anyone how, why or for what reason to play a game of 40k, but I think it's quite clear how GW mean the game to be played, and what they work towards in writing it.
^This. 100% This.
Well said Paradigm I couldn't agree with you more.
Can I have an example? Can you list a unit that will not, under any circumstances, ever provide anything of value to army? In other words, a unit you'd prefer to play a game X points down then spend X points on it. I honestly can't think of one.
As far as I can remember not many armies doing fluffy, themed units are handicapped, from when I played at my flgs. Sure some people did abuse some units, such as heldrakes, but most people did their best to keep a theme, and not just focus on winning.
Competitive can be fluffy
If you think you need to rely on cheese whizzing it, then dont expect people to play against you. Thats my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I once played a necron player who used flayed ones as ark guards
Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like. How about show actual armies and how they were build by those designers that actualy played the game and not taking part in a "hobby".
And hadicaped fluff armies, how are eldar , necron or GK weak ? The problem is not that fluff armies are weaker, but that GW makes GK and DA in the same edition and those books are technicly made to be played with the same rules system.
Makumba wrote: Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like.
So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?
Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.
In the latter, my expectation for game balance and for a skill-based competition is much greater.
In a tabletop warfare game where there are many units, I think the balance is between having open options which lead to the possibility of imbalance, and restricted options, which lead to fewer legal lists.
I would rather have a dual-mode game, where "beardy" armies are supported (it might make sense, in some scenarios), but where there is a structure in place for a match between more balanced forces.
I'd love to see the game balanced such that balanced forces are highly rewarded or unbalanced forces are highly penalized in both cost and function. For example, non-compliant armies all scaling penalties that get worse the more they are non-compliant, topping out at something like AV-3 for heavy/superheavy, leadership - 2, and double point value; whereas narrowly aligned or themetic armies receive a 20% point discount (or perhaps 30% for single faction), and possibly leadership +1.
So sure, you can have all riptides, but you'll only get 4 instead of 6, and your enemy will be able to hurt them even if they don't have specialized troops; while the other side will be able to get a couple more heavier hitting squads based on what else they own.
Psssshh. I'm sure Flyrant spam, Annihilation Barge spam, Serpent Spam w/ Wraithknight, Jetseer Council, Pask's Perfectly Powerful Punisher of Pain, and Transcendent C'Tan in 2,000 points are perfectly fluffy.
And if they aren't... I enjoy defiling the fluff. Time to plan out a Tyranid Flyrant spam allied with ScreamerStar allied with Serpent Spam list!
What? Don't look at me! I'm forging the narrative! NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Paradigm wrote: Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.
The problem is the only article related to game balance I can think of lately is the one I mentioned earlier where Jervis basically said "Poor balance is fine because another army can beat that one".
Can I have an example? Can you list a unit that will not, under any circumstances, ever provide anything of value to army? In other words, a unit you'd prefer to play a game X points down then spend X points on it. I honestly can't think of one.
I think we have different definitions of viable. I'm not dealing in absolutes.
My definition would be: Seldom earns its points back or brings anything positive to your game other than giving the enemy something else to shoot at. Sure, on occasion they might do something nifty, but that's a rare exception.
Mutilators, Penitent Engines, Warp Talons, Howling Banshees, Flayed Ones, etc.
I believe these and other units do not accomplish their purpose to any degree of regularity or efficiency. Basically, they cost far more than they're worth and you're actively hurting your army by taking them instead of something else and giving free points to the enemy.
So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?
You have read the rules? ;-)
Joking aside. The problem i have with the article is not its message but the game/rules that message is supposed to work with. A game being fun for both should be the goal but the rules are loose (in a multitude of ways) and that makes it harder to find that spot where both players have the same concept of the game in their head. It works better if you have a group of people to regularly play with but the more things get looser (stuff like unbound armies) the bigger the chance that a random game (against a random person) with be one where the two players have a different view on how it should work.
Better rules should cause less problems that need that kind of article.
Paradigm wrote: Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.
I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAACTFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.
Talys wrote: Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.
You seem to be assuming that tabletop games are only played with friends.
I would rather have a dual-mode game, where "beardy" armies are supported (it might make sense, in some scenarios), but where there is a structure in place for a match between more balanced forces..
The thing is, if the intention is to only ever use 'beardy' armies for specific scenarios they don't need to be allowed by the rules. Because they're going to be allowed by the specific rules of the scenario anyway.
I'd love to see the game balanced such that balanced forces are highly rewarded or unbalanced forces are highly penalized in both cost and function. For example, non-compliant armies all scaling penalties that get worse the more they are non-compliant, topping out at something like AV-3 for heavy/superheavy, leadership - 2, and double point value; whereas narrowly aligned or themetic armies receive a 20% point discount (or perhaps 30% for single faction), and possibly leadership +1.
So sure, you can have all riptides, but you'll only get 4 instead of 6, and your enemy will be able to hurt them even if they don't have specialized troops; while the other side will be able to get a couple more heavier hitting squads based on what else they own.
Won't happen. Because GW don't actually understand which units are overpowered to begin with, because they don't play the same game as everyone else.
Case in point - The studio thought they needed to buff psykers in 7th edition, because they thought that Librarians were too weak because everyone in the studio used Captains and Chaplains instead. Everyone else on the planet already considered Librarians to almost always be the best HQ option in the codex.
So expecting them to be able to build the system you're talking about? Not likely.
Paradigm wrote: Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.
I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAACTFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.
I think you are maybe missing the point or I may be interpreting it wrong but I think what he is trying to say is, if someone were to run one of these triptide or serpentspam lists or whatever else, it would be unexpected for the opponent outside of a tournament, I certainly wouldn't be expecting it. People may love anime robots or have remains of old Eldar lists, but that doesn't mean it isn't surprising when they play these kinds of lists in a casual game. If someone set a Triptide/Serpentspam list down to play against me in a casual game, I will admit the first thing I'd be thinking is they are a WAAC player, as in my opinion there would be a fairly low percentage in comparison who would be doing it for fluff/love/cost reasons etc. I'm not saying that it is right to think that way but its how I would think and how I know many others in the hobby would respond also.
If they are doing it for fluff/cost/love reasons or whatever else then all the power to them and I'll support them all the way in that endeavour, I don't care how anyone plays the game or builds their list (as long as they are happy.), it doesn't mean I can't think it's surprising or make such an initial 'bad' judgement based on what they pick.
Anyone I've ever met who has played one of these kinds of lists against me has been a WAAC player (and most are happy to admit they are.) and I've played a fair few of these types, so its my go to response when I see them, but I suppose that makes me wrong too.
I think a lot of us here are of the opinion that if the rules were well written then articles such as the one quoted in the OP wouldn't be necessary. If Codices were written in a way that made all unit types viable, rather than some being obvious and objectively better/worse than others, then such labels like "beardy", "WAAC", and so on wouldn't need to exist.
Talys wrote: Well, thing is, I don't really expect a tabletop game between two friends to be comparable to a videogame between two strangers.
You seem to be assuming that tabletop games are only played with friends.
Well, that's not really an assumption of mine, though I choose to play most of my games with friends. Let me rephrase: tabletop games are played between people physically in contact with each other, where decorum, sportsmanship and good manners matter; these people you encounter, you have a likelihood of meeting again, and they often run into the same people that you run into.
In contrast PvP video games are often played between strangers, and most often are played between people who are not in physical contact with each other. With someone whom you have never met, don't know, don't care to know, and may never speak to or play with again, the rules of decorum, sportsmanship, and good manners are at a minimum, different (if not altogether nonexistent in many cases).
I have different expectations of the two gaming environments -- that's all I'm saying. I enjoy both.
MWHistorian wrote:
Mutilators, Penitent Engines, Warp Talons, Howling Banshees, Flayed Ones, etc.
I believe these and other units do not accomplish their purpose to any degree of regularity or efficiency. Basically, they cost far more than they're worth and you're actively hurting your army by taking them instead of something else and giving free points to the enemy.
Of those, I'm confident I could take 3 to a game and get something good from them, only Mutilators and PE I'm not sure of simply add I'm not familiar with their exact workings, but I'm certain there are ways to make them accomplish something.
Paradigm wrote: Let's face it, anyone who builds a SerpentSpam or Triptide list for anything other than a tournament knows the opponent is probably not expecting it, and likely will not enjoy playing it as much as a well rounded, mixed, themed and unique list.
I see, so in your world nobody buys lots of Riptides because they love giant anime robots and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model, or continues to play their 5th edition Wave Serpent army once GW makes it overpowered. Nor does anyone disagree with your opinion that such an army is "unfluffy". They're all just WAACTFGs who love nothing more than crushing an opponent who has no real hope of winning or even challenging them.
I think you are maybe missing the point or I may be interpreting it wrong but I think what he is trying to say is, if someone were to run one of these triptide or serpentspam lists or whatever else, it would be unexpected for the opponent outside of a tournament, I certainly wouldn't be expecting it. People may love anime robots or have remains of old Eldar lists, but that doesn't mean it isn't surprising when they play these kinds of lists in a casual game. If someone set a Triptide/Serpentspam list down to play against me in a casual game, I will admit the first thing I'd be thinking is they are a WAAC player, as in my opinion there would be a fairly low percentage in comparison who would be doing it for fluff/love/cost reasons etc. I'm not saying that it is right to think that way but its how I would think and how I know many others in the hobby would respond also.
If they are doing it for fluff/cost/love reasons or whatever else then all the power to them and I'll support them all the way in that endeavour, I don't care how anyone plays the game or builds their list (as long as they are happy.), it doesn't mean I can't think it's surprising or make such an initial 'bad' judgement based on what they pick.
Anyone I've ever met who has played one of these kinds of lists against me has been a WAAC player (and most are happy to admit they are.) and I've played a fair few of these types, so its my go to response when I see them, but I suppose that makes me wrong too.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. While I very much doubt you'd get three Tides or 3+ Serpents in a fluff list, if someone did have that setup purely on aesthetics and/or fluff then I'd be fine with that. But really, I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a list built for such a reason. And if someone did have a list like that purely for fun, I think they would also recognise that the opponent may not enjoy facing it, and would be more open to toning down to ensure the opponent has more fun, whereas a competitive player is likely to be far less receptive to such a suggestion and will simply expect you to come back with a better list.
What I keep finding myself coming back to is this statement:
The Warhammer Armies books are written to allow players as wide a choice as possible in selecting forces. This was done to free up players and allow for the construction of themed armies, for use in scenarios and the like. However this does allow certain individuals to produce armies that are created simply to win games, with no credence towards the character of the race it is supposed to represent.
The thing is, it's not freedom of choice that results in those armies produced 'simply to win games'. It's having choices that are clearly superior to others.
All that GW has to do to eliminate that problem is not make units like Wave Serpents so stupidly good that you would be silly to not take multiples of them.
This problem is nothing whatsoever to do with having lists that are flexible enough to make themed armies, and everything to do with lists that aren't properly balanced. It's that simple. No amount of ranting about people not playing their games the way they expect them to be played will change the fact that more people would play the game the way they expect it to be played if they actually made that a good thing to do.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think a lot of us here are of the opinion that if the rules were well written then articles such as the one quoted in the OP wouldn't be necessary. If Codices were written in a way that made all unit types viable, rather than some being obvious and objectively better/worse than others, then such labels like "beardy", "WAAC", and so on wouldn't need to exist.
This.
Games Workshop is a company that says things, because it's easier than actually doing them.
e.g. Writing rules that naturally create narrative games might require a lot of effort, so instead we'll just write "Forge the Narrative!" several hundred times and pretend they're the same thing.
Balancing units is also hard, so we'll just shift the burden of balancing armies to the players.
MWHistorian wrote: GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.
I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.
Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?
Honestly, I don't see the point in having the freedom to field literally whatever I wanted, if I don't actually have the freedom to field whatever I wanted, because of unwritten rules or peer pressure from fellow gamers brought on due to rampant, horrid imbalance. I would much prefer if the game had more restrictions and I only had to concern myself with making a legal list that I liked, instead of taking whatever I wanted and having to wonder whether or not anyone will even want to play with me, if that were the case. Like it was said earlier, if wood elves are all about archers then why aren't archers a required purchase? If you aren't "supposed" to field elves without archers then why can you? And worst of all, why is it in some cases that not fielding those units that those armies are supposed to be all about, ends up giving you a much better army in the end? Wouldn't it make more sense if those units were actually...you know...good?
And yeah, I'm sure GW didn't "intend" for people to spam riptides. No, sure they didn't...that's why it was the most expensive of all the new Tau kits, got the most "advertising" and was practically the sole focus of the entire Tau release, and why all supplemental material for the Tau codex has opened up the way for taking them in ever greater numbers. GW is clearly doing the opposite of what they claim they "intend", going out of its way and releasing supplements and a formation specifically designed to allow Tau players to take more riptides than the base codex allowed, which already allowed you to take up to three of them in the first place. It's not impossible to field an army with up to 6 of the fethers without even running Unbound, and of course there's Unbound on top of that. And now you have FW putting out riptide variants you can add on top of that. But no, clearly, you were supposed to just buy the one.
Or no, I guess maybe you are actually supposed to buy 6 of them, because GW released it and it's just so awesome you need to buy 6, but you're only supposed to use one at a time. The rules are designed to make you want to buy them in large numbers, but only a dick who doesn't understand The Spirit of the Game would actually want to use them. Makes sense to me!
Then you get into the whole thing about how everyone interprets the fluff differently, or how not everyone can even agree that this or that is actually "broken" or "overpowered" to begin with...a lot of people out there just throw out the "OP" label when they simply lose to something they didn't expect to lose to. Hard to tell the difference sometimes when people are just sour because they're used to curb-stomping (insert xeno here) and suddenly they start getting their asses kicked again, and when there's a legitimate problem.
Anyway, personally I just like how "spammy" armies look on the table more than the "highlander" style game you seem more fond of. I don't like "armies" that have one of everything, it looks incoherent to me and doesn't look very "realistic", either. In my opinion it's way more fluffy for a Tau army to have three hammerheads, or three squads of broadsides, than a mishmash with one hammerhead, one sky ray, and one squad of broadsides (with rail rifles obviously because you're not "allowed" to use the better and obvious "must-take" option...because freedom).
Peregrine wrote: ...and the Riptide is an awesome giant anime robot model...
Well, that's debatable, really. I think it's a crappy design from the waist up and costs way too much money for what you get.
Paradigm wrote: While I very much doubt you'd get three Tides or 3+ Serpents in a fluff list
Why? The fluff supports it. Especially serpent spam because that's essentially just a Saim Hann list, just add some bikes.
MWHistorian wrote: GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.
I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.
Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?
Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.
"We created a wide open system... but you're not actually supposed to use it like that, you're supposed to adhere to the narrow vision we made for the army (even if that narrow vision is wrong**) otherwise you're being a beardy player". ...wtf?
Or, yaknow, they could just write rules that didn't have terrible fething balance or a just a giant expensive game of rock paper scissors.
**I say the vision is narrow because they used the example of a skeleton horseman army, but that's perfectly fluffy if the theme is a Bretonnian mounted knight/yeoman themed army. And the example of an archerless WE army, which is perfectly in theme with a Forest Spirit army.
It's also funny that the article was written, I believe, just before 3rd edition 40k came out? The edition of great simplifications and more narrow choices. And '98 I think was when the Bretonnian and Lizardmen boxed set was around?
Honestly if it was a first edition of a rules system I might be more forgiving, but here we are 16 years later and they still haven't gotten their act together to create a decently balanced system and they still leave gaping holes in the rules which they don't FAQ (actually they've gotten even worse on this front).
Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.
That makes no sense to me.
You're either giving players freedom or you're not.
If you're making restrictions and just not bothering to tell players what they are, then that's not freedom - it's just a shallow illusion of freedom.
I'll add to what I said previously and mention that was written about WHFB, I don't think WHFB has ever had as bad balance as 40k has had because the rules are inherently more biased to how well you play rather than how you build the army.
Well it does give people a chance to sit on a high horse and preach about forging the narrative to others. GW seems to be keen on that.
And imagine the feeling of superiority one can have, if your codex has almost no bad units. You could take an army of units with max one or two same squads and forge away , at those people whos codex is made out of 4 unit types and maybe a transport.
Paradigm wrote: Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.
Kings of War is a quite well balanced game with a great tourney scene and you're allowed to ally pretty much anything as long as it fits into the 'good with good/nutral - evil with neutral/evil' alignments in an unbound like fashion.
GW offering options should have no bearing on the actual quality of the rules. it might make it harder to write well but professionals can't simply use 'it was hard' as an excuse for not doing their job.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'll add to what I said previously and mention that was written about WHFB, I don't think WHFB has ever had as bad balance as 40k has had because the rules are inherently more biased to how well you play rather than how you build the army.
Yes. At the time the article was written it was 5th edition fantasy aka "Herohammer" so you would sometimes see armies made entirely of elite type troops. The whole thing about playing to the background was a common thing at the time, mostly in the WHFB context. You didn't usially see those types of articles for 40k, for reasons unknown.
I didn't include it but the article did say that it was okay to do, for example, a cavalry and chariot army if you were doing a force to represent a particular theme from the background (the example it gave was the "Kindred of Equos" for Wood Elves and Chrace for High Elves) but you should let your opponent know beforehand that your'e doing a theme so they know you aren't fielding a typical army.
Also of note is some sidebars from the designers that give their own viewpoints of it, in particular from Nigel Stillman who basically said that his viewpoint is something like build a 2,000 point army and never deviate from it, never add anything else ("Play in larger games with just your 2,000 points, odds be damned"), and let the only surprise be how you play it on the battlefield so that when you win, there will be no question as to you being the superior general.
There was also a counter-argument from Graham Davey who said that he played in a group that liked to play more competitively, and the one-upsmanship and trying to bring a hard counter what you expected them to bring was fun. He does add this gem though:
Of course this only works because everyone in the group knew what to expect. To be considered a fair player the important thing is to find out what your opponent expects from the game, and make an effort not to disappoint them.
That, at least, still rings true to this day.
Here is another gem of a quote from Jim Butler:
A Warhammer battle isn't a game of chess, it's a story. As long as the story is exciting, it doesn't really matter who wins. If you only enjoy playing when you win, you are never going to get the most out of the hobby.
So it seems that even back (and likely before) then there was this idea that Warhammer wasn't a game but a way for a couple of mates to get together and use their miniatures. And this design has permeated every aspect of GW ever since. Like everything else, the studio plays in a particular way with particular choices and cannot fathom that anyone out there plays differently (or they don't care). It's always been the case that the studio played fluffy armies that would generally be considered uncompetitive, but true to the article they would pick things that fit the army background rather than just things that would win them games. It was extremely rare to see a battle report with someone that fielded a list that would be considered competitive at the time, although a lot of times this was due to them using the Studio armies which were specifically built to showcase all of the models of the range and not for winning, but even when they would have battle reports using a staff member's own army they had choices that made the list fluffy but that was it.
All that goes to reinforce the notion that you can pick "subpar" units as long as you're playing in a group that doesn't care about picking subpar units, because then it sort of evens out (not enough, but still it evens out a bit). Unless they were lying in battle reports (a possibility as I do recall them saying a couple of times that they had to refight a battle report because it went too lopsided to be able to print) then most of them were still fairly close even using those subpar units.
Of those, I'm confident I could take 3 to a game and get something good from them, only Mutilators and PE I'm not sure of simply add I'm not familiar with their exact workings, but I'm certain there are ways to make them accomplish something.
Agreed, personally I find 65 points for a T5 2W 2+/5++ Ld9 small footprint unit that has a decent toolbox and can deep strike isn't crazy bad. At worse it will absorb a few units worth of fire for a turn (a worthy distraction), if it survives it is capable of deleting a few vehicles/support units in the enemy back field. That said, I've only used single model squads of nurgle mutilators; With only T4 they would loose a lot of their survivability to melta, lascannon, etc.
Obviously, obliterators can do a lot of what mutilators do (but at range) and some of what they can do in combat (but fewer attacks/weapons, worse I for escaping sweeping advance), but that doesn't mean mutilators can't be made to work.
I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.
nareik wrote: I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.
The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff? I would be paying more and getting less (which seems like a familiar strategy )
That's the underlying issue. The gap between good and bad in 40k is way too large, sometimes among the same kinds of units. In Warmachine, for example, the gap between good and bad is very small to where the "bad" choice often is just bad because the "good" choice is better for general-purpose use and the bad choice is more specialized. In 40k the bad unit often is too fragile or not good enough to do its intended role, while the good choice can do the role (if not more).
That's absolutely a game balance thing, and something that should have been addressed in 20 years of rules.
nareik wrote: I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.
The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff?
The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.
The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.
But why does there need to be a choice at all?
Why make players choose between nice looking models and models with good rules?
nareik wrote: I think its important to get away form the mindset that some people have where units that with less use are useless.
The issue is that everything is a trade-off. Do I take Unit A that costs me 120 points or Unit B that costs me 150 points? What roles do each of them perform? If Unit A and Unit B are both close-combat units, but Unit A can do more damage and survive longer, then why would I ever take Unit B for any reason other than aesthetics or fluff?
The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.
Exactly, which is part of the problem because that should not be a tradeoff. You shouldn't even have to think that Unit B performs much worse but you like how it looks so you're going to take it anyways, penalties be damned.
That is IMHO one GW's most grievous sins when it comes to game design.
MWHistorian wrote: GW wants you to play fluffy, themed armies, but then punish you with crappy units that will lose you the game.
I honestly can't think of a single unit that, if not spammed, will have a major impact on your chances of winning or losing a game. OK, a list with 3 Penitent Engines against one with 3 Riptides is going to have a bad day, but one of each will not hugely imbalance the game. On the whole, imbalance is only a major factor when it is exacerbated by taking the maximum possible amounts of the imbalanced units, and that's exactly what GW want you to avoid doing.
Then why allow people to spam at all? Isn't it kind of stupid for GW to allow you to take literally whatever you want if you're really not "supposed" to anyway, or to take units in greater numbers than they "intended"?
Because, as I say, they've chosen absolute freedom combined with trust rather than a system of restrictions that can, in some way, stop someone making the list they want. They want you to be able to make any list you can possibly think of, they trust you to take into account your opponent and how they will enjoy the game.
But not being able to take three riptides, because the community decided they were "broken", when that's the list you want to take...that's not stopping someone from making the list they want?
I stand by what I said, it's not real freedom, it's "freedom". Choice is an illusion, and you're still bound by restrictions and rules, some of which differ from person to person and might not even be fair, that just aren't written into the rulebook. What's the point?
And as it's been said time and again, there's no reason why the game shouldn't have restrictions and balance written into it. There really isn't anything stopping someone from taking the list they want to take anyway, especially if like you say you need to take your opponent into account before every game. It's not hard to say "Wanna play without an FOC?", you get a yes or no answer, done deal...but trying to reintroduce structure into the game and playing two reasonably-balanced lists against each other, when every last semblance of balance has been thrown entirely out the window, and when the community is already pretty fractured in not only how the game "should" be played but when it comes to damn near every other aspect, like what's fluffy and what isn't, what's "overpowered" and what's reasonably good for its price, that's a little bit harder to do. It changes from person to person and trying to get people to all agree on something is way more difficult than if it was just written into the rules, plain as day; "XV104 Riptide, Elite, 0-2". As far as how GW "intends" for that unit or the game in general to be played, you can't really get any clearer than that.
You're either giving players freedom or you're not.
If you're making restrictions and just not bothering to tell players what they are, then that's not freedom - it's just a shallow illusion of freedom.
Yeah, exactly. Your "freedom" is a joke, and I would much rather have a more restrictive game, where I'm either forced to take units I normally never would or I'm extremely limited on how many of the "good" ones I can field, or both, and at least have something that resembles a balanced game where there's no arguing over lists and WAAC and other nonsense, than a wide open game with all this "freedom" to take any combination of units I want, but not being able to enjoy said freedom and having to restrict myself anyway.
The fact being that, to many and to the people GW are clearly aiming the game at, aesthetics and fluff are as good as if not better reasons for choosing a unit than how it performs on table.
And then be told they shouldn't bring 3 Riptides because they're too powerful, despite the player enjoying the fluff and aesthetics of Riptides.
It is of my opinion, that all of us as players, we only have limited funds and time in which to build an army list with. This WH40K hobby is quite expencive in both monetary as well as a time investment. Some folks just want to buy the units that they enjoy the aesthetics for. Some folks are only concerned with the units that are effective at what they can do.
I cant blame players for being beardy/cheesy for taking the most effective units from an army list, in attempts to be dominant on the tabletop. This is especially ever more so important in the tournament/competitive environments. I applaud those players who do their homework to come up with really wicked army lists. Especially so, in the competitive tournaments of the likes of Games Day UK, and the such.
Everything all comes down to their rules. If they want to sell units that are not selling well. Then they only have to buff the unit a bit in either stat line wise or give it a special rule or two or make it cheaper to field points wise. And likewise if they feel something is too beardy, they can do the opposite to said unit. If GW wanted to balance factions in WH40K, they would have done it by now.
I would site Blood Bowl as a perfect resemblance in what GW does for the armies of WH40K in terms of balance. But, WH40K is a little better than Blood Bowl in terms of game balance. Anyone who has played Goblins, Halflings or Amazons vs. a Dwarf team will know what I mean.
I would site Blood Bowl as a perfect resemblance in what GW does for the armies of WH40K in terms of balance. But, WH40K is a little better than Blood Bowl in terms of game balance. Anyone who has played Goblins, Halflings or Amazons vs. a Dwarf team will know what I mean.
This isn't a coincidence either, Jervis Johnson was the lead for Blood Bowl and now he's in charge of the whole studio.
Blood Bowl however at least has the decency to tell you all teams aren't made equal (well the Living rulebook does at least).
There's no spirit anymore. with unbound armys of the new big toys etc. today i have a game against 3 riptdies 3wraightknig 2dread knights and 1 knight
my fluffy spacemarine Army has no chance in fight against that. not with ever game just a death match our who can wipe out who the fastest
zilka86 wrote: There's no spirit anymore. with unbound armys of the new big toys etc. today i have a game against 3 riptdies 3wraightknig 2dread knights and 1 knight my fluffy spacemarine Army has no chance in fight against that. not with ever game just a death match our who can wipe out who the fastest
That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day."
Unbound is about making lists you couldn't make legally but wanted to do so fluffily. Again it would depend on his answer. If there was a fluff reason for this, I would accept it, since he wanted to have fun. If he admitted he needed to win, I would accept it since he is telling the truth, but if he had to lie or make excuses, I would politely decline the game, give him his victory and think to myself this person has issues and should be felt sorry for needing to win with plastic toy soldiers. So I will give him his victory so he can feel better for himself.
This game is about fun. Unbound is about fun. Sadly people just abuse everything. Even in Bounded lists people exploit to win so using Unbound is just a cop out.
Where i paly ever one builds army that are unbound so the can win like list above. i am the only player in my area that uses infantry models even the ork player uses only big model i don't rember there names he runs six of then pluse a low thing.
The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.
WayneTheGame wrote: The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.
WayneTheGame wrote: The whole issue I had with that article then, as now, is that it's passing responsibility for balance onto the players. It's not the players responsibility to balance the game, it's on the designers. If it's bad/wrong/unfluffy to take 3 Riptides, then you shouldn't be allowed to take three Riptides. Allowing it because you want to sell more than one Riptide to a Tau player (and let's not pretend here, that's exactly the reason why 0-1 restrictions went away) and then finger-wagging saying that the player is wrong to want that, despite being allowed, is a copout and a pathetic way to try and insulate yourself from writing properly balanced rules.
Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.
Yep, that sounds like Jervis alright. You *can* do this, but you aren't intended to do it and doing it will make you a WAAC/TFG/git so don't do it, even though you're allowed to do it.
Yeah... Jervis note pretty much validates your entire post.
Why?
It demonstrates perfectly what he was saying.
We'll leave you the "freedom" to do this, but you're a bad person if you do.
So, what's the point? Either have the guts to undo your mistake, or else leave it alone. Don't just dump the problem on the players.
Well, the Jervis quote in there consists of two parts.
A) "we" (!) decided that it does not give Ogres an unfair advantage.
B) "I personally" would recommend you don't do it for background reasons.
Seems to be clearly delineated between (a) not a problem from a pure game-play perspective (in the aggregate decision/opinion of the team), but (b) in the personal, subjective opinion of but one among several game designers, not really going with the fluff.
That isn't necessarily a bad approach to FAQ.. e.g. don't change it unless it is truly necessary from a game-play perspective, but keep it in mind background-wise for future iterations of the rules. The alternative, wild FAQs left and right for "fluff-reasons", even if they aren't strictly needed, isn't too enticing either, I find.
Davor wrote: That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day.".
So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?
Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.
Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.
Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.
Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.
No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win. If the people you play with enjoy plying varied, interesting armies and scenarios, out of cool models they collect 40k will be great for you. On the other hand, something else is better if you mostly want to play games with a few pieces that don't take long to get game ready, where playing and winning are your priority.
Talys wrote: No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.
But that's the point: It doesn't have to be one or the other.
An 'interesting unit' doesn't have to have sub-par rules in order to be usable.
And, again, it ignores cases like Wave Serpent spam, where including multiples of them is perfectly in keeping with the army. A player shouldn't be ostracised for fielding an army that is totally in keeping with the army's fluff and the way the army is supposed to work on the table.
Serpent spam isn't fluff-breaking. It's just horrible because GW gave them stupid rules.
You can use fluff to justify anything. I played Mech Guard (before it was cool) back in 3rd Ed. I had a whole back story for my army - the Cadian 444th Mechanised - but for a while I wanted to play all-infantry guard, so I simply wrote in the fluff that the unit was under "Inquisitorial review", and had their transports confiscated by a crazy Ordo Hereticus Inquisitrix.
Why are the 'interesting' and 'fun' models always the underpowered ones? As someone who likes mecha i see the riptides and wraithknights as interesting (not that i've got any). Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?
insaniak wrote:And, again, it ignores cases like Wave Serpent spam, where including multiples of them is perfectly in keeping with the army. A player shouldn't be ostracised for fielding an army that is totally in keeping with the army's fluff and the way the army is supposed to work on the table.
Serpent spam isn't fluff-breaking. It's just horrible because GW gave them stupid rules.
Blacksails wrote:
No, GW makes the perhaps incorrect assumption that most players would rather play interesting units than win.
Define interesting. I find wave serpents and riptides interesting.
Torga_DW wrote:Why are the 'interesting' and 'fun' models always the underpowered ones? As someone who likes mecha i see the riptides and wraithknights as interesting (not that i've got any). Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?
I find it 'interesting' that everyone ALWAYS says Riptides and Wave Serpents (and, not mentioned here, but Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and Dreadknights) as the offending units. So I mean, if GW nerfed these units, would you be happy?
I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because most of the people who dislike the possibility of the imbalanced armies that much also dislike GW for many other (legitimate) reasons.
There is nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned units (sure, they could use a slight nerf), but the real issue is that they become horribly unbalanced and boring to play against if they constitute pretty much an entire army. I mean, 40k does not work well when your army consists of 6 riptides, or 6 wave serpents and a bunch of fire dragons.
Should GW make a rule making cheese armies impossible? Sure they can, and I hope they do, but it doesn't make the game horrible in the meantime. To a large part, detachments and battleforged in 7th fixes many of the issues, and there are very, very few tournaments that are unbound, or where you can spam, well, anything. But seriously, how many people actually own a half dozen Riptides, and how often do you go to an FLGS or a tournament (where it's almost never legal anyhow), where you see a totally cheesy army? WMH also has units that are not balanced for their cost (like Bradigus, a model that I love :( but let's not get into that).
Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.
Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.
To me, I'd much rather figure out how to win on the table with a varied smorgasbord of units than simply, mindlessly, pick all the optimal units from the optimal codex and not have to think about how I play the game.
But, you have players like one guy at my club who has been heard to say "I want to win, I don't care if the other player has fun, if they don't bring a hardcore list, that means it's just easier" and, directly to me, on discussing how to encourage some of the, shall we say, "less good" players (mostly noobs and youngsters) responded with "No mercy, if they're s**t, that's not my problem."
As mentioned, some people attach waay too much importance to winning toy soldiers, usually, IME, to try and compensate for something they're not happy about in other parts of their life, and these people should be able to pour their heart and soul into making the best list possible, and refining every little detail to the nth degree.
It is the designers responsibility to ensure that people like me can still enjoy a game against people like that without either of us needing to compromise our personal philosophy about how the game should be played.
Talys wrote: I find it 'interesting' that everyone ALWAYS says Riptides and Wave Serpents (and, not mentioned here, but Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, and Dreadknights) as the offending units. So I mean, if GW nerfed these units, would you be happy?
Or, in other words, if GW put more effort into crafting balanced codexes, would the people complaining about the codexes being imbalanced be happy?
I think the answer to that question should be fairly obvious, frankly.
I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because most of the people who dislike the possibility of the imbalanced armies that much also dislike GW for many other (legitimate) reasons.
Fixing one of the problems with their game wouldn't automatically make everyone forget all of the other problems... but it would be a good start.
There is nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned units (sure, they could use a slight nerf), but the real issue is that they become horribly unbalanced and boring to play against if they constitute pretty much an entire army.
Do you not see how that's a problem in a game system that allows you to take that army?
If taking those units as your 'entire army' results in something that is bad for the game, then surely the answer is to either (A)Not allow those units to be taken as your entire army, or (B)Change those units so that they are not so abusive when taken that way.
Instead, GW go for (C)Blame the players for the studio not doing their job.
I mean, 40k does not work well when your army consists of 6 riptides, or 6 wave serpents and a bunch of fire dragons.
So don't make that an option.
Should GW make a rule making cheese armies impossible?
YES.
But seriously, how many people actually own a half dozen Riptides,
Quite a few, I would imagine.
... and how often do you go to an FLGS or a tournament (where it's almost never legal anyhow), where you see a totally cheesy army?
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.
Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.
A well built rules system would not make spamming the best unit in your codex the best way to win games. Just saying.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.
I don't see why "varied" and "fluffy" are so frequently assumed to be the same thing. A spam list can be very fluffy, and might even be less fluffy if the spam was replaced by a random collection of units. For example, I play IG and I want to have an all-tank army (a fluffy armored company) with multiple copies of each tank. Adding more variation would IMO ruin the nice fluff and symmetry of the list. And it's also no coincidence that complaints about "spam" involve lists that spam powerful units, while an army that spams lots of copies of a weak unit often gets praise for how "fluffy" it is. This even changes from edition to edition, depending on what is powerful at the moment. The fluffy mech Eldar list from the old codex is now the WAAC serpent spam list from the new codex, even if the player didn't change a single model.
Azreal13 wrote: Thing is, this is a fine and noble ideal until it comes into contact with humans.
Personally, I agree with essentially everything quoted in the OP, I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.
A well built rules system would not make spamming the best unit in your codex the best way to win games. Just saying.
The very idea of a "best" unit is a product of an unbalanced rules system.
But you appear to disagreeing with me by agreeing with me.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd much rather take a varied and fluffy list than spam the same thing over and over.
I don't see why "varied" and "fluffy" are so frequently assumed to be the same thing. A spam list can be very fluffy, and might even be less fluffy if the spam was replaced by a random collection of units. For example, I play IG and I want to have an all-tank army (a fluffy armored company) with multiple copies of each tank. Adding more variation would IMO ruin the nice fluff and symmetry of the list. And it's also no coincidence that complaints about "spam" involve lists that spam powerful units, while an army that spams lots of copies of a weak unit often gets praise for how "fluffy" it is. This even changes from edition to edition, depending on what is powerful at the moment. The fluffy mech Eldar list from the old codex is now the WAAC serpent spam list from the new codex, even if the player didn't change a single model.
Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.
Davor wrote: That is just a person who have to win with plastic toy soldiers. Why bother playing him. I would have looked at him, stared at him, say "Seriously?" Then when he gives a look I would say "Do you really need to win with plastic toy soldiers that badly?" then wait for his answer. If I don't find the answer satisfactory, I would say "You win, I won't bother playing since you really need to win so badly you will not be a fun person to play with, so take your victory and have a good day.".
So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?
Here's the thing: There is no list that you can possibly write using the current rules that can't be made to fit within the fluff. The 40K universe is a big, crazy place of shifting alliance, hazy goals, cut-throat tactics and whimsical gods. Anything goes in that setting.
Again, this isn't actually an issue of fluff. It's an issue of GW trying to shift the blame for their inability to write balanced rules onto the players.
I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.
Davor wrote: I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.
I see, so bringing a strong list automatically sets a default that you're a WAAC player until you meet Davor's burden of proof for demonstrating otherwise?
Azreal13 wrote: Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.
The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.
I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.
The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?
I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...
The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.
For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.
A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.
The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.
And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.
In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.
Azreal13 wrote: Ok, substitute "and" for "or" in that context, makes no odds to me, it's just picking on the specific and disregarding the general.
The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.
SpookyRuben wrote: I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.
The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?
Yes, and it was a good thing to prevent abuses or stupid nonsense like Marneus Calgar showing up in every battle, or mixing and matching characters to create some uber-combo. The game was better when SCs were permission only and they remained where they belonged - for use in scenarios or themed armies, not all over the place for the benefits they bring to the table.
I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...
The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.
And that's a problem, the rules should have been perfected over 20+ years, not redone and half-assed every single edition since 3rd changed the core rules. Because ultimately the core rules are the same as it was when 3rd edition came out, which I remember because I still played then.
For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.
A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.
The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.
And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.
In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.
But the issue here is that they use Spirit of the Game (and "forge the narrative") to excuse themselves from doing their job as games designers. It's not on the player to say "Well, I really like Riptides but more than one is going to be too unfair for my opponent" it's on the game designer to look at the Riptide and say that it's too powerful and should be toned down in some regard, or cost more points so you can't reasonably field more than one or two except in large scale games, or limit them entirely to prevent abuse. It is absolutely on the designer to put restrictions in place if necessary because it's not the players fault if they do what they are allowed to do, and it is absolute bullgak to suggest that it somehow is.
The issue here is that sales of models drives everything with GW (didn't one of the founders warn against this very thing? Someone has a quote about it somewhere), so there are no restrictions because that would impede selling multiples of the big models to people. It's absolutely the wrong direction to go, and rather than realize it they've just kept putting up the idea that they really don't make rules they make models, and just happen to have something resembling rules so you can bring the pretty figures out of the cabinet from time to time and aren't these books great with hardcover and glossy pages which is why they're so expensive, but they really aren't a game and you should come up with your own things and police yourselves because a game isn't really what we're selling it's these pretty jewel-like miniatures of wonder so why don't you buy all of it right now?
Feth that. They can repeat the lie as often as they want, it won't make it true. It's just sad that I finally realize they've spouted this line of gak for 20 years, when I thought that it was a recent thing. The "spirit of the game" was gak then and it's gak now, just an excuse to write crap and then put any and all blame on the player. Oh it's not our fault that you can field six Riptides, even though we don't restrict it and actually changed the rules to allow as many as you want, it's that nasty beardy git that you play against's fault for taking six Riptides when that's not a fluffy Tau army at all, it should have one at max because they are experimental, but we can't actually restrict it because then he might only buy one instead of three, so we'll just allow as many as you want and it's now your problem, not ours.
It is the designers responsibility to ensure that people like me can still enjoy a game against people like that without either of us needing to compromise our personal philosophy about how the game should be played.
-The above quote is referencing a WAAC player at his local club.
I understand your desire, but I would disagree. Regarding Games Workshop Designer's. It's not one of their objectives; because of that there will always be this friction among the player base. So that leaves us individuals to sort it out.
Personally from what you describe. I would just not play against him, and let him know why.
Except no other popular game has this division in the player base!
That's because no other game has the same disparity in unit power - there's some more efficient options than others, sure, but nothing like that which exists in 40K.
I've even seen quotes attributed to GW designers stating that they know they screwed up with Tau and Eldar, but have no intention of fixing it. Contrast that with the makers of other popular games that regularly and actively engage in trying to maintain the best level of balance they can.
As for the WAAC guy at my club? I avoid him when possible, but we're a small group and if we have a league or campaign running, sometimes it's unavoidable.
SpookyRuben wrote: I remember reading that article back then. But as someone said a page or two back, it doesn't apply any more, at least to 40k.
The game today is nothing like the game back then. Back then was when I started, and the game was far more restrictive than it is now. Does anyone remember needing your opponents permission to use a special characters?
I'm going to say before anything else, I love 40k. I love the aesthetics, building the models, painting and playing the game but...
The truth of the matter is, that 40k is a decades old, rehashed game system, with changes made just for the sake of change. Throw in a good measure of 'new' rules welded on (Flyer's, Super Heavies etc...) and you get to what it is now. It's a game system that now sprawls across several books and editions. As a company, Games Workshop have no interest in 'Finishing' the game. Which you think might be possible with the amount of time they have had.
For a company that claims to be a model company first, they have a real knack for making truck loads of money off books and rules. Here's a good example.
A more recent example of 'new rules' is the formations. So far everyone I know thinks they are pretty cool, I agree for the most part. However, I haven't seen any wide spread commentary about how this 'new rule' can be directly linked to selling specific models, and usually in large numbers. Take the Hellbrute formations, no one would normally have that many Hellbrutes. I am sure you can find other examples yourselves. The prior incarnation of Rules to sell models were Riptides, Wave Serpents, Flyers, Online Data Slates etc... They just innovated that concept when they came up with Formations. Pretty clever actually.
The point I am making is that Games Workshop doesn't care any more. They don't care about competitive play, or balancing one codex internally or externally, or even Forging the Narrative. They care about selling models and books. They are a business, they have shareholder's, and they have a bottom line. Maybe when back in 1998 they cared enough to talk openly about 'their vision' of how the game should be played, but no longer.
And this doesn't bother me at all, because I just like 40k. I recognize 40k for what it is, and accept that.
In the end 'The Spirit of the Game' to me is simple, enjoy it, have fun. However you get there is really just up to you.
I think their vision now is to maximize shareholder dividends. In fact, I can accept that as fact, since the CEO said so, in nearly those words, in the most recent financial statements. A lot of people seem to think this is horrible, but frankly, as long as they produce products that I want (like Apple or Microsoft or Electronic Arts), I am happy that maximizing profitability is important to them. If they cease to produce products that I want to buy, price them beyond my means, or if competitors produce products I prefer, they'll lose my business.
And/but: I haven't found a large model count IGYG scifi game to play, and this is the type of game I like. I simply can't get into a game with 20 models on each side, unless it's a boardgame (like bloodbowl). Since I've played almost everything at least a little, I'm sure sooner or later something else will grab my interest
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Except no other popular game has this division in the player base!
That's because no other game has the same disparity in unit power - there's some more efficient options than others, sure, but nothing like that which exists in 40K.
I've even seen quotes attributed to GW designers stating that they know they screwed up with Tau and Eldar, but have no intention of fixing it. Contrast that with the makers of other popular games that regularly and actively engage in trying to maintain the best level of balance they can.
As for the WAAC guy at my club? I avoid him when possible, but we're a small group and if we have a league or campaign running, sometimes it's unavoidable.
Not quite the same genre, but sharing a common playerbase and FLGS, MtG very much has this issue (as well as many other TCGs), yet MtG is massively popular, despite being orders of magnitude more expensive to be and remain competitive.
Davor wrote: I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.
I see, so bringing a strong list automatically sets a default that you're a WAAC player until you meet Davor's burden of proof for demonstrating otherwise?
No the list doesn't default you to the WAAC player, but the person's attitude does.
So what benchmark are you using to determine which lists are overpowered?
And how do you ensure that your opponents are aware of this benchmark when they write their lists?
It all comes to attitude. I find some people who think they are "jocks" when they play 40K and are better than others. This is what for me makes them WAAC players. Their attitude.
It doesn't seem like GW's usual can't be bothered but instead Priestly is genuinely saddened by the fact that a world he put so much effort and time into creating is being pushed aside for the sake of winning.
I don't play this hobby to win, I play it because I like the world of it.
A lot of people I meet who are "WAAC" seem to have this almost bloodlust like obsession with winning, where nothing else matters except for that.
This game is for having fun, not satiating your cravings for domination.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair someone with only a powerful list isn't WAAC to me.
WAAC is when your are driven by a craving for victory, where you are more than willing to betray every shred of human decency to gain the upper edge at toy soldiers.
Most of the fun games I've played ended with half my army getting slaughtered but it was fun because my opponent acted like a human being.
Bronzefists42 wrote: It doesn't seem like GW's usual can't be bothered but instead Priestly is genuinely saddened by the fact that a world he put so much effort and time into creating is being pushed aside for the sake of winning.
Yeah, it's shocking that people would play a wargame that pits two armies against each other for the sole purpose of having one of those armies emerge victorious... and actually want to win that game...
Priestly's world isn't being pushed aside. Again, any army that you care to build can be given a fluffy basis for existing with very little effort. The problem is nothing to do with fluff, and everything to do with a lack of time and effort put into creating the part of the game that actually matters for playing the game: The rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: No the list doesn't default you to the WAAC player, but the person's attitude does.
insaniak wrote: So anyone with a list that you consider over-powered, who hasn't bothered to write a novel to 'justify' the existence of said list, you're just going to brand as WAAC?...
I would say Yes. Either admit you need to win with plastic toy soldiers or explain why. Not really that hard. A lot of people say they are not WAAC and make excuses as to why. I can respect someone who says they are a WAAC but can't respect someone who claims they are not and lie about it.
Blacksails wrote: On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.
Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.
Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!
Blacksails wrote: On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.
Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.
Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!
Except all the one's that don't?
I don't play Warmahordes, but the consistency of people who do that say that while list building is a factor, how you play can account for a lists shortcomings can't be dismissed.
I DO play X Wing, and in an extreme example, one could win with any list, because in game decision making can render the best list irrelevant if the skill differential is high enough. Better lists make winning easier, but they aren't the sole determinant of who wins.
Infinity players literally say "it's not your list, it's you" Meaning that if you're losing, it is because you're not playing your list the right way, not that there is some inherent power difference between unit choices.
So, of all the most popular list-based tabletop games, only GW ones suffer from the problem of "best list wins"
Blacksails wrote: On the flip side, no one should be made the villain for wanting to win, within reason.
Having fun and winning or losing are not mutually exclusive affairs.
Of course not. Nobody is holding a gun to a player's head saying, you must play this person, either. At the end of the day, games which put a great emphasis on list building all have this issue. Also, it is important to note that just because someone has a cheesy riptide list or serpent list doesn't mean they are a good player. Mostly, they just have their one army, so they aren't particularly hard to beat. Sometimes, I will swap out with someone and take on a riptide player just to beat them and annoy them... In the hopes that they will seek prey elsewhere next time!
Except all the one's that don't?
I don't play Warmahordes, but the consistency of people who do that say that while list building is a factor, how you play can account for a lists shortcomings can't be dismissed.
I DO play X Wing, and in an extreme example, one could win with any list, because in game decision making can render the best list irrelevant if the skill differential is high enough. Better lists make winning easier, but they aren't the sole determinant of who wins.
Infinity players literally say "it's not your list, it's you" Meaning that if you're losing, it is because you're not playing your list the right way, not that there is some inherent power difference between unit choices.
So, of all the most popular list-based tabletop games, only GW ones suffer from the problem of "best list wins"
You misunderstand. I mean, games in which list building is emphasized, and where an optimized army is meant to have an insurmountable advantage over a poorly designed army (or deck of cards). Much like real life, an army of all infantry would lose badly against an army that included air support, artillery, and armor. Even with hugely superior numbers, an infantry only army would be slaughtered.
Peregrine wrote: The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.
Perry, stop arguing with people who agree with you. You're like a Goblin Fanatic - you attack everyone regardless of whether they're helping your or attacking you.
Talys wrote: You misunderstand. I mean, games in which list building is emphasized, and where an optimized army is meant to have an insurmountable advantage over a poorly designed army (or deck of cards).
So, games that aren't 40K, you mean?
Because we're constantly being told that list building isn't supposed to be important in 40K. It's supposed to be about just putting models on the table and having 'fun'.
Much like real life,...
We're discussing a game. Not real life.
... an army of all infantry would lose badly against an army that included air support, artillery, and armor. Even with hugely superior numbers, an infantry only army would be slaughtered.
Unless they had superior enough numbers to cancel out the advantages of the enemy's superior equipment.
Which is what points costs are supposed to be for.
So going back to the OP and article:
The real translation (other than we "suck" at rules as another pointed out) is that by allowing a HUGE amount of options it is easy to field an army out of "theme" of the GW fluff.
So this just takes us back to tabletop "RPG" and this game system was never intended as competitive rather, thematic? (cinematic?).
It is meant more for the drama and the spectacle of it all according to the game designers.
Anyway, I and many others have given our pound of flesh on this topic.
I have nothing really new to add.
Peregrine wrote: The substitution doesn't make any difference. What I said still applies just as well to the general idea that there are powerful lists and there are fun/fluff/casual/whatever lists, and there is little or no overlap between the two categories.
Perry, stop arguing with people who agree with you. You're like a Goblin Fanatic - you attack everyone regardless of whether they're helping your or attacking you.
So, games that aren't 40K, you mean?
Because we're constantly being told that list building isn't supposed to be important in 40K. It's supposed to be about just putting models on the table and having 'fun'.
Whoever told you that? 40k is about building armies and using strategy to achieve victory. Of course, people want to have fun. Otherwise, why not spend time with the family or earn money, or read a book?
But it is a game that tries to mirror squad/unit warfare, based on... yeah, real life.
insaniak wrote: Unless they had superior enough numbers to cancel out the advantages of the enemy's superior equipment.
Which is what points costs are supposed to be for.
This is so wrong on so many levels, man. Pikemen, archers, cavalry and siege are all valuable. Yet, combine them, and the whole is greater than its parts. In a more modern example, Stealth bombers, drones, and cruise missles should be worth many more "points" than an infantryman (they sure cost a lot more dollars). And yet, ISIS cannot be pushed back with air power alone. Add tank brigade with a bit of infantry, and ISIS would be crushed. The generals on the ground would gladly trade a few of those tomahawks and drones for a few pieces on the ground.
In real life, these are called force multipliers. Given that A and B are equally valuable, having both A and B make your force many times more powerful than having double A or double B.
In another analogy, soldiers having rations is good. Soldiers having weaponry is also good. So when assigning constrained resources, a commander must provision the proper proportion of weapons and rations to that division in order to be victorious, because running out of either results in a loss condition. If it's a long siege, the proper provisioning would be different than for a great battle.
If 40k has a failing in its effort to put a futuristic spin on real life battles, it's that there are not sufficient rewards for force multipliers, to encourage a balanced army. An example would be to have a relatively cheap unit that could destroy superheavies, or one to cheaply take out fast moving vehicles, but are themselves vulnerable to other units. You'd take said squad as a coutner, but you can't win only with that squad. If you know your opponent is going to take only fast moving vehicles, taking a slightly disproportionate number of anti-fast-vehicle troops should hand you an easy victory. In the game, this is not so.
GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.
GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.
I understand that GW want more focus on the collection/lore and recreation of battles but where have they ever said or since when has it been decided that thinking about strategy automatically means you are a TFG, I think I must have missed that memo.
Even casual play or 'fluff battles/scenarios' still require at least basic strategy in both creating lists and playing the game, but according to you that now means I'm TFG? Thanks for letting me know, I always thought'd I'd played for fun/fluff. Silly old me.
Have you not been reading this thread? The thread where people have been claiming that building an army that is comprised of units that are a more effective use of points than other units makes you a horrible person?
insaniak wrote: Have you not been reading this thread? The thread where people have been claiming that building an army that is comprised of units that are a more effective use of points than other units makes you a horrible person?
As usual it boils down to 'Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.'
I think in this situation, the bulk of the blame clearly is with the rules designers. If they don't want people doing certain things, they need to be taking steps to address that within their rules, because if people can, they will.
If they don't want people taking armies of all knights or all flying monstrous creatures, then their army lists shouldn't allow such things. Simple as. They need fix their army lists to be played the way they really intend for them to be played.
That said, the vigorous acceptance by a large section of the playerbase of the completely unrestricted nature of this edition probably has simply incentivized GW to further push the "take anything you want" model.
I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.
GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.
Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".
Talys wrote: Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".
That's because "how it works" is not something you're supposed to think about at all. You collect your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder, and then you roll some dice and see what narrative the dice forge.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.
The OP's article actually read:
By working the army lists to produce an outlandish army that is chosen simply to maximise the chances of victory, you are depriving yourself of [being the better general]. You are not showing yourself to be the best general, only sneaky at selecting armies.
The most frequently encountered method of "working" army lists is to include large numbers of elite regiments, or exclude regiments that may not be useful against certain opponents. Although in small measures this is acceptable, but when taken to extremes the resultant game suffers.
Why not just take the writer at his word? The resultant game suffers if players work army lists in order to simply maximize the chance of victory, because it proves only that the general is a good at the army selection (or sneaky, as the writer put it) rather than a good strategist.
Or, just paraphrase it: Warhammer 40k is a game that ALLOWS a person who is willing to be a sneaky army list builder create a suboptimal game situation.
If that really bothers you, another game where sneaky army list builds aren't possible is probably a better choice.
Talys wrote: Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".
That's because "how it works" is not something you're supposed to think about at all. You collect your small, jewel like objects of magic and wonder, and then you roll some dice and see what narrative the dice forge.
Well, the dice aren't going to forge many narratives, by themselves
I'm just saying that I've never read anywhere the claim that all armies are implicitly balanced.
Who decides what the extremes are? The rules clearly don't. Bad units are fun and optimal lists unfun and the product of unsporting players. Why are the players to blame and not the rules?
I could forgive the 'blame the player' mentality that gets fostered to cover for the atrocious rules, but not at the prices the game is sold for.
TheCustomLime wrote: I don't see how the argument the article presents condemns list optimization other than, you know, saying it's bad. Powerful lists and fluffy lists aren't mutually exclusive. Drop pod assault, Triptide, Wave Serpent Spam and Bike Lists all have basis in the lore.
It's just a cheap way to disregard problems and say "you're playing it wrong!" even though playing it "right" is a state of mind more than an actual physical reality.
The arguments for having imprecise rules with poor balance are so very wishy washy.
"They aren't trying to make well written and balanced rules!" - That's hardly an argument, they are making a rulebook and selling it for a high price, "they aren't trying" is not a valid excuse. If you had a kid in primary school who only ever walked during a running race you'd scold them for it, telling them to either sit on the bench or actually put some effort in to it, I'm not sure why we need to treat GW as less than a primary school kid, especially when we pay them good money to be incompetent.
"But the game isn't supposed to be competitive, it's supposed to be casual beer and pretzels" - Oh please, non-competitive gaming is the biggest reason to have a balanced rules system because it means people can rock up with whatever they want and not get kerb stomped before rolling to see who deploys first. If anything it matters less to ultra-competitive people who will just find and build the best list regardless.
"It's only designed for soft themed lists and not hard winning lists" - This is one of the worst arguments because so many themed lists ARE hard winning lists, trying to separate people who are ONLY playing them because they want to win from those people like the theme is a pointless exercise in futility.
"It's people who only want to win that are the problem, just show up and play for the sake of playing and it's fine" - This is another one of the worst arguments, it's a game that has a winner and a loser, scolding people because they want to win is silliness. A game that clearly is designed to have a winner and loser yet can't accommodate people who want to win is flawed. You also ignore the huge group of people who don't actually care if they win or lose but they simply want a fair game where they can strive to win even if it's not the end of the world if they don't.
"Well real war is unbalanced" - Well this isn't real war, it's a war game, it's so incredibly abstracted in order to make it in to a game that it should be balanced. Even if you do want to simulate the unbalanced nature of war (which I don't think is a great idea in the first place but whatever lets assume you do) then doing it by unbalancing the rules and armies to their core is the stupidest way to go about it because you'll have that poor sucker who spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars and hours constructing an army only to be the dude that always loses. A chit system like Battlegroup seems to be a better way to go, as it shows the unbalanced nature of war without unbalancing the armies themselves. Or alternatively (and I think the best solution) just start with a game that is balanced and then if you want to play a realistically unbalanced scenario, you can do that simply by unbalancing the points and/or making objectives that are harder for one side to achieve than the other.
I'm struggling to think of any genuinely good argument for poorly written and unbalanced rules systems.
GW. They've made it perfectly clear that 40k is supposed to be about Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™, and if you think about strategy when creating your army you're TFG. The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.
Nowhere have I ever seen a claim or suggestion by GW that went along the lines of, "buy stuff, stick it on a table, and it'll all work equally well".
The claim was made, in a courtroom no less, by the current head of IP, that GW's customer's favourite part of the hobby was buying things from Games Workshop.
Talys wrote: I'm just saying that I've never read anywhere the claim that all armies are implicitly balanced.
Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.
Torga_DW wrote: Who decides what the extremes are? The rules clearly don't. Bad units are fun and optimal lists unfun and the product of unsporting players. Why are the players to blame and not the rules?
I could forgive the 'blame the player' mentality that gets fostered to cover for the atrocious rules, but not at the prices the game is sold for.
A bad game is a bad game, whether it's free or expensive, in my opinion.
I think 40k using out of box rules is a TERRIBLE game if it's two strangers, and both mainly want to play at a pickup game to win the encounter. Because of all the aforementioned list abuse possibilities, the game simply is not fun, except maybe for one player to get an ego trip out of destroying some unsuspecting newb. By the same token, and for exactly the same reasons, I think MtG sucks for these types of encounters, because in order to win, mostly, you have to suck the fun out of the game.
However, if you have regulars where the people actually want to spend an afternoon or evening gaming, where winning is awesome, but actually *playing* is even better, there isn't a better game to give feel of epic battles that you can achieve with 40k -- especially when you get in the mood with great terrain and awesomely painted miniatures.
And I totally appreciate this is not what everyone is looking for. There are games (though on a different scale) which are systems better designed for two strangers to play a pickup game, compete to win, and still both have fun.
Peregrine wrote: Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.
Oh, okay. You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance. I don't think either is particularly true. In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.
Now, if you say, 40k has units that are overpowered for their point cost, or have abilities that are just too good, I will wholeheartedly agree. I will also agree that GW isn't very good at balancing units, especially to avoid powergamer abuse.
I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically 40k is a great game if you ignore all the parts that make it a "game" and focus on all the other stuff.
Well, you don't have to ignore them, you just have to spend a lot of time and effort fixing the countless ways that they suck. You shouldn't have to do this, of course, but that's what you get when a company declares that they produce jewel-like objects of magic and wonder, not rules, and refuses to even consider the possibility that market research might be a useful thing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: So basically 40k is a great game if you ignore all the parts that make it a "game" and focus on all the other stuff.
Not really -- I have a great pickup games with total strangers all the time. They just don't happen to play one of a four gimmicky lists that abuse game mechanics.
Because the games are generally longer, I get to know the players better, and more likely to form a friendship and permanent gaming partner.
Talys wrote: You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance.
You're only half right. GW doesn't care about game balance, and doesn't think that the players should. However, the whole "don't care about game balance" thing is just plain stupid, and most players do in fact care about it.
I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.
While simultaneously creating several other balance problems for each balance problem they fix. Their occasional token attempts to listen to player demands are so lazy and incompetent that they're pretty much indistinguishable from not trying at all.
In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.
Say what.
Or does by your definition spamy start at 6 units meaning all those wave serpent, nid, necron AV etc lists aren't spamy as they run only 4-5 of stuff.
Well, you don't have to ignore them, you just have to spend a lot of time and effort fixing the countless ways that they suck. You shouldn't have to do this, of course, but that's what you get when a company declares that they produce jewel-like objects of magic and wonder, not rules, and refuses to even consider the possibility that market research might be a useful thing.
So true. GW more or less makes us pay for rules which you then have to rewrite to make it playable. And you more or less have to do it on a game per game basis. It is an unbalanced system for tournaments, but playable if someone has a good faction. In a casual setting one would more or less have to write one owns w40k starting with the rule book and ending with what units can I or my opponent take, and how many depending on how many I or my opponent took of another unit. Which also means the game is playable in a casual setting if we both own multiple armies of huge size to play a 1500 games.
Talys wrote: You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance.
You're only half right. GW doesn't care about game balance, and doesn't think that the players should. However, the whole "don't care about game balance" thing is just plain stupid, and most players do in fact care about it.
I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.
While simultaneously creating several other balance problems for each balance problem they fix. Their occasional token attempts to listen to player demands are so lazy and incompetent that they're pretty much indistinguishable from not trying at all.
Sure, I'll agree that they kind of suck at balancing the game and are pretty good at inventing new problems as the fixed old ones But I also love Blizzard products, like Diablo 3, which are also horribly balanced, so I guess it's just something I've learned to live with. In both cases, I believe the game architects do, actually, care.
What I meant with players not caring about game balance was: you implied (at least I thought you did) that people who do play GW games are willing to overlook game balance issues -- they will play 40k even though they are acutely aware of its issues and possibilities for abuse. I actually would be one of those people.
Peregrine wrote: Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.
Oh, okay. You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance. I don't think either is particularly true. In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.
Now, if you say, 40k has units that are overpowered for their point cost, or have abilities that are just too good, I will wholeheartedly agree. I will also agree that GW isn't very good at balancing units, especially to avoid powergamer abuse.
I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.
From the man himself:
Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
Or does by your definition spamy start at 6 units meaning all those wave serpent, nid, necron AV etc lists aren't spamy as they run only 4-5 of stuff.
The army that consistently comes up as the poster child for imbalance is wave serpent, because 3-6 of them can make your opponent feel helpless, if they aren't specifically set up to counter them. Most of the other cheesy armies like maxed Riptides have many weaknesses, and lists like drop pod spam are certainly not a guaranteed win.
Makumba wrote: In a casual setting one would more or less have to write one owns w40k starting with the rule book and ending with what units can I or my opponent take, and how many depending on how many I or my opponent took of another unit. Which also means the game is playable in a casual setting if we both own multiple armies of huge size to play a 1500 games.
1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.
Virtually the only armies people complain about at pickup games is riptide and wave serpent spam.
Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
I certainly agree that GW caters to people who want to own, model, and paint miniatures, and does a better job of that than writing game rules. Kirby still doesn't say, "we don't care if the game rules suck".
1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.
Few people own more then 1500 here and biggest tournaments here cap at 1850, so unless someone plays an army with more then one viable ally faction , there is no need for more then 2k points. I played since the end of 5th, have seen a gamer bigger then 1850 per side twice. One time when people were preparing for a big tournament in germany and one apocalyps game which was also the last apocalyps game ever played in my city.
1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.
Few people own more then 1500 here and biggest tournaments here cap at 1850, so unless someone plays an army with more then one viable ally faction , there is no need for more then 2k points. I played since the end of 5th, have seen a gamer bigger then 1850 per side twice. One time when people were preparing for a big tournament in germany and one apocalyps game which was also the last apocalyps game ever played in my city.
That might be your local experience but looking at the 40k lists section 1850 seems to be the standard. I believe it is also tourney standard across the world. I can also tell you in my state it is the standard although back when I played 2500 was the most popular and pick up games of 3000 weren't uncommon
The tournament at the local GW store set for this month is 2000 points.
I have played games with friends up to 6500 points on an 8x8 and 12x8 table (two 4x4 or two 6x4's joined), mostly an excuse to roll out as many superheavies as possible and to have a good laugh. 12x8 is a very difficult format, as reaching units without knocking stuff over is always a worry. However, 8x8 is quite manageable!
"At it's heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for all players as possible."
With respect to us consumers (players) this is the new 'spirit of the game' as far as GW is concerned.
With respect to Games Workshop the 'spirit of the game' is, "Sell more product. Make more money".
There was also another quote I didn't add to my OP that said something like if worse comes to worse and you get crushed by the General on a dragon with a ton of "beardy" magic items, you can take pride in knowing that you didn't stoop to such things yourself.
I think the sad part is that a balanced game would benefit the collectors more as they're more likely to play what looks good not what works better. Currently they get stiffed because they want to collect what's cool.
Here's the quote in question:
And if the worst comes to the worst and you lose to the general with the Frost Blade and Potion of Strength riding his Emperor Dragon, you have at least won the moral high ground by sticking with the character of your army!
Here's another gem, from the final paragraphs of the article:
But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.
So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.
Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...
"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".
The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.
Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".
But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.
So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.
That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"
I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...
"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".
The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.
Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".
But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.
So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.
That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"
I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.
I see far too many opponents that plop down 4-6 Wave Serpents, 2x Riptides or Knights, and Farseers on a Jetbike with Warlocks that just make me choke on my own bile. These are the people that want to win. When they face another player with such a list, it becomes "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours..." So sorry that I'm not overly enthusiastic, bored, and resigned to losing the game when I face such a list with my Space Marines. It's more that I just want to get this game over so I can go find another, more fun game. Being tabled on turn 3 or 4 is NOT fun. Why should I change my list to take on their list, and only their list? If there was some kind of game balance, this wouldn't happen.
It's not GW's fault that we are not having fun- it's ours and we should be playing by the Spirit of the Game! Winning and losing don't matter, only the story you and your opponent make! Forge the Narrative Harder, and buy more models!
Spirit of the Game is a crock that GW tells people to justify it's awesome miniatures and stupid expensive prices for a crappy game.
Peregrine wrote: The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.
No truer words were said (and so few!).
Do not forget to also "forge the narrative" and find every strange way you can add another army to them and buy MOAR models.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...
"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".
The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.
Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".
But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.
So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.
That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"
I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.
I see far too many opponents that plop down 4-6 Wave Serpents, 2x Riptides or Knights, and Farseers on a Jetbike with Warlocks that just make me choke on my own bile. These are the people that want to win. When they face another player with such a list, it becomes "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours..." So sorry that I'm not overly enthusiastic, bored, and resigned to losing the game when I face such a list with my Space Marines. It's more that I just want to get this game over so I can go find another, more fun game. Being tabled on turn 3 or 4 is NOT fun. Why should I change my list to take on their list, and only their list? If there was some kind of game balance, this wouldn't happen.
It's not GW's fault that we are not having fun- it's ours and we should be playing by the Spirit of the Game! Winning and losing don't matter, only the story you and your opponent make! Forge the Narrative Harder, and buy more models!
Spirit of the Game is a crock that GW tells people to justify it's awesome miniatures and stupid expensive prices for a crappy game.
The problem though is that Wave Serpents *ARE* fluffy, they're just too good. Same with Jetbikes, if I did a Saim-Hann Windrider army, then it's fluffy to have a Farseer on a Jetbike (and everything else too). That's why balance is so important; taking an all Jetbike army should give you some advantages (very fast, hard to hit, etc.) and some disadvantages (e.g. small model count, fragile) so that it's not automatically making you have a superior army. There should be solid tradeoffs for doing that versus anything else, so there is no "go to" choice for maximizing "competitiveness" in picking an army.
There is too much of a gulf in the rules to where some fluffy armies can work very well while others cannot work at all, and that's just bad design. It's not necessarily unfluffy to have an entirely mobilized army, for example; perhaps a particular operation requires a very fast strike force to seize an objective. By the same token it's not unfluffy to have, for example, a Tau force on the front lines that are field testing a bunch of Riptides to give feedback to the Earth caste; the problem is the Riptide is too good so maximizing on it heavily skews the game.
The fluffiness of an army is what you make of it as a lot of things can be justified, but game balance is what keeps it in check so that it doesn't grow too powerful, and that's what is lacking.
Actually, that's a good point, many times in other games I've encountered upgrades/units/whatever where they have a downside (or potential downside) to their effect to counter something potent.
We could use a lot more negative effects in the game to balance things somewhat.
Downsides to powerful effects would be a quick shortcut to balance without radical change (for instance, have the Serpent Shield burn out it's generators if you roll a six when rolling for the number of shots, meaning it cannot be used for the rest of the game, offensively or defensively
Azreal13 wrote: Actually, that's a good point, many times in other games I've encountered upgrades/units/whatever where they have a downside (or potential downside) to their effect to counter something potent.
We could use a lot more negative effects in the game to balance things somewhat.
Downsides to powerful effects would be a quick shortcut to balance without radical change (for instance, have the Serpent Shield burn out it's generators if you roll a six when rolling for the number of shots, meaning it cannot be used for the rest of the game, offensively or defensively
While I do agree with your general point (drawbacks) I feel more adding randomness would be a terrible idea. The game is too random as it is IMO (A gretchin standing in open field has a 1/6 chance to survive a Titan's shot, as a classical example).
I'm very much of the "more choice, less rolling" school of thought, but I think a lot of that needs to disappear at the front end (traits, powers etc) and the frankly stupid "all objectives are a thing, and not just a defensible position etc.. oh, and 16% of the time, it's a bomb!" can feth off and die too.
But for all that, randomness in a risk/reward sense is not something I'm as bothered by.
I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as "incompetent idiots" instead like someone already did. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to go demolition derby on the core and renew everything from the ground up.
RunicFIN wrote: I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as incompetent idiots instead. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to to demolition mode on the core and renew everything from the ground up.
I´d like to see you try.
Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?
We would make the more "sucky" model choices reasonable... no truly bad models (only bad combinations)... a new age will be born!
We will then allow WHFB models to be sucked into the warp and fight with their futuristic counterparts it would be called War-Battle!
Command points and magic points would be used to activate units... wait, has this been done before?
Talizvar wrote: Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?
Ah well, WM/H has 22 books going for them too, leaving out outdated rulebooks of which there are 4, altough ofcourse you do get the cards. I don´t know any players that don´t own any books though and only use the cards.
But in any case I don´t think the designers are even most to blame, as I am certain they are not told "yeah just renew the whole thing." Altough, if the result would be great, that would be fantastic.
However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever. When it comes to some people even individuals cannot be.
I direct you to Pancake Edition, which was a substantial overhaul, if not of 2nd-3rd Ed dimensions, certainly approaching that, which was, in the main, greeted with cautious optimism by many, because it read like a decent game where player input had a much higher degree of influence than the current game.
It then was revealed as, well, not fake but certainly not official, and we got lumbered with 6th instead, which many cite as the edition that stopped them playing, or sucked their enthusiasm for the game out of them. It is also the edition that began the actual trend of falling revenue and profit, rather than the years of treading water by cutting costs and raising prices that preceded it.
There comes a point, and if the current trends continue, that point is probably not massively far away, when you need to roll the dice and take a risk, because there's little choice to do anything else.
RunicFIN wrote: However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever.
They have now 7 editions of rules that have come out.
They could be lazy and piece-together a "greatest-hits" of all the rules, no creativity required.
This would also ensure some level of backwards compatibility.
This would also allow an evil means of saying "Hey, we listened to our fans! We have brought back what you love! What was old is new again! Something for everyone!".
How can you condemn and shoot-down such a noble thing to do?
To ensure I totally get flamed, this is what I would do in their shoes, GW being "true" to itself is how they operate: copying others would be like admitting other games may be a threat.
Ofcourse being open for betatesting a new set of rules would work, even for a relatively small amount of renowned wargamers ( dunno, like 200 or smth ) if not all. The result would still not satisfy everyone, but I guess it would still be the best approach if they would take the insurmountably huge risk of renewing everything.
Talizvar wrote: Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?
Ah well, WM/H has 22 books going for them too, leaving out outdated rulebooks of which there are 4, altough ofcourse you do get the cards. I don´t know any players that don´t own any books though and only use the cards.
But in any case I don´t think the designers are even most to blame, as I am certain they are not told "yeah just renew the whole thing." Altough, if the result would be great, that would be fantastic.
However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever. When it comes to some people even individuals cannot be.
I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).
The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RunicFIN wrote: Ofcourse being open for betatesting a new set of rules would work, even for a relatively small amount of renowned wargamers ( dunno, like 200 or smth ) if not all. The result would still not satisfy everyone, but I guess it would still be the best approach if they would take the insurmountably huge risk of renewing everything.
I think they could have a better game, but they will never satisfy anywhere close to everyone. Eldar nerfs will butt-hurt many people -- the same way DE were nerfed in 7th made many DE players very unhappy.
I also think their FAQ/errata suck. They don't answer very common, ambiguous questions, which they so easily could.
Makumba wrote: Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like.
So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?
The flaw in your logic is that it assumes that people will always do things correctly. History is littered with people who knew exactly how they intended something to work, and completely missed the mark on how it SHOULD work. I should like to cite Edison's fanatic obsession with DC power grids as a strong example. 4th Edition D&D fell prey to the mistake of trying to create tightly defined roles in a game where the target audience really did not care for that sort of thing, and worsened it by fouling up the mathematical structure underlying the game. The people who wrote the game, and knew exactly how they intended it to work, didn't know how it should work.
They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.
I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).
The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.
There´s way more similiarities between GW´s games and PP´s than the most biased WM/H fans want to/can see, these are really good examples which cannot be denied unless you just substitute reality. I recall WM/H felt better everyway for a while back when I started ( still 2007 ) but overtime it wears off as you start realizing these things are actually true. Still digging both games, but in the end there´s quite a lof of the same things going on.
I find trying to make money with dataslates just as dumb as trying to make it with "epic epic epic epic large base war engine warcaster version 8, the epic edition, with his new awesome lore included in our new book, to be continued in the next book that you need to buy." I guess some just can´t see this. In any case, Kirbys words are true and both companies run on money, and most of both companies money comes from the actual miniatures themselves, everything else does indeed come after if they want to stay in business. Atleast he was honest if nothing else.
WayneTheGame wrote: They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.
Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?
I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).
The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.
PP books aren't cheap, but they're far cheaper than GW's books. (And not necessary to play.)
Solo models more expensive than 40k solo models?
$12 for metal a Steel Soul protector.
#30 for a plastic librarian.
In Warmachine there aren't cheap large army bundles because the army has to be built around your playstyle. A boxed army might be amazing to some but completely suck for other players. The game was designed to slowly add on units you think fit your army.
"Model count starter." The game wasn't meant for large scale battles, so why would they have large armies in their starter? It's a skirmish game. And warjacks are roughly the same size as dreadnaughts and all intro box sets come with at least one.
The beginner boxes are indeed far more playable than the DV one because yes, you can and often do play at those size games (my FLGS just had a league where the first week's battles were 15pt battle box games) and they're a great way to learn new units and army playstyles. Also, the armies are balanced so unlike the unbalance DV boxset, both players have a roughly equal chance of winninng.
List building is important, just not in the way you're thinking of. Your list has to be built carefully to work well together. There's no spamming Wave Serpents or such nonesense.
WayneTheGame wrote: They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.
Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?
Declining sales show that it hasn't worked for 20 years.
RunicFIN wrote: I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as "incompetent idiots" instead like someone already did. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to go demolition derby on the core and renew everything from the ground up.
I´d like to see you try.
Runic, its quite possible to post without being immediately on the attack.
There are on this forum people who write rules for a living. There are people on this board who write rules for fun. Many of these same people produce better products then what GW is currently putting out. The reason people label the GW design team as incompetent idiots is because most of what we've seen these last few years shows a large amount of incompetence, ignorance, and general stupidity.
If you have a counter argument to make, just make it. You don't need to put people on the defensive by saying 'Let's see you try!'. Many people have on this board. I recall in 5th edition quite clearly that a user JustDave made a few fan codices that were far above and away superior to what GW had released for those factions. They were not only more balanced, but had more options and playstyles to boot.
WayneTheGame wrote: They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.
Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?
Yeah it's not like markets and consumers can change over years and things that use to work no longer work.
I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).
The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.
PP books aren't cheap, but they're far cheaper than GW's books. (And not necessary to play.)
Solo models more expensive than 40k solo models?
$12 for metal a Steel Soul protector.
#30 for a plastic librarian.
In Warmachine there aren't cheap large army bundles because the army has to be built around your playstyle. A boxed army might be amazing to some but completely suck for other players. The game was designed to slowly add on units you think fit your army.
"Model count starter." The game wasn't meant for large scale battles, so why would they have large armies in their starter? It's a skirmish game. And warjacks are roughly the same size as dreadnaughts and all intro box sets come with at least one.
The beginner boxes are indeed far more playable than the DV one because yes, you can and often do play at those size games (my FLGS just had a league where the first week's battles were 15pt battle box games) and they're a great way to learn new units and army playstyles. Also, the armies are balanced so unlike the unbalance DV boxset, both players have a roughly equal chance of winninng.
List building is important, just not in the way you're thinking of. Your list has to be built carefully to work well together. There's no spamming Wave Serpents or such nonesense.
No disagreement with anything you say, except for the price of models.
Plastic is irrelevant because all GW models are plastic (or resin), and librarians are particularly expensive (compare with Urien Rakkarth, or the Succubus, for example). A lot of newer PP models have more plastic/resin too. Also, Librarians are extremely well crafted models. The average cost of a 25mm base model on a tactical squad is $30/10 = $3; for a specialist squad it's $30/5 = $6, both of which are much cheaper per model than anything you can get from PP. Solos like Bradigus are $30+, Borka $60, and those are not large models.
For comparison, a dreadnoughts, dreadknights, riptides are all in a good modelling value, and superheavies and vehicles are generally more complex (more pieces) and larger models than colossals.
I'm not knocking PP; I still buy 50% of their new releases. I'm just saying, keeping up with their new models is not cheap either, and you generally can't buy any models that are less than $10 per piece.
Nobody will argue that one *needs* less playing pieces in WMH.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
And regardless, even if you could demonstrate the above to be true. What? They produce a great set of rules that are really tight and work really well, and cover all the bases and have almost no ambiguity. Then what?
We wont need new codex's because we have a good and balanced rule set. We don't need new editions, well... maybe every 10 years because our books will be worn out from so much play time!. And as an added bonus, they will enclose all new rules with models made after this great leap forward AND they will post them in PDF format on their website for free.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic. But the truth is GW is not going to 'see the light' and do a 180 any time soon.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
And regardless, even if you could demonstrate the above to be true. What? They produce a great set of rules that are really tight and work really well, and cover all the bases and have almost no ambiguity. Then what?
We wont need new codex's because we have a good and balanced rule set. We don't need new editions, well... maybe every 10 years because our books will be worn out from so much play time!. And as an added bonus, they will enclose all new rules with models made after this great leap forward AND they will post them in PDF format on their website for free.
I don't mean to sound pessimistic. But the truth is GW is not going to 'see the light' and do a 180 any time soon.
Have you read the last two financial reports? Less revenue, less sales. Their plan is failing and needs reworking.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
The last two financial reports have shown a sharp decline, when the rest of the wargaming hobby is growing.
Ah yes. Roll out the old financial report argument. I hear the price of oil is dropping too. It doesn't make me an expert on the oil industy.
Now I won't claim to know what anyone's back ground is here. And in case you were wondering, I do have a background in manufacturing, retail management, and now I work on a ship. But unless you are well versed in finances, retail management, manufacturing, and sales; you're really just talking smoke, or repeating something you read on the internet.
I am not going to comment any further, I think we have gotten way off topic in the last few pages from discussing the "The Spirit of the Game"; to "If Only GW Would See the Light".
That said, could things be better. Absolutely! Personally I think the recent push to publish codex's in a more timely manner is great. As for myself,
make no mistake, I hold no ill will towards GW; I don't think they are EVIL. I enjoy doing my 40k thing, playing with others, modelling, painting, even reading these boards for the past couple of years etc...But in the end GW is doing what it does; selling product to consumers. And that's okay, take it or leave it, or just take the bits you want.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
The last two financial reports have shown a sharp decline, when the rest of the wargaming hobby is growing.
Ah yes. Roll out the old financial report argument. I hear the price of oil is dropping too. It doesn't make me an expert on the oil industy.
Now I won't claim to know what anyone's back ground is here. And in case you were wondering, I do have a background in manufacturing, retail management, and now I work on a ship. But unless you are well versed in finances, retail management, manufacturing, and sales; you're really just talking smoke, or repeating something you read on the internet.
I am not going to comment any further, I think we have gotten way off topic in the last few pages from discussing the "The Spirit of the Game"; to "If Only GW Would See the Light".
That said, could things be better. Absolutely! Personally I think the recent push to publish codex's in a more timely manner is great. As for myself,
make no mistake, I hold no ill will towards GW; I don't think they are EVIL. I enjoy doing my 40k thing, playing with others, modelling, painting, even reading these boards for the past couple of years etc...But in the end GW is doing what it does; selling product to consumers. And that's okay, take it or leave it, or just take the bits you want.
People with financial backgrounds as well as former global executive experience have analyzed the financials, FYI.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
The last two financial reports have shown a sharp decline, when the rest of the wargaming hobby is growing.
Ah yes. Roll out the old financial report argument. I hear the price of oil is dropping too. It doesn't make me an expert on the oil industy.
Now I won't claim to know what anyone's back ground is here. And in case you were wondering, I do have a background in manufacturing, retail management, and now I work on a ship. But unless you are well versed in finances, retail management, manufacturing, and sales; you're really just talking smoke, or repeating something you read on the internet.
I am not going to comment any further, I think we have gotten way off topic in the last few pages from discussing the "The Spirit of the Game"; to "If Only GW Would See the Light".
That said, could things be better. Absolutely! Personally I think the recent push to publish codex's in a more timely manner is great. As for myself,
make no mistake, I hold no ill will towards GW; I don't think they are EVIL. I enjoy doing my 40k thing, playing with others, modelling, painting, even reading these boards for the past couple of years etc...But in the end GW is doing what it does; selling product to consumers. And that's okay, take it or leave it, or just take the bits you want.
I think these two conversations are linked. The corporate aspect of GW has infected the gamming aspect to the point where the two blend together like a runny water painting. corporate strategy has come to dictate how the game should be played.
RunicFIN wrote: I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as "incompetent idiots" instead like someone already did.
The point you're missing here is that GW's current behavior lines up very nicely with the attitudes revealed in the OP. The 15 year old article just makes it explicit.
BTW, I don't just call GW's rule authors incompetent idiots for this. I call them incompetent idiots for their current stuff too, and I'm entirely justified in doing so.
If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to go demolition derby on the core and renew everything from the ground up.
"Dear CEO: we have two choices here. We can keep the rules the same and continue to lose sales because the customers are not happy, or we can redo the rules and start getting our market share back. Would you prefer certain failure or a risk of failure?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: People with financial backgrounds as well as former global executive experience have analyzed the financials, FYI.
And, more importantly, the financial report isn't all that complicated. We aren't looking for subtle details and exact future predictions, we're just pointing out the obvious: revenue is down, sales volume is down, market share is down, and profits are down. Since the rest of the industry does not seem to be having these problems we can safely conclude that something is wrong with GW, even if we can't be 100% sure what it is.
The trend in this thread is trying to do the classic: "First you need to recognize a problem in order to do something about it.".
The hope is the financials causing that strange feeling in GW management that a change just may be needed.
Copying prior success could be warranted (1998 was prior to the starting decline of GW, funny enough blamed on collectable card games like Pokémon and Magic).
It seems a shame that so many successful tabletop games are seeing interest and GW is not taking steps to capitalize on the renewed interest in this genre / platform of gaming.
Conspiracy theory time: what if, at some point imbalanced rules was a deliberate choice?
Now, there is a segment of model buyers that are 40k fans plain and simple. They will buy, paint and play models they like, regardless of how good they are. If you keep making interesting fluff and/or good looking models these guys will keep buying.
Then there's a segment that's comprised by people who value winning (more, or less). these guys might like a faction, or a particular model and might include them in their army, but mostly their army will be made of models with good rules. Once one of these guys completes his army, odds are his future purchases will be sporadic (he has what he wants). Unless, you can invalidate his good rules by turning them into bad rules, therefore forcing him to buy new models, with the new good rules. Of course, a lot of that falls apart when apart from 'lose' and 'buy new models' the 3rd option, 'invest in a more balanced game made by somebody else' appears.
Maybe this is a little far-fetched, but in my limited experience with 40k, pretty much every codex release I've seen invalidated a lot of previous comps and pushed previously unused models to the front.
LordBlades wrote: Conspiracy theory time: what if, at some point imbalanced rules was a deliberate choice?
Now, there is a segment of model buyers that are 40k fans plain and simple. They will buy, paint and play models they like, regardless of how good they are. If you keep making interesting fluff and/or good looking models these guys will keep buying.
Then there's a segment that's comprised by people who value winning (more, or less). these guys might like a faction, or a particular model and might include them in their army, but mostly their army will be made of models with good rules. Once one of these guys completes his army, odds are his future purchases will be sporadic (he has what he wants). Unless, you can invalidate his good rules by turning them into bad rules, therefore forcing him to buy new models, with the new good rules. Of course, a lot of that falls apart when apart from 'lose' and 'buy new models' the 3rd option, 'invest in a more balanced game made by somebody else' appears.
Maybe this is a little far-fetched, but in my limited experience with 40k, pretty much every codex release I've seen invalidated a lot of previous comps and pushed previously unused models to the front.
Many have thought of this, but the issue is it would require GW to do market research into why people buy their minis. They've stated in their investment report, and lying on an investment report when you're a public company can get you in deep gak, that they do not do marketing research. In fact Kirby has seemed to forgotten the game even exists in the last report.
Of course it's entirely possible that Jervis and co themselves pay attention to the state of the game independently of the company, but game designers don't usually think in terms of how many models they can force sell.
Really? That's a bold statement to make. Why? What is your reasoning?
The last two financial reports have shown a sharp decline, when the rest of the wargaming hobby is growing.
Ah yes. Roll out the old financial report argument. I hear the price of oil is dropping too. It doesn't make me an expert on the oil industy.
Now I won't claim to know what anyone's back ground is here. And in case you were wondering, I do have a background in manufacturing, retail management, and now I work on a ship. But unless you are well versed in finances, retail management, manufacturing, and sales; you're really just talking smoke, or repeating something you read on the internet.
Ok, well qualifications in Business and Economics, retails sales, retail management, directorship of my own Ltd company.
Good enough for you?
Although, that's irrelevant, because if I make an assertion and can back that assertion up with evidence and well reasoned arguments then it doesn't matter if I'm a fishmonger or a fighter pilot. There are plenty of people who have sufficient money to invest that they have a good working knowledge of what they're doing with it, and I've yet to see anyone with even a tenuous stated grasp of how to read a balance sheet try and claim anything other than "things need to change."
Not only have GW's most recent reports shown a sharp decline, but, once you plot their revenue and adjust it for inflation, their revenue in real terms has been on a consistent decline for a decade, since the post LotR boom. Couple that with the drastically increased prices over the same time period, and it's not hard to see that not only are they bringing in less money than they used to, they're moving less product, fewer people are buying fewer kits and books and whatnot.
Blacksails wrote: The reason people label the GW design team as incompetent idiots is because most of what we've seen these last few years shows a large amount of incompetence, ignorance, and general stupidity.
If you have a counter argument to make, just make it. You don't need to put people on the defensive by saying 'Let's see you try!'. Many people have on this board. I recall in 5th edition quite clearly that a user JustDave made a few fan codices that were far above and away superior to what GW had released for those factions. They were not only more balanced, but had more options and playstyles to boot.
By the "let´s see you try" - I didn´t refer to trying to make rules, I referred to the very thing that my post implies. I know many can write better and more enjoyable rules, that was not the point I was making.
I already made a point about this not necessarily being because a design team is incompetent or ignorant, it can possibly also be caused by them not being allowed to change everything they´d like, in essence forcing them to make due with partially 15 year old things in the core rules. I don´t believe for one second the rules designers at GW have the liberty to change the core just like that, and it doesn´t make them incompetent.
Sometimes it seems people forget to think about the fact GW consists of people who are working, and who have superiors and rules. It´s not a single hivemind entity that goes "let´s be evul and annoy them."
Anyway, the Four Anti-GW Horsemen ( I think by now every user knows who they are ) have arrived into this GW oriented thread, in the 40K forum area for some reason. It´ll just be others trying to discuss something and them throwing snarky GW/40K -critical remarks inbetween from here on out, this I base on evidence of behaviour of the past, so I´ll just leave it at this.
I think (not sure) what evil inc meant was that the original 40k (rogue trader) was more of a rpg with a gamesmaster that featured minis (although this changed with the addition of army list books, etc before 2nd ed officialized it). Whereas ever since then it's been a gm-less pvp ttmg ever since.
I can see how the design staff could still be playing off the 'original' mentality, but the problem is it just doesn't come through in the rules and what they produce. Which feeds into my criticism of their games design. If they advertised the game as needing 3 players (1 a gm) and devoted a substantial portion of the rules book to gming (most rpgs have some sort of gm book) it might (might) make a difference to me. But usually its a case of might have a vague reference or two to a gm, that is otherwise unsupported by the rules.
How can players adopt a culture that is vaguely referenced at best? But that question is much like rules interpretation: how can players determine if the poorly worded rule is meant to be played one way or another? Roll a D6, winner gets to choose if the players will play a hardcore or fluffy game (which is a ludicrous dichotomy in itself).
I do agree with runicfin though, i don't think the game devs are actually allowed to do much in the way of game designing these days. I think thats why a number of the good designers have left the company over the years and gone on to found their own companies which are now providing decent competition to gw. The spirit of gw itself has become: "people will buy what we tell them to" and that has permeated into almost every fibre of the company.
Blacksails wrote: The reason people label the GW design team as incompetent idiots is because most of what we've seen these last few years shows a large amount of incompetence, ignorance, and general stupidity.
If you have a counter argument to make, just make it. You don't need to put people on the defensive by saying 'Let's see you try!'. Many people have on this board. I recall in 5th edition quite clearly that a user JustDave made a few fan codices that were far above and away superior to what GW had released for those factions. They were not only more balanced, but had more options and playstyles to boot.
By the "let´s see you try" - I didn´t refer to trying to make rules, I referred to the very thing that my post implies. I know many can write better and more enjoyable rules, that was not the point I was making.
I already made a point about this not necessarily being because a design team is incompetent or ignorant, it can possibly also be caused by them not being allowed to change everything they´d like, in essence forcing them to make due with partially 15 year old things in the core rules. I don´t believe for one second the rules designers at GW have the liberty to change the core just like that, and it doesn´t make them incompetent.
Sometimes it seems people forget to think about the fact GW consists of people who are working, and who have superiors and rules. It´s not a single hivemind entity that goes "let´s be evul and annoy them."
Anyway, the Four Anti-GW Horsemen ( I think by now every user knows who they are ) have arrived into this GW oriented thread, in the 40K forum area for some reason. It´ll just be others trying to discuss something and them throwing snarky GW/40K -critical remarks inbetween from here on out, this I base on evidence of behaviour of the past, so I´ll just leave it at this.
So we shouldn't call the design team incompetent and stupid, just GW as a whole and/or upper management?
I'd counter that by pointing out the second part of Blacksails' post. I never saw those 5th ed fandexes but I have seen some for 8th ed Fantasy and even working entierly within the core rules that every other GW publication used people have made objectively better army books. They had better balance as well as more options, better themed lists and, surprisingly, the artwork and fluff looked just as good as any codex I've ever seen.
jonolikespie wrote: So we shouldn't call the design team incompetent and stupid, just GW as a whole and/or upper management?
I'd counter that by pointing out the second part of Blacksails' post. I never saw those 5th ed fandexes but I have seen some for 8th ed Fantasy and even working entierly within the core rules that every other GW publication used people have made objectively better army books. They had better balance as well as more options, better themed lists and, surprisingly, the artwork and fluff looked just as good as any codex I've ever seen.
For working at gw and not expecting this sort of targeting, for sure. But as far as being on the ground, the games designers themselves would be shown the new model and given a brief on what to make. If they don't create rules that fit the brief they have to redo it. If they refuse to obey their directives, they get shown the door. GW is a business, the game designers are employees not the boss. Like any good employee they produce what they're told to produce. Like you said, people with far less resources can produce fandexes that are better. When you go back to the head honcho's line of: "people get too busy writing rules and forget we're about selling toy soldiers only" you can see exactly who is setting the agenda on what gets created.
jonolikespie wrote: So we shouldn't call the design team incompetent and stupid, just GW as a whole and/or upper management?
I'd counter that by pointing out the second part of Blacksails' post. I never saw those 5th ed fandexes but I have seen some for 8th ed Fantasy and even working entierly within the core rules that every other GW publication used people have made objectively better army books. They had better balance as well as more options, better themed lists and, surprisingly, the artwork and fluff looked just as good as any codex I've ever seen.
For working at gw and not expecting this sort of targeting, for sure. But as far as being on the ground, the games designers themselves would be shown the new model and given a brief on what to make. If they don't create rules that fit the brief they have to redo it. If they refuse to obey their directives, they get shown the door. GW is a business, the game designers are employees not the boss. Like any good employee they produce what they're told to produce. Like you said, people with far less resources can produce fandexes that are better. When you go back to the head honcho's line of: "people get too busy writing rules and forget we're about selling toy soldiers only" you can see exactly who is setting the agenda on what gets created.
I think most successful gaming groups have house rules and "fandexes" that modify the game to suit their membership. I certainly won't argue that many players, including me, think that the point values for some stuff is out of whack, and some special abilities are just too good.
But that's a far cry from saying that GW is incompetent, and even further from saying that they don't care or are purposely writing crap.
In my mind, it's always easy being a critic; it's much harder being an author. To their credit, many small *companies* have started up and made great, interesting products. Unfortunately, they just don't have a very compelling model selection and fluff to suck me in.
I also think that some people forget or don't know how hard it is to create change in a large company, and how much more work just about anything is to accomplish.
So they are a buissness? Then can someone explain to me why they make units with new models, so bad people don't want to buy them ?
There can't be so cut of from the game to not know that ogryns or raptors with better rules will find more buyers.
By the "let´s see you try" - I didn´t refer to trying to make rules, I referred to the very thing that my post implies. I know many can write better and more enjoyable rules, that was not the point I was making.
And had you read my post, you'd find that the point I made still illustrated that the design team isn't particularly competent, seeing as how a forum user in their spare time wrote a better codex.
I already made a point about this not necessarily being because a design team is incompetent or ignorant, it can possibly also be caused by them not being allowed to change everything they´d like, in essence forcing them to make due with partially 15 year old things in the core rules. I don´t believe for one second the rules designers at GW have the liberty to change the core just like that, and it doesn´t make them incompetent.
Once more, had you read my post in its entirety, you'd find that I mentioned how people on this forum have written better codices. Oddly enough, a codex doesn't change the core rules. Given that codices are constantly changing, and yet have haven't improved, I stand by my stance that the design team is still incompetent, regardless of the incompetence of upper management influencing the decisions.
Sometimes it seems people forget to think about the fact GW consists of people who are working, and who have superiors and rules. It´s not a single hivemind entity that goes "let´s be evul and annoy them."
So, most of GW is incompetent then?
Anyway, the Four Anti-GW Horsemen ( I think by now every user knows who they are ) have arrived into this GW oriented thread, in the 40K forum area for some reason. It´ll just be others trying to discuss something and them throwing snarky GW/40K -critical remarks inbetween from here on out, this I base on evidence of behaviour of the past, so I´ll just leave it at this.
How awful it must be to read stuff that isn't total and complete praise. I mean, the only people who have valid opinions on these forums are the people who think GW and 40k are the greatest things ever without fault. Anyone who holds even the tiniest sliver of negative thoughts about 40k or GW is a horrible person who's voice is totally and completely irrelevant in a discussion about 40k.
Grow up Runic. If you want a reasonable discussion, you have to put in the effort too.
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
Of course you can have a white horse.
And his name is Binky.
I know maybe if w40k wasn't a table top game, but an RPG. In RPG the people playing are not trying to fight the GM, but the objectives. At least technicly, but I don't see any RPG aspects in w40k. Few to non narrative options, low customisation level and super high cost.
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
You, MWH, Blacksails and either me or Peregrine, I'd guess.
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
You, MWH, Blacksails and either me or Peregrine, I'd guess.
There's nothing like dehumanizing your opponents to discount their opinion.
Remember, he also said we have a secret club...or was it a chat room. I forget. Either way, I imagine it like the Legion of Doom.
The irony being I love 40K as a universe/setting, still put more hobby time into painting and modelling 40K stuff than any other system, play regularly (albeit not for about 6 weeks, does that mean I've quit in the Runicverse?) passionately want the people making the decisions about the future of the game to treat it with the same affection I feel for it, and I'm happy to praise GW if they do something I feel is worthy of praise (which is why I frequently say that if I come across as anti-GW, it says more for GW's actions than it does for my attitude, I have no compunction about coming across as a raving fanboy if GW start knocking it out of the park.)
I haven't quit, I don't intend to quit, but I certainly avoid giving GW money for things I don't think are of sufficient quality to deserve it as much as possible.
But yeah, I'm (possibly) one of the four anti-GW Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Or perhaps I'm just one of the four GW-critical Infantrymen of the Escalation?
Azreal13 wrote: The irony being I love 40K as a universe/setting, still put more hobby time into painting and modelling 40K stuff than any other system, play regularly (albeit not for about 6 weeks, does that mean I've quit in the Runicverse?) passionately want the people making the decisions about the future of the game to treat it with the same affection I feel for it, and I'm happy to praise GW if they do something I feel is worthy of praise (which is why I frequently say that if I come across as anti-GW, it says more for GW's actions than it does for my attitude, I have no compunction about coming across as a raving fanboy if GW start knocking it out of the park.)
I haven't quit, I don't intend to quit, but I certainly avoid giving GW money for things I don't think are of sufficient quality to deserve it as much as possible.
But yeah, I'm (possibly) one of the four anti-GW Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Or perhaps I'm just one of the four GW-critical Infantrymen of the Escalation?
It depends if you view bundles as a stupid marketing trick or a brilliant way of buying an army without having to do research or more than one click.
Oooh, is that me?
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
You, MWH, Blacksails and either me or Peregrine, I'd guess.
There's nothing like dehumanizing your opponents to discount their opinion.
Remember, he also said we have a secret club...or was it a chat room. I forget. Either way, I imagine it like the Legion of Doom.
I am not quite there yet...
Could I be a lesser member maybe "Severe Hangnail" or "Nausea"?
My horse will be named "Timmy".
Oooh, is that me?
Can I be Death? I always wanted a white horse, but all my ponies were various shades of brown! (Oh, no, I did have a grey, but that's like having a white horse that needs a hot wash.)
You, MWH, Blacksails and either me or Peregrine, I'd guess.
There's nothing like dehumanizing your opponents to discount their opinion.
Remember, he also said we have a secret club...or was it a chat room. I forget. Either way, I imagine it like the Legion of Doom.
I am not quite there yet...
Could I be a lesser member maybe "Severe Hangnail" or "Nausea"?
My horse will be named "Timmy".
Peregrine wrote: Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.
Oh, okay. You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance. I don't think either is particularly true. In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.
Now, if you say, 40k has units that are overpowered for their point cost, or have abilities that are just too good, I will wholeheartedly agree. I will also agree that GW isn't very good at balancing units, especially to avoid powergamer abuse.
I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.
Spam lists don't do well in tournaments? You mean other than serpent spam, eldar jetbike spam, drop pod melta spam, SM bike spam and IK spam, which have all taken multiple top 10 spots in GTs since 7th came out.
SpookyRuben wrote: Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?
For one, because it's no longer working, as others have pointed out.
For two, they already have changed their business model a fair amount over those 20 years. They've been steadily working towards fewer models for more money, and placing less emphasis on developing their game rules in favour of just pushing out shiny toys. They're constantly changing the way they publish rules, and the way they present those rules to their customers.
For all the faults of earlier editions of the game, the studio put a lot more effort into getting the rules right for 2nd and 3rd ed than they have in subsequent editions, barring possibly 5th.
The big thing, though, is simply that the industry has changed. 20 years ago there were far fewer fish in the Fantasy/Sci Fi gaming pond. These days, they're everywhere. Other companies with cheaper, or better (or both) product, that are steadily gaining market share while GW declines. In those 20 years, we've also seen the retail industry as a whole start to change due to the growth of the internet... something that GW still views as some sort of aberration and is trying their darndest to fight against.
For GW to grow, they need to accept that their place as the big fish can only coast on momentum for so long. They can only trim so much fat, and only push prices so far, before something gives. Sooner or later, they'll have to go back to actually offering the best product in order to maintain that top spot.
SpookyRuben wrote: Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?
For one, because it's no longer working, as others have pointed out.
The business model, or perhaps it's better to say [b]an aspect of their business model[b] is to constantly re-write the rules. I was interested in discussing that aspect of GW's business plan. I thought that was clear in my posts, obviously I was mistaken.
Why? Because it drives sales. It sells books and it sells models. A few pages back someone asked if it could be a conspiracy that GW makes bad rules, so they can re-write. It's no conspiracy. It's as plain as day. In general terms it's called Planned Obsolescence. For those of you who are not familiar. It is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete. In this case GW just published some new rules and makes the previous ones obsolete. Two rules editions in two years! That's a good example.
This is why I say GW doesn't care about "the spirit of the game". Because they are no longer the company that existed in 1998. They have transitioned from a games developer and model producer to a more pure corporate entity. They are in business to make money. The game designers now are employees, not leaders. They are not the Jervis' or Andy's or Rick's. They are told to produce new rules in a certain amount of time to make a publisher's date and sales schedule. Timely updates in FAQ's and Errata would go a long way to fix some issues, but... they don't bother.
We all know GW has the largest network of players globally. They know that when a new set of rules or codex is published an overwhelming majority of people who plays their game buys that product. How many people do you know are still playing old editions? I'm sure there are a few holdouts here and there.
This isn't something uncommon. Look around and examine other business's. Apple makes new Iphones like clock work. Video game companies make 1/2 a game and sell it for full price, then expect you to buy the DLC to open up the rest of the content.
And with regards to the rules themselves. Meh, GW don't appear to be putting any superior effort into making the game dramatically more balanced. Some units have languished in the realm of suck for so long (I'm looking at you Rough Riders) that it's almost criminal. And as far as the core rules go, they remove whole sections (i.e. ruins 6ed) and replace them with a paragraph or two; and then continue to add more bloat in other areas. There is no question that 40k is a bit of a mess, which can be mitigated if you are in a club, or play with a steady group of friends. However it's even more frustrating if you play pick up games. As for myself, I'm getting tired of asking pick-up opponents "So... how do you want to handle Psychic Shriek?".
For myself, the 'spirit of the game' is to have an enjoyable experience across all aspects of the hobby. When discussing modeling or painting with others, I try to give honest feedback, and encourage them to challenge themselves with their modeling and painting projects. I make an effort to engage them about their armies, how did it evolve, what aspects they like and dislike, any cool moments from past games.
When it comes to having a game, I want the game to be enjoyable for both my opponent and myself. And I am confident identifying my expectations with an opponent before a game. And if there are some blurry rules I bring them up too, before the game. Regrettably for some of you, 40k is a game that requires that sometimes. There is no getting around this. It's always been this way.
The danger of that approach is that if your rules re-write is poorly received, you lose players. Particularly when you combine it with steadily increasing prices and decreasing quality control.
The thing that puzzles me is that GW's approach is decidedly schizophrenic. The 'constantly change your rules' approach is geared to keep squeezing money from existing gamers. But we constantly hear (and see, from their lack of product support) that existing gamers aren't GW's focus... New gamers, who are walking into stores (apparently) with their life savings burning a hole in the wallets are supposedly the target. And the new-rules-cycle has no purpose against that target. New gamers don't care about the changes from last edition. They don't have an army to update. They need a codex, and the fact that the codex was changed three weeks ago has no bearing on that. They don't care in the slightest if the game is currently in its 5th or 6th incarnation... they're only concerned with the current rules. And the bewildering array of current rules, often published across multiple editions and thus leading to even more confusion about just what they need to buy, seems counter-productive.
If GW truly want to target new customers, then it just seems that wasting resources constantly changing their rules is a complete waste of time. And if they want to target veteran gamers, constantly changing their rules is similarly counter-productive (as it annoys people) and takes time away from fixing the issues in the current system (which would actually go a long way towards keeping the veterans on-side.
So it seems, from the safety of my armchair, that it would be a far, far better approach for everyone concerned if GW just stuck with a ruleset and concentrated on fixing and improving it, rather than just changing it.
GW released 7th as a quick cash grab, changing the rules for the sake of it.
Spartan Games, a week later, change there rules for the purpose of fixing them, streamlining them and balancing them.
Dyst wars 2.0 outsold 7th ed 7 to 1 at Australia's biggest FLGS (and probably biggest online store, I couldn't actually confirm that though). I really don't think changing rules for the sake of it is that good of a business plan. Maybe back before they had real competition but its not the 90s any more.
The irony here is that GW makes rules with the intent to sell more models, but their fethed up rules have caused a lot of people to stop buying completely. If they made better rules that were actually balanced and had depth instead of randomness and complexity for the sake of complexity, the models would be flying off the shelf. The number one reason I hear for why people stopped buying GW is the rules. They don't mind paying the prices as they're content buying PP stuff which is just as expensive per model and to have multiple 35 or 50 point lists. They don't mind the cost because the rules are solid which gives the impression that the company cares about the game and the customers instead of just the profit margin. A lot of people who switched to games like WMH still prefer the 40k models, aesthetics and fluff, they just can't tolerate the awful rules when the competition has done so much better in that aspect of the hobby. If GW did this mystical thing called MARKET RESEARCH they would understand this. Unbound might sell a few more models to a few people, but if it makes 50% of the player base rage quit it doesn't help the company's bottom line very much. I'm also tired of them using "forge the narrative!" as an excuse for writing atrocious rules. There's nothing narrative about my rune priest getting a trait that only benefits TWC when I don't have any TWC in my list. There's nothing narrative about my rune priest forgetting his psychic specialty and learning 2 powers at random before each battle. Can anyone tell me what's so narrative about random tables for every little thing?
I agree with what others have said about army selection. The creators of the game say that spamming certain units isn't fluffy. How about preventing that in the rules?! Units like a riptide or wraithknight should have a highlander rule, 1 per detachment to represent their rarity in the fluff and how severe of a loss it is to lose one in battle. In a small battle, let's say 1500 points, no commander is going to commit 6 riptides to that battle. It would be far too risky. But instead of writing rules to mitigate these kind of shenanigans that don't fit the fluff for a narrative game and are far too broken for a competitive game, they say "take anything you want!" Then when people abuse it, which anyone with common sense would realize that was inevitable, they blame the players for playing by the rules they created.
Yes, it is true. On the surface GW's approach seems odd. I have been a long time player of GW games and I too wish that some day they will just 'finish' writing the rules. Of course, decades of this GW behavior has desensitized me LOL. But I have come to expect it since 3rd ed so....
Consider this. Most people get into the game when they are young, mid teens let's say. They don't have the same expectations as a mature customer. Rules changes for them are exciting! It's new! They are more likely to play with their friends, not cross the city alone to play a pick-up game with some stranger. So when it comes to a 'broken' rule, they just fix it themselves. So this is how they are introduced to the game.
Compare video game companies to GW. Are they really that different? Video game makers have been doing this for the last 10 years, buggy releases and many many patches. By the time a game is patched, the next one is "Coming Soon!" Now a days they sell you half a game, and offer you DLC! Some games are total crap, but they got the money from ya! Guess what, everyone can't wait for the next one! Total War series comes to mind... I now wait 12 months after release before buying.
Now assuming they stick with it, they are into the whole hobby, they have a couple armies etc... It has just become normal that this is the way it is. For the vast majority of players, they never think twice about it. It's all they have known. Although now that I am older I recognize what they are doing, publishing new stuff to make more money. However, 40k and the hobby (not the HOBBY LOL) give me a lot of enjoyment. So I stick with it.
I know there are other games, which are better written. I used to play all kinds when I was younger. But instead of spreading my time broadly across several games etc. I choose to focus on 40k. I go to sea for a living, heading home right now actually . I work for a month and then have a month off. 30 days completely free! If I am lucky I still only get to play 2-3 games and a few afternoons of hobby time when home. But in the end, I choose to invest my time and money into GW's product. I am sure there are a lot of people like me.
You suggest that GW are wasting resources working on new rules instead of making the rules they have better. I really don't think GW is putting a lot of resources into the game design side of their business to begin with. So any waste is minimal, with respect to the whole business. I mean 7th ed pretty much threw away terrain rules and said "make your own", so I did LOL data sheets and everything!
About the schizophrenic approach. It's not really all that far out there. It just seems more unusual in the context of gamers. But here's a non-gamer example. Costco. My wife convinced me to join in the fall. You can't walk in the door if you don't buy a membership,as I learned. There is a hugely successful retailer who excludes a huge number of existing consumers. And don't even get me started on "Costco People", it's like a cult; sort of like GW? As well, look at high end retailers. Nordstrom is opening here in Canada. Nothing in that store is cheap. They are targeting a specific consumer class. Perhaps GW is doing the same?
As it stands right now. GWbelieves that it's recent troubles has been due to restructuring and other internal issues. Not dramatically falling sales, or massive loss of market share. So really, the only thing to do is wait and see if they are right.
Anyway, I have to go on back on watch. I hope this opens up some new perspectives and ideas.
HH book 4 essentially said "7th ed sucks and you should ignore certain parts of it."
They INTERACT with their fanbase.
They actually bother to write good rules and put effort into the models.
I agree with most of what you have written. I really like the Forge World stuff too.
Forge World is also smaller, and each release is a Big Release. They only work on one Book at a time, and it is a far more collabrative effort amongst the whole studio. Really you're describing GW back in the 90's. As for interaction. They are dealing with a much smaller number of customers, so it is easier to manage. And to the best of my knowledge they are live interactions. I know they used to have an online presence but they discontinued this?
Keep in mind though. You pay a significant premium for all of this.
Simple comparisons
10 Cadians from GW 18 GBP (multipart kit)
10 Death Korp from FW 39 GBP (single pose)
I just had a funny thought. Perhaps Forge World is a test program of sorts. What would we do if GW suddenly doubled or their prices and approached the game side of the busniness like Forge World does. Are we missing something here I wonder?
Extra Note:
Market Research: GW controls every aspect of the product chain; from procurement of materials to manufacturing to sales and distribution. They know what sells and what doesn't far better than most companies. Each time the clerk at the store rings you in at a GW shop (at least mine), they ask your name, it's logged on 'your' account. And if that isn't enough information for them, they can browse this forum for information. They may not admit to this last bit, but anyone who thinks that the folks at GW don't look online from time to time are just being foolish. The only grey area is non-GW sellers, but even then, given enough time they can gather an accurate picture of the market.
So do they really need to come out and pay to do market research? Because that's what other companies pay out the nose for. Information that GW already has. In other words, GW doesn't need Air Miles.
-so much for my coffee and smoke before watch. LOL
Well yeah for a Death Korps army you have to sacrifice your firstborn child. And you second born. And your third born. And your...
At least with their SM Legion kits it fells more like I'm getting assured quality for my hard earned money, while with GW I really don't feel comfortable investing in their larger stuff.
Pricing is probably FWs only issue (along with the occasional miscast) but apprently other companies are worse about it.
SpookyRuben wrote: Keep in mind though. You pay a significant premium for all of this.
Simple comparisons
10 Cadians from GW 18 GBP (multipart kit)
10 Death Korp from FW 39 GBP (single pose)
That's not just a premium for the better service, though, it's also a premium for better sculpted models, in a better material for modelling (The polystyrene mix that GW uses is good for gaming because it bounces, but it's hell on fine detail - resin trades durability for better detail)
So to answer this question:
What would we do if GW suddenly doubled or their prices and approached the game side of the busniness like Forge World does.
Unless the quality of the kits increased to match Forgeworld's, I suspect we'd mostly jump ship.
As a side note, the 'multi part' nature of the Cadian kit ultimately doesn't do much for posability that can't be achieved with the regular Death Korps models. Because the arms only go together in specific combinations, and the torsos are all modelled facing full to the front, it just comes down to which way you turn the head and how elevated the arms are.
'Multipart' and 'posable' aren't always entirely the same thing.
They know what sells and what doesn't far better than most companies.
The continued presence on shelves of the limited edition version of the Hobbit starter set suggests that they still struggle with this somewhat...
As does the continual under-supply of large parts of each new release.
And, you know, Dreadfleet...
Each time the clerk at the store rings you in at a GW shop (at least mine), they ask your name, it's logged on 'your' account.
That might be a regional thing. I don't believe they do that here, although admittedly it's been a while since I bought anything from a GW store.
They would need to give me a damn good reason to expect me to give them any personal information to keep on file, though.
And if that isn't enough information for them, they can browse this forum for information.
From all reports, GW staff are actively discouraged from visiting forums. They don't consider them to be representative of their actual customer base.
So do they really need to come out and pay to do market research?
Their downward trend in their financials suggests that yes, it might be a good idea.
To me this all just seems like a different shade of political correctness veiled as sage wisdom. Now remember, don't legislate and limit players in any way, because that might get results, no, instead keep everything totally legal and just hope that getting offended and being really passive aggressive to strangers is embraced as a social norm. Don't regulate, educate, because demonstrating to strangers that fun is in fact not subjective in anyway is a far more enjoyable shared experience than a shared set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity. I mean rules, who needs'm. I'll stick with subjective values and simply inform other players when they're doing it wrong. Sarcasm face.
We can devise all sorts of new adjectives for armies and players, we can presume to know the intent and values of perfect strangers and be super judgemental or we could simply acknowledge that without basic limitations, one individuals fun is more likely to come at the expense of the others. This is a game that has only gotten more divisive as restrictions have been loosened.
jonolikespie wrote: GW released 7th as a quick cash grab, changing the rules for the sake of it.
Spartan Games, a week later, change there rules for the purpose of fixing them, streamlining them and balancing them.
Dyst wars 2.0 outsold 7th ed 7 to 1 at Australia's biggest FLGS (and probably biggest online store, I couldn't actually confirm that though). I really don't think changing rules for the sake of it is that good of a business plan. Maybe back before they had real competition but its not the 90s any more.
...but they didnt. What aCTUALLY happened is 6th Edition cost them ALMOST half the value of their stock vlaue and stockholders went berserk and demanded the rules get fixed so just one year into 6th, 7th Edition development started.
It wasnt as banal a reason as they were out to screw you. They were out to save investor confidence and to answer the obvious distress they unintentionally caused. Cynicism is fine, but dont let it override your reason. The rules needed repair, they repaired them and yeah, it was unfortunate.
No, but they are are looking for the revenue bump in the books that a new edition brings in. Having to borrow money to pay the dividends doesn't look as good.
...but they didnt. What aCTUALLY happened is 6th Edition cost them ALMOST half the value of their stock vlaue and stockholders went berserk and demanded the rules get fixed so just one year into 6th, 7th Edition development started. .
A quick check of GW's share price movement over the last couple of years suggests that this story is not accurate. It was the January 2014 financial report that caused the share tumble. 7th Ed came out in May, so was already well and truly finished and either printed or at the printers by that point.
...but they didnt. What aCTUALLY happened is 6th Edition cost them ALMOST half the value of their stock vlaue and stockholders went berserk and demanded the rules get fixed so just one year into 6th, 7th Edition development started.
As said above, 7th Edition must've already been at the printers, when the stocks dropped.
It should also be noted, that a fair part of the drop in stock was due to the fact that GW decided to not pay out dividend with said report, which in turn caused many large fonds and automated portfolios to auto-sell, because they always sell stocks without dividends. Of course, that decision by GW was in turn based on falling sales/large new investments, but it wasn't a hugely surprising or unexpected thing.
Finally, some 24% drop in stocks isn't, in stockmarket-terms, a massively huge thing. Especially for a, all things considered, small company like GW that is overall still writing black numbers.
If you can't ride out bumps like that with smaller companies, you shouldn't be investing. Overall, with a company like GW, institutional shareholders aren't going to bother to fly to Nottingham to bang on the table. They tell the intern to sell those shares, or they don't. Or they might be sold / bought along with a gazillion other shares, if they fail to meet / meet certain criteria.
And in that light, GW stocks did double over the past 5 years after accounting for the more recent dip, and it used to pay regular dividends. So it isn't a bad (though not spectacular either) little share there, if they go back to solid dividends.
@Wonderwolf.
The reason GW rushed 7th edition out, was due to the poor sales figures that 6th edition had.
GW has suffered declining sales volumes for the last decade, and only recently has the fall in sales volumes has accelerated to the point it has caused reduced profits.
When the games market has been growing for the last 3 years, and all companies seem to be expanding APART from GW.
GW plc position looks less favorable.
The attitude of the GW games developers is fine for a completely narrative game WITHOUT P.V and F.O.C. or inferred suitability for random pick up games.
Preferably given as low cost/free PDFs to their minature collectors.
But selling 40k/WHFB like GW plc do is very counter productive.
Lanrak wrote: @Wonderwolf.
The reason GW rushed 7th edition out, was due to the poor sales figures that 6th edition had.
GW has suffered declining sales volumes for the last decade, and only recently has the fall in sales volumes has accelerated to the point it has caused reduced profits.
When the games market has been growing for the last 3 years, and all companies seem to be expanding APART from GW.
GW plc position looks less favorable.
Well, the (non-digital) "game market" has grown almost exclusively due to the massive steam engine that is MTG and a renaissance of board games. Miniature games probably haven't seen any of that growth. PP and Wyrd Games have probably bled sales as much as GW did.
To adapt to this trend, GW (PP, etc..) wouldn't need to fix their "mass battle games"; they'd need to do a CMON (and to a lesser extend Mantic) and go for "board-game"-hybrid style games over mass battle games in general, or at the very least incorporate CCG-elements into the miniatures game, as FFG did with X-Wing.
Either way, I am not saying GW isn't in trouble. Just that even if GW loses further sales, stocks drop, etc.. you still won't see activist shareholders flipping through rulebooks to turn it around. Talking about the guys who invested in GW, rather than those running it, it just doesn't work like that.
I doubt PP saw the same decrease in sales volume as GW just based on the anecdotal evidence that the people leaving GW are mostly going to PP. I haven't seen a mass exodus of players from PP like I have seen from GW. It's not like people are just stopping their war gaming hobbies. They're just stopping their GW hobby and moving to another company. I would say 90% of the WMH players I've talked to are either former GW customers or were recruited by a former GW customer. PP is most likely increasing in revenue and profit just based on all the GW converts they get.
Toofast wrote: I doubt PP saw the same decrease in sales volume as GW just based on the anecdotal evidence that the people leaving GW are mostly going to PP. I haven't seen a mass exodus of players from PP like I have seen from GW. It's not like people are just stopping their war gaming hobbies. They're just stopping their GW hobby and moving to another company. I would say 90% of the WMH players I've talked to are either former GW customers or were recruited by a former GW customer. PP is most likely increasing in revenue and profit just based on all the GW converts they get.
We have no numbers for PP one way or the other but, as you said, the anecdotal all seems no or a postoperative shift.
The numbers we do have coming from other companies like Mantic, Corvus Bellie and Spartan Games are not the most solid of numbers but they are more than anecdotal and they all paint the picture of a golden age in gaming which GW seems to be entirely unaware of.
It's hard to say much from anecdotal evidence. Some areas around here wargaming has dropped off but MtG has taken off, other areas GW stuff has dropped off but other wargames have grown, but I don't think they've grown as much as GW lost.
Dakka represents such a small cross section of the community it's hard to say much there either. The Dakka community I think is largely made up of people who are real enthusiasts to the point where they actually go on forums and stuff, I think they're more inclined to quit GW and go to another game. Most my mates quit GW and just quit wargaming completely, but most of them weren't the types who'd go on forums and what not either.
Lanrak wrote: @Wonderwolf.
The reason GW rushed 7th edition out, was due to the poor sales figures that 6th edition had..
I'm not convinced that's the case.
For one thing, trying to turn around poor sales of 6th edition by releasing a nearly identical new edition with a psychic phase added seems like a strange thing to do.
For another, the gap doesn't really seem like enough time to register the flagging sales, write a new rulebook, get it printed, and then get it shipped around the world.
I very much believe that 7th edition was already written when 6th was released. And while it's possible that it was rushed out early to counter falling sales, I think it's more likely that GW just wanted to see whether they could get away with shortening the edition lifespan to sell more books (presumably to counter falling codex sales from all the people turning their noses up at the ridiculously priced hardcovers).
Looking at ICV2 however, I really don't think you can doubt that the Hobby is growing. A decent amount of that could be trading card games, but double digit growth for about 5 years strait and an estimated doubling of the wider hobby since 08 is MASSIVE.
GW are shrinking in this market. That's atrocious.
Bringing this back onto the topic, GW are losing money and instead of seeing what their competitors are doing to be gaining 75% growth two years in a row and need to double their print run at the last minute to meet demand they are turning a blind eye and doing things like pushing out new rules for the sake of new rules to force people to buy them and acting like they still operate in an economic bubble.
It's not working for them, and it'[s hurting the game regardless of the 'spirit' of the game.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's hard to say much from anecdotal evidence. Some areas around here wargaming has dropped off but MtG has taken off, other areas GW stuff has dropped off but other wargames have grown, but I don't think they've grown as much as GW lost.
This is what I've observed, in both players and sales. MtG is definitely a massive moneymaker for FLGS, but I see that 40k/WHFB has dropped in numbers, with other wargames picking up some, but not all, of the decline.
Also, the games I frequently see people play now are very low model count, often essentially (or actually) board games with paper foldout playing surfaces; they're never going to be money makers for the gaming stores like 40k or even WMH.
The number of pickup games with lots of models and terrain seem to be fewer now than in decades past. But all that is just my observation, and not based on any numbers.
I hate MtG because I don't find it remotely interesting but at my FLGS there's more tables dedicated to card games (primarily MtG) than actual wargames :( Granted they do set up the tables for wargames on specific wargaming nights, but if it's not a wargaming night, they are just there for cards.
Card games take up less room, and take less time to play. Having a dedicated wargaming space means a lot of room with fewer players.
They also require a far smaller initial investment (until you get into top level tournament play, but that's a different kettle of fish).
Oh I know why they're there, I just have no interest in them so would rather they weren't, can't you play a card game, like, ya know, anywhere? A store doesn't really need to dedicate tables to it when 95% of people would have enough space in their home for card games except for tournaments (in which case set up the tables for wargames most the time and go card tables for tournament nights instead of vice versa).
Anyway, I'm going wildly off topic, my original point was that, yes, in some areas I think wargaming (and GW) have decreased while CCG's have increased (and I don't consider them the same thing so IMO it's an overall loss for wargames).
Wulfmar wrote: I always thought the spirit of 40K was methylated
So something that is normally fine and enjoyable to drink that's been poisoned so you go blind or die instead? Sounds a bit like 40k... though metho is usually cheap so it doesn't quite fit the bill.
jonolikespie wrote: Looking at ICV2 however, I really don't think you can doubt that the Hobby is growing. A decent amount of that could be trading card games, but double digit growth for about 5 years strait and an estimated doubling of the wider hobby since 08 is MASSIVE.
Collectible games and board games were driving the growth through the holiday season, with sales on market leader Magic: The Gathering continuing to rise, and a hot new entrant, the My Little Pony CCG debuting at #4 in the hobby.
With #4 in the Hobby overall, the My Little Pony CCG is probably bigger than 40Katm (which in turn is still #1 in miniatures). Either way, with games like that in the mix, I doubt the ICV2 article allows you to deduce much about, say, Warmachine or Infinity. They might suffer as much or more as 40K.
Also, over a period of 5 years, GW did not shrink. Over the 5 year period referenced by ICV2, GW grew by around 100% even after accounting for the most recent dip. So even after the most recent dip, GW is still outperforming the market.
Wonderwolf wrote: Over the 5 year period referenced by ICV2, in which the hobby grew by 20%, GW grew by around 100% even after accounting for the most recent dip. So even after the most recent dip, GW is still outperforming the market.
Say wha? GW grew by 100%? Where is that number from? Their revenue has been mostly flat over the past few years with a recent dip.
Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.
Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.
Fair enough. My fault. Shares rose by 100%. Full year revenues rose from 110 Millions GBP in 2008 to 135 Millions GBP in 2013 in constant currency. So 22% growth. (with both financial years ending in May the year after.. no numbers for the full year or 2014 yet).
Still not shrinking though. And, more importantly, a minor fish in the huge pool of "Hobby" as measured by ICV2, whose numbers aren't very informative for the minor sub-niche of miniature games. That ICV2 growth, if driven by things like MTG or My Little Pony CCG just doesn't tell us much about the relative growth of, say, Malifaux vs. 40K. Sorry.
Also note that ICV2 measures are based on surveys/estimates among their partners and associates, which do not include the GW retail chain.
ICV2 would measure a drop in sales of GW-products, if GW shifted their emphasis from independent retailers and retail chains (e.g. Forbidden Planet) towards their website and their stores, even if total GW sales through all their channels remained constant or possibly even went up (disproportionally through their own channels).
Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.
Fair enough. My fault. Shares rose by 100%. Full year revenues rose from 110 Millions GBP in 2008 to 135 Millions GBP in 2013 in constant currency. So 22% growth. (with both financial years ending in May the year after.. no numbers for the full year or 2014 yet).
Yeah my mistake, it was flat when normalised with inflation, not at constant currency.
Also it was 123.5m ending 2014, so your figure drops to 12% if you actually take this year in to account, which is less than inflation of the GBP (from the calculator I used).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wulfmar wrote: Dakka is full of budding economists and business investment advisors.
GW should read these forums
I'm not pretending to be an economist. I think most predictive economics is stupid actually I was just pointing out that 100% share price growth is not the same as 100% company growth, one is what share holders think you're worth (typically in the longer term) and the other is how much money the company is pulling in now compared to what it was pulling in before (in rough terms of course).
Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.
Fair enough. My fault. Shares rose by 100%. Full year revenues rose from 110 Millions GBP in 2008 to 135 Millions GBP in 2013 in constant currency. So 22% growth. (with both financial years ending in May the year after.. no numbers for the full year or 2014 yet).
Yeah my mistake, it was flat when normalised with inflation, not at constant currency.
Also it was 123.5m ending 2014, so your figure drops to 12% if you actually take this year in to account, which is less than inflation of the GBP (from the calculator I used).
ICV2 numbers arent normalised with inflation either.
And again, with ICV2 numbers being heavy on things like MTG, etc.., there is no way to conclude that, say, Wyrd Games or PP are doing better than GW. The thing to take away from ICV2 is that CCG and Board Games are hot. Look at the most recent CMON Kickstarter. That's the kind of games that miniature game companies will probably need to embrace to catch that broader trend described by ICV2.
I'm not pretending to be an economist. I think most predictive economics is stupid actually I was just pointing out that 100% share price growth is not the same as 100% company growth, one is what share holders think you're worth (typically in the longer term) and the other is how much money the company is pulling in now compared to what it was pulling in before (in rough terms of course)
Well, I apologized for my mistake for the share price.
But you are still insisting on the fallacious comparison with ICV2 surveys. It's like comparing 2 energy drink t companies. One is shrinking, the other doesn't disclose numbers, and then go out claiming that energy drink company 2 must be outperforming energy drink company 1 massively, because the market for all beverages is growing.
That's a false conclusion. It's entirely possible for all energy drinks to be down, even in the broader context of all beverages being up, especially if the examples highlighted to illustrate the best success stories in the "all-beverages"-market are consistently the total opposite of energy drinks.
As far as I'm aware (and I haven't read the numbers closely) but you can't actually conclude much at all from ICV2 because at no point do they actually separate CCG from wargaming. They simply say "CCG was driving the growth" with no actual reference to an amount. All we can say is GW is behind the average of 15% a year for "gaming" by a long ways, they are only 12% over 6 years.
15% a year over the 5 years they state is around 100% growth. GW took 6 years to only achieve 12%, despite increasing their release rate and prices.
The other thing ignored there is that GW in the year of their decline have released a lot of things that people reckon should boost sales.
Wonderwolf wrote: But you are still insisting on the fallacious comparison of ICV2 markets.
Lets be clear here, I never brought up the ICV2 numbers... I'm simply trying to straighten out the comparison.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Lets be clear here, I never brought up the ICV2 numbers... I'm simply trying to straighten out the comparison.
Fair enough.
Than lets be clear.
- GW was not shrinking over the 5 year period.
- The ICV2 report offers no clue, as to whether GWs (undisputed) problems are GW-specific or symptomatic for all miniatures and mass battle games, the runaway success of CCGs and board games notwithstanding.
I remember reading in some other threads that Corvus Belli (Infinity) has grown significantly these past years consistently. I can't remember the thread, nor do I have the number, but I'm sure someone more interested in Infinity might know that stat.
Fantasy Flight has also stated big growth, though I imagine that's split between their board games, card games, and RPGs. However, I wouldn't discount the success of X-Wing, which in a few years has skyrocketed to one of the top selling miniature games.
Wonderwolf wrote: What you keep ignoring is that PP, etc.., might well be doing worse than GW.
I'm not ignoring it so much as I don't see the value in discussing things we know nothing about I don't even like PP games so I am indifferent as to whether PP specifically is shrinking or growing.
CCG, etc., were driving the growth. If we had a word from ICV2 that miniature games were driving growth, and contrast that with GW's current and undisputed problems, you'd have a point.
Yes but that statement in itself "CCG were driving growth" is again not meaningful unless they separate the numbers for us. You're ignoring that the first sentence of my previous post was precisely...
"As far as I'm aware (and I haven't read the numbers closely) but you can't actually conclude much at all from ICV2"
The question you continue to ignore is whether GW's problems are GW-specific or symptomatic for all miniature games and massed battle games in particular, the success of board games and CCGs notwithstanding?
I'm not sure if you're referring to me specifically or people in general... I'm not ignoring and certainly not continuing to ignore it at all... just at the top of this page I stated:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's hard to say much from anecdotal evidence. Some areas around here wargaming has dropped off but MtG has taken off, other areas GW stuff has dropped off but other wargames have grown, but I don't think they've grown as much as GW lost.
Dakka represents such a small cross section of the community it's hard to say much there either. The Dakka community I think is largely made up of people who are real enthusiasts to the point where they actually go on forums and stuff, I think they're more inclined to quit GW and go to another game. Most my mates quit GW and just quit wargaming completely, but most of them weren't the types who'd go on forums and what not either.
Which is directly addressing the fact that we don't know.
I'm not really arguing any of the points you think I'm arguing... all I came here to do was to correct your statement that GW is outperforming the market (we have more reason to believe they are not than their are) and to point out your stated 22% growth is actually 12% over 6 years when you consider this year where they have dipped which is well below the "market growth" (which has an unknown proportion of CCG in it) of an average 15% per year for 5 years (around 100% over those 5 years).
Fantasy Flight has also stated big growth, though I imagine that's split between their board games, card games, and RPGs. However, I wouldn't discount the success of X-Wing, which in a few years has skyrocketed to one of the top selling miniature games.
Yes, but if ICV2 is to be believed, we have examples of games like My Little Pony CCG, which beat 40K in half as many years as X-Wing is around, which is still behind 40K.
And X-Wing, arguably, is a game designed to capture that "board game and CCG"-trend that is driving the hobby, as it does have a CCG-component.
The challenge for companies like GW thus likely isn't "balancing" their behemoth of a mass battle game. That one is probably dying, whether the rules are good or not.
The challenge is to diversify into smart, small "hybrid"-games like X-Wing, perhaps Deadzone, etc., which appeal to the growing board/card-game crowd, while allowing GW to shift some miniatures.
When people say GW is shrinking they mean they are selling less product at higher prices (probably) to less customers and (probably) well behind the overall wargaming market and (definitely) less than the overall "gaming" market and (definitely) less per release when you consider their increased release cycle.
Sure, I'm not saying ICV2 is some sort of end-all-be-all, but its at least a good indication that the general hobby market is doing well, and that GW needs to do some re-evaluating.
I'd argue that GW should balance/improve their flagship game, and also capitalize on their existing fan base by releasing other specialist games they once sold. There's plenty of room for 40k to exist and remain a leading game, but they're missing out on so much potential with other games like BFG, Necromunda, and Mordheim.
A Star Trek Attack Wing for BFG/40k would be neat.
I don't think its a good idea for them to ignore 40k and let its quality degrad, however. Saving 40k would be important for customer goodwill, something I'm sure they're short on currently.
When people say GW is shrinking they mean they are selling less product at higher prices (probably) to less customers and (probably) well behind the overall wargaming market and (definitely) less than the overall "gaming" market.
Well, but than the comparisons with ICV2 or similar numbers(e.g. alleged Corvus Belli growth) are again flawed. If they report "growth", they report revenue, which could equally well include price increases, etc..
Infinity miniatures for example aren't cheap, and also easily cost 2x or even 3x what they did cost 3 or 4 years ago. And FFG's X-Wing game is earning them alot more per customer than the kind of board/card-game they made (a bigger part of) their living with a few years ago.
Toofast wrote: I doubt PP saw the same decrease in sales volume as GW just based on the anecdotal evidence that the people leaving GW are mostly going to PP. I haven't seen a mass exodus of players from PP like I have seen from GW. It's not like people are just stopping their war gaming hobbies. They're just stopping their GW hobby and moving to another company. I would say 90% of the WMH players I've talked to are either former GW customers or were recruited by a former GW customer. PP is most likely increasing in revenue and profit just based on all the GW converts they get.
sauhwq wrote: Who exactly gets to decide what is fun, and why must that be at odds with the (expensive) game rules that say: you can field this, this and this?
Well that's kind of the whole issue here. The rules say you can take six Riptides (back in the days of this article it was a General on Emperor Dragon with Helm of Many Eyes, Hydra Blade, Potion of Strength, Heart of Woe etc.), but that makes you a jerk because six Riptides are too good, and yet the rules don't restrict it but have this social contract that is somehow broken because you aren't playing true to the "spirit" of the game which the rules conveniently don't mention or indicate is even a thing.
That's the crux of the problem. It's an unspoken rule, but since the rules don't disallow these broken combos or OP units, it becomes an issue with the person bringing it and the person who refuses to play what is technically a legal army despite being OP. If I were to show up to a game with a list of nothing but Riptides, and you refuse to play me, it makes *YOU* the jerk for refusing to play a "legal" list and not me who took the list in the first place, because the rules allow me to take it and put the problem on us as players rather than the rules to sort out.
Unless you mean their share price... but their share price growing doesn't mean they themselves are going, it just means people are willing to pay more money for their shares.
Fair enough. My fault. Shares rose by 100%. Full year revenues rose from 110 Millions GBP in 2008 to 135 Millions GBP in 2013 in constant currency. So 22% growth. (with both financial years ending in May the year after.. no numbers for the full year or 2014 yet).
A few things:
GW's financial year ends on June 1st, so there will be no numbers for the full year of 2014. There's 2013-2014, which are out, and 2014-2015 which will be out next summer. And then there's the half-year report which will be out in mid to late January.
Revenue in the 2007-2008 financial year was £110.3m.
Revenue in the 2013-2014 financial year was £123.5m.
Growth, right? Well, yeah. But you're doing the constant currency calculations the wrong way around. In those years, the UK has had a net inflation, not deflation, so 123.5m are comparatively worth less in 2014 than in 2008.
But still growth, right?
Sure. If you only want to look at the difference between now and five years ago. How about four years ago? Let's get the first year of 5th edition in there.
Revenue in the 2008-2009 financial year was £125.7m.
On its own that's higher than today. According to the Bank of England's neat inflation calculator that's equal to £147m at the end of 2013 (2014 numbers are not yet available).
How about the 2007-2008 numbers then? I.e., your cherry-picked example: corrected for inflation, that equals £128.4m.
That'd be a net decrease in revenue.
But hey, let's cherry-pick the other way. GW peaked in 2004. Corrected for inflation they then had a revenue exceeding £200m.
38% decrease in net revenue over ten years. Good times.
And as for the shareholders, since some people were talking about shareholder activism and gnashing of teeth. Heh. The largest shareholders, except for Kirby himself (with about 6.7% of the shares), are all hedgefunds. What that means is that once the share value drops below, or goes above, a predetermined (by them) value, they'll sell. Overworked and underpaid interns update the buy/sell values based on dividend payouts, and maybe future outlook if the guy in charge of interns decided they should work some overtime and learn something new. Beyond that they literally could not care less about GW, Kirby, or how many editions of 40k are put out every year.
How about the 2007-2008 numbers then? I.e., your cherry-picked example: corrected for inflation, that equals £128.4m.
That'd be a net decrease in revenue.
But hey, let's cherry-pick the other way. GW peaked in 2004. Corrected for inflation they then had a revenue exceeding £200m.
38% decrease in net revenue over ten years. Good times.
I didn't cherry pick. I picked the numbers that corresponded to the ICV2 report that was quoted, which covered a 5 year span (up to 2013, not yet reporting 2014, thus presumably starting 2008) and was likewise not adjusted for inflation.
And as for the shareholders, since some people were talking about shareholder activism and gnashing of teeth. Heh. The largest shareholders, except for Kirby himself (with about 6.7% of the shares), are all hedgefunds. What that means is that once the share value drops below, or goes above, a predetermined (by them) value, they'll sell. Overworked and underpaid interns update the buy/sell values based on dividend payouts, and maybe future outlook if the guy in charge of interns decided they should work some overtime and learn something new. Beyond that they literally could not care less about GW, Kirby, or how many editions of 40k are put out every year.
Yes. And as I've pointed out, stocks dropped mostly because GW decided to not pay dividends recently, rather than any moderate decline in sales. No dividends is often an auto-sell for certain funds, often even legally, as they are in turn legally bound to pay dividends to those that hold/invest in their fund.
Wonderwolf, I have just caught up on your recent posts re: GW performance, and frankly I haven't got time nor inclination to tackle all the holes in the points you're making.
Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.
Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.
When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.
When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!
My mantra was always "if I having a bad month, it doesn't matter as long as my competitor is having a bad month, if I'm having a bad month and everyone else is busy, I've got a problem."
Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.
Fair enough, if there is more to it than "big numbers = better", we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.
Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.
Fair enough. People brought up the 5-year report from ICV2, so that was the context we talked in. If those 5 years aren't a good measure to work in, we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.
When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.
Nobody is denying that. But the proof that GW's poor performance is running against the trend of other miniatures games companies (not CCGs, board games, etc..) cannot be found in ICV2s report. GW's performance might be symptomatic for mass battle miniature wargames as a whole, notwithstanding the success of MTG, etc..
When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!
Well, the information is not as obvious to me. My Little Pony CCGs is bigger than 40K now. Great. How people deduce growth for Privateer Press from this information is beyond me. And large-scale wargames seem to be doing exceptionally poorly in Kickstarter, both absolutely and relatively to the more hybrid-/board-game style games (e.g. Gates of Antares vs. Zombicide), which would actually imply that mass battle wargaming as a whole is in decline (in favour of board-gamey smaller-format games).
Their main problem is that they make a poorly written skirmish game rules, force it into a mass battle game and sell their miniatures at "skirmish game prices". This gives GW games a huuugge start up cost especially in comparison to other games. For not much more than just the cost of a rule book and a codex you can get a full army and the rulebook for bolt action. What would appeal to a prospective wargamer more?
Though I have no evidence of such I would hazard to guess that GW's new recruit rates are way down. That's not good for them.
Both PP and CB have reported explosive growth in their recent past, PP was to try and explain their product shortage a couple of years ago and there is even an image from a CB presentation where they have a graph showing a 75% yearly growth (this coupled with their recent statements that they have had to triple the numbers for their newest edition based on number of pre-orders alone).
And don't even get me started with X-Wing that seems to be perpetually sold out everywhere!
So the problem doesn't seem to be endemic to all tabletop miniature games, it seems that only GW is not growing.
PhantomViper wrote: So the problem doesn't seem to be endemic to all tabletop miniature games, it seems that only GW is not growing.
What adds to the difficulty is GW is publically traded so we can see all their relevant stats while the other comparable companies are privately owned and are under no obligation to reveal any (verifiable) revenue information.
Suffice to say, there's more to the subject than "big numbers = better" and this is a subject that requires as much precision as possible, and I see an awful lot of (often logical, but still) assumptions and "stands to reason" type statements.
Fair enough, if there is more to it than "big numbers = better", we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.
I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.
Let me just explain that one of the first things you're taught (or I was at least) when studying the stock market and PLCs is that the general trend is always up. Comparing numbers from 5 years ago with numbers today and saying "it is bigger, therefore growth" is an oversimplification to the point of being inaccurate.
Fair enough. People brought up the 5-year report from ICV2, so that was the context we talked in. If those 5 years aren't a good measure to work in, we can close those silly comparisons with ICV2s report and you've proven my point.
I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.
When taking all relevant factors into account GW have, to all intents and purposes, been treading water for some time. The other factor to consider is that nobody cares about 5 years ago (in an investment sense) what is a much louder, more in your face state of affairs is that YOY they dropped a substantial percentage in profit (which isn't inherently scary, because companies spend money on stuff that impacts their profit for long term growth all the time) and, more importantly, a significant drop in revenue - despite price increases that are often well above inflation. This is a scary fact because that means, for the first time in many years, people gave less money to GW. There's no massaging that or dressing it up, it is a bad thing.
Nobody is denying that. But the proof that GW's poor performance is running against the trend of other miniatures games companies (not CCGs, board games, etc..) cannot be found in ICV2s report. GW's performance might be symptomatic for mass battle miniature wargames as a whole, notwithstanding the success of MTG, etc..
I don't put a great deal of stock in the ICV2 report either, which is why I didn't really refer to it in my post, so you may have "proven" your point, but mine doesn't really rely on that information.
When you then factor in the information we have about the broader market, ok we can't speak about specific figures for the private companies, but look at Kickstarter, the amount spent on projects in this sector is free to research, and is substantial and growing, it get's scarier. People aren't spending less on tabletop hobbies (trying to take wargaming as a separate market is a bit fallacious TBH) they're spending MORE!
Well, the information is not as obvious to me. My Little Pony CCGs is bigger than 40K now. Great. How people deduce growth for Privateer Press from this information is beyond me. And large-scale wargames seem to be doing exceptionally poorly in Kickstarter, both absolutely and relatively to the more hybrid-/board-game style games (e.g. Gates of Antares vs. Zombicide), which would actually imply that mass battle wargaming as a whole is in decline (in favour of board-gamey smaller-format games).
PP is a tricky one, the best evidence I've seen has been from former employees, and that has been suggesting they're holding steady, but there's an artificial bottleneck in terms of their production/supply, so their actual sales and potential sales could be significantly different. Corvus Belli have reported exponential growth YOY for the last 3 or so years, but have only offered percentages, rather than numbers, but given the number of people who appear to play, must be reasonably respectable (ie millions of tens of millions rather than thousands or tens of thousands.) The only large scale wargame I'm aware of on Kickstarter is KoW, and to say that has done "exceptionally poorly" would be entirely inaccurate, their projects have done very, very well. But then, "large scale" is rather subjective and we may have different ideas about what constitutes one. But then, you have Bolt Action, FoW, DZC all doing well, at least superficially, even X Wing has begun to migrate into a bigger scale battle format, although that's a bit soon to call if it'll be anything but a curiosity.
Is their problem that they make abad mass battle game, or is the problem that they make a mass battle game?
Given the volume of people who seem poised to commit back to 40K if there's a turnaround in their opinion of the ruleset, almost definitely the former. The success of 40K historically is almost certainly due to the fact that for the longest time they were almost literally the only game in town, GW have failed to adapt to the emergence of credible competition, in fact they could be accused of creating it due to the fact that several key former GW employees are now important figures in key competitors (the likes of Alessio, Ronnie Renton, Rick Priestly, even Mike McVey has had a bash) and anecdotal evidence (strong anecdotal evidence) suggests a lot of these people felt compelled to move on because GW's culture was stifling and frustrating them.
GW have a beloved IP, a catalogue of, in the main, awesome miniatures and a massive existing and potential customer base. Any problems they're enduring right now are of their own making.
TheCustomLime wrote: Their main problem is that they make a poorly written skirmish game rules, force it into a mass battle game and sell their miniatures at "skirmish game prices". This gives GW games a huuugge start up cost especially in comparison to other games. For not much more than just the cost of a rule book and a codex you can get a full army and the rulebook for bolt action. What would appeal to a prospective wargamer more?
Though I have no evidence of such I would hazard to guess that GW's new recruit rates are way down. That's not good for them.
Exactly this. The problem isn't one single thing, it's a combination of:
1) Rules that are poorly written and unbalanced 2) High priced figures that you also need a lot of 3) Refusal to acknowledge/embrace the internet 4) Outright hostility towards others
The Rules are a problem because they aren't clear or concise, are built around what was a slightly-larger skirmish type of game (more like a company-level game) and in general excuse poor writing with this notion that there is a "spirit" of play that everyone should magically know and abide by despite not being forced to do so by the rules, and furthermore shifting blame to the individual player(s) when there's a dispute over what constitutes the spirit of the game instead of manning up and either restricting things to keep balance, or allowing optional ways to remove the balance for the scenario games that they so often bring up as a reason for flexibility. Even if it was just a note in each Codex stating that these restrictions are meant for regular games in a club or store, and you should modify or even remove them completely if you want to play a particular scenario if your opponent agrees. That's all it would take. The players that are interested in narrative/scenario/campaign games can do just that (and frequently did), while the powergamers are kept in check by default.
The price is bad not necessarily because of the price itself, but the combination of price and volume. If you look at virtually every other game, either they are relatively cheap for a good number of troops to offset the amount you need to buy (e.g. Perry, Victrix) or they are on the expensive side but you only need a handful (e.g. Corvus Belli with Infinity, possibly Wyrd with Malifaux). Even Privateer Press, which is often used as a direct comparison to GW, requires fewer models overall so while their figures are priced about the same (give or take depending on the particular figure) it works out to less in most cases for a full force. GW alone charges a premium price *AND* requires dozens of figures, even cutting the amount in boxes down to force you to buy multiple boxes of the same thing to make a single unit and thereby charging double or even triple (or more!) for a single unit, to say nothing of rarely if ever providing all of the options that you need and the official line being to buy another box to get extras. No other miniatures game does this as they understand that if you sell cheap but need a lot, you make up for it in volume, and if you charge a lot you require less so the customer gets more value for their money.
GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist. I remember the days of the official GW forum and while yes, there was a lot of trollish posts, there was also a lot of good discussion and IIRC even the designers would sometimes post to give their thoughts and explain their reasons. GW instead tries to dictate from on high and not listen to any criticism or complaints up to and including this illusion that they do not make a game, despite A) Charging a premium for the rules and B) Most of their customers collect their figures due to the game or began their collections because of the game.
Finally, GW has open hostilities with third-party retailers who make compatible bits (that GW used to make themselves and stopped, or never made at all) and independent retailers because they live in their own bubble and feel that their retail stores can and should be the single point of contact for their entire hobby. This includes nonsense like opening up a GW store in an area with an independent retailer to steal their business, deliberately slowing down shipments to the independent while speeding them up for the GW store, and the constant removal of items from general availability to be only via the GW online store or a GW retail store.
I don't think 40k is an great skirmish game, regardless of price; it's large scale, requires lots of time and money, and it is the most expensive of any tabletop wargames.
If you have a large budget for this one game ($1000 to start, and $1000 or more each year), you want a games that are pretty long, large battles, *AND* you enjoy collecting/modelling miniatures (ie new releases), 40k is a good choice.
If you want to buy a few units, perhaps invest a couple hundred dollars and play pickup skirmishes, 40k is a horrible game.
You can look at needing lots of miniatures two different ways. Either, you can say, "This is awful. That's crazy how much money I have to spend buying and painting a stupid number of figures". Or, you can say, "I'm buying and painting lots of figures every time I go to the store anyhow. This is awesome -- I get to play them together!"
Edit: You also need a lot of space to store stuff for GW games now, since titan-size models and large vehicles are no joke to store and transport, and everyone has 'em.
Yeah, but now you are falling into the same trap GW's management seems to be in: Assuming that the world is full of rich kids willing to blow hundreds on Space Marine kits. It's not a good business strategy. In addition, there are other games where you can buy a gak ton of models for the purpose of painting/playing and cheaper to boot. Bolt Action and Hail Caesar come to mind and they are much cheaper.
WayneTheGame wrote: GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.
Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).
Finally, GW has open hostilities with third-party retailers who make compatible bits (that GW used to make themselves and stopped, or never made at all) and independent retailers because they live in their own bubble and feel that their retail stores can and should be the single point of contact for their entire hobby. This includes nonsense like opening up a GW store in an area with an independent retailer to steal their business, deliberately slowing down shipments to the independent while speeding them up for the GW store, and the constant removal of items from general availability to be only via the GW online store or a GW retail store.
It's all of those things which are the problem.
They seem to be just fine with companies like SWM who make compatible parts that don't use any iconography or terminology that refer to the 40k universe. They go berserk on people like Chapterhouse, who openly say they make bits compatible with Eldar, CSM, etc. I don't agree with this view, but I do understand why they think this way. On the other hand, I wish that PP would make multipart plastic models, so that studios could make bits for them. Would make me so happy.
I don't think GW steals much business from an independent retailer. All independents sell product at some sort of discount (from 10% - 30%) and GW sells everything at the MSRP. The GW stores never, ever have a sale, and they don't sell any non-GW product. I mean, not even a can of pop. I have never heard one of my FLGS complain that GW sucks business away from them -- certainly not the way Apple steals business away from the likes of Best Buy.
Also, there is no slowing down shipments to independents. In my area, they get Saturday releases ship on Thursday (so they are received Friday, usually before noon). GW stores won't sell their stuff until Saturday morning. Many independent stores will sell their stuff on Friday afternoon, even though they're not supposed to, and GW doesn't seem to care. Anything you can buy at a GW store, an independent can order in, unless it's out of stock. With the exception of limited release items, which are clearly stated, more stock will always come in. Independent stores know a week before the release date what their allocation is on these items. Even constrained items like Space Hulk and Stormclaw are still available at FLGS.
WayneTheGame wrote: GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.
Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).
Because EU regulations puts limits on what GW can ask for/demand/try to get away with in a trade contract with an independent retailer. North America is more hands off as far as regulations go, thus companies can put pretty much whatever they want into contracts. If GW puts a clause into a contract with a FLGS that prevents them from selling their stuff online, said FLGS just hast to take it (or refuse to sell GW products at all).
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, but now you are falling into the same trap GW's management seems to be in: Assuming that the world is full of rich kids willing to blow hundreds on Space Marine kits. It's not a good business strategy. In addition, there are other games where you can buy a gak ton of models for the purpose of painting/playing and cheaper to boot. Bolt Action and Hail Caesar come to mind and they are much cheaper.
Not at all. I assume (I *KNOW*) the world is full of people who would enjoy the hobby or tabletop gaming, and can't afford to blow $1000 to start up a game, and I think it's a lousy business strategy to cater only to people who can.
However, I like to paint about 20-50 models a month, and I enjoy models of all sizes (from grots to revenant titans), I like the GW aesthetic, and I enjoy a company that releases new stuff all the time. I work very hard, take care of my family, earn more money than I'll be able to take with me when I die, and can leave behind plenty for the people I care about, so why not spend some of the excess on a hobby that I enjoy? Besides, I blow way more money on things like skiing and golf, which I spend proportionately a tiny bit of time on. Don't even get me started on big ticket items like boats; just parking for a single month at a decent location will pay for a year's worth of GW models.
To me, actually, the time I spend is the most valuable asset, so I want to maximize that enjoyment, and care about that more than the cost of the model.
I don't really consider Hail Caesar and Bolt Action models to be comparable to GW models, but I have nothing against warlord games. However, these are historical, and I have zero interest in that. I like scifi/fantasy worlds. Flames of war won't get my business, either, but because I'm just not interested.
Again, I realize that I'm probably not the norm, and trying to run a business to pick at people in my type of situation who ALSO likes wargames is probably not a winning strategy O.O. Almost all of my friends and family think I'm nuts, lol.
WayneTheGame wrote: GW seems to consider the internet as some sort of fad and because they operate in an insular manner where they live in their own bubble, they have closed virtually all communication channels because they think that if they can't hear any complaints, then none exist.
Well, no, because they do have a web store. What I don't understand is why in Europe people can buy things from FLGS online, but not in North America. The times I have emailed customer service, they have been extremely responsive and helpful (not to mention FedEx'd me replacement parts).
Because EU regulations puts limits on what GW can ask for/demand/try to get away with in a trade contract with an independent retailer. North America is more hands off as far as regulations go, thus companies can put pretty much whatever they want into contracts. If GW puts a clause into a contract with a FLGS that prevents them from selling their stuff online, said FLGS just hast to take it (or refuse to sell GW products at all).
Ahhhh I see. Thank you for that; I didn't know. Learn something every day
It really is such a pity. We've seen excellent products and behaviour from a plethora of fledgling companies, people who started from nothing or next to nothing and have created great things.
The reason why I barely dabble in these games is the same for many people; their settings just don't draw me the same way 40k does, even though I can distantly appreciate their quality. I should note that this isn't because of GW, because I know a decent amount about WHFB and it interests me almost none, while I know very little about Infinity and find it quite interesting (just not enough to really get in to).
Not only is GW huge relative to these companies (especially when they first started and became successful), but they have what is to a lot of people the best setting. What is rather tragic about this is to imagine if 40k were at the same quality as these other games while being scaled to the financial backing and power of GW.
In other words, the game with the most compelling setting and the biggest company behind it should, by all rights and logic, be far superior to these other games. It is not, and that wasted potential is a sad thing indeed, especially when you consider that an element of their own company is far superior to GW main (Forge World) in this regard.
Frozen Ocean wrote: It really is such a pity. We've seen excellent products and behaviour from a plethora of fledgling companies, people who started from nothing or next to nothing and have created great things.
The reason why I barely dabble in these games is the same for many people; their settings just don't draw me the same way 40k does, even though I can distantly appreciate their quality. I should note that this isn't because of GW, because I know a decent amount about WHFB and it interests me almost none, while I know very little about Infinity and find it quite interesting (just not enough to really get in to).
Not only is GW huge relative to these companies (especially when they first started and became successful), but they have what is to a lot of people the best setting. What is rather tragic about this is to imagine if 40k were at the same quality as these other games while being scaled to the financial backing and power of GW.
In other words, the game with the most compelling setting and the biggest company behind it should, by all rights and logic, be far superior to these other games. It is not, and that wasted potential is a sad thing indeed, especially when you consider that an element of their own company is far superior to GW main (Forge World) in this regard.
And that's why there are so many complaints. GW could be so much more. They really COULD be the leader/best/whatever instead of just pretending they are and ignoring everything else.
Imagine if GW figures were reasonably priced and they passed savings on to you, and had bundles. If they allowed third parties to freely make compatible things or even offered their own bitz again. If the designers had open communication and feedback with their customers, and if they participated in events and encouraged both competitive and narrative play with solid rules that appealed to both.
That's the sad part, they could do all that and they don't. Whether it's because they are publicly traded or because of their retail chain who knows, but I and many others lament the fact that GW hasn't done anything that would give them a real competitive advantage. If I had the choice between Privateer, Warlord, anyone else and an "alternate universe" GW that did things right, it would be no comparison and I'd have several 40k armies right now and evangelize them as a good company instead of pointing out their flaws constantly.
The biggest thing that sticks in my mind for this is their paints. Great range, great paints, hampered insanely by costing more than anyone else's and giving you the least amount of anyone else. Imagine if their paints were Army Painter-style dropper bottles at 18mL for $4, they would pretty much be the only choice for virtually everyone as they would be reasonably priced, great quality and available in most game stores; I'd never need to buy Vallejo again. Instead, what do they do? They have tiny little bottles and charge a ton for it while screaming "quality" when the real reason is to get you to buy more paint by having it run out faster. Rather than offer a good product, they'd rather cut as much production costs as possible while charging the most money and claiming that it's worth that money just to eke out a few more in profit. They are insanely short-sighted.
That example always sticks out to me because it illustrates how GW frequently does half a job well, and then ruins the other half so badly that it negates the good part. They hit 2 out of three bullet points on the paints (i.e. good range/coverage, availability) and the point they missed is enough to offset everything else and drop their paint range from good to terrible.
Oh, I'm right there with you Talys. I still buy from GW though not as much and I enjoy painting/assembling their stuff. Hell, I even have a full SM battle company with DT for everyone. I just think that the rules are utter crap and that GW does no favors in getting themselves new customers by charging an arm and a leg for their rulebooks. The prices could be tolerable if the rules didn't cost so damn much.
@Frozen Ocean
Totally agree with you. I think Warmachine has some of the most well written rules outside of X-wing. Their models and fluff? Eugh.
@Wayne the Game
In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.
For me, 40k fluff is like fast food. It's got strong flavors that over power the senses.
Fluff from other games are more like the finer restaurants where the flavors aren't so "beat you over the head." Yet when you taste them, you'll find that the flavors are far more subtle, complex and rewarding.
After living in Italy I can't go to Olive Garden because the food there now just seems fake and artificial. That's how 40k fluff is for me now. While I was in it I was like "yeah! This is the best!!" But now it's like eating Taco Bell after having home made carne Asada in Mexico.
In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.
I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely; rather than put out an amazing product, they put out a good product and cripple it in some way to get you to buy more of it faster so they get more profit short-term rather than spread out.
In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.
I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely.
I won't buy their paints, but their washes are really good.
In my experience, GW paints are kind of lame. They have an excellent selection of vibrant colors but they dry out faster and their paints have a tendency to just gunk up in the pot. They do have quality washes, though.
I've heard that's on purpose to get you to replace it faster. Which again shows how they missed the ball completely.
I won't buy their paints, but their washes are really good.
Same, but I won't buy their paints *just* because it's like $4.25 for 12mL of paint, which is more expensive and less product than basically everyone else on the market. If they were the same price (or even a little more) than Vallejo for the same amount, I'd probably only buy GW paints.
TheCustomLime wrote: Oh, I'm right there with you Talys. I still buy from GW though not as much and I enjoy painting/assembling their stuff. Hell, I even have a full SM battle company with DT for everyone. I just think that the rules are utter crap and that GW does no favors in getting themselves new customers by charging an arm and a leg for their rulebooks. The prices could be tolerable if the rules didn't cost so damn much.
Frankly, if I ran Games Workshop, I would give away digital copies of the BRB and the back (list portion) of the codices; then sell the fluff books. In my opinion, they'd make money, anyhow. Here is why:
- Most people, if they are introduced by friends, or in some gaming group, or buy a starter box, can get a free softcover mini rulebook.
- If someone likes 40k but doesn't want to pay $50, they'll just photocopy the back of the book. Which is legal in Canada.
- People with extra money to spend will buy fluff books, and buy the hardcovers anyhow, just to have them -- the same way the $200 limited edition codices sell out.
- You'd rather have players spending money on models than books. The models hook you into the universe more so than omplicated rules.
TheCustomLime wrote: I enjoy their metallics too. Leadbelcher works so well for when you want to drybrush a metallic color.
Wow, this thread has gone so far off topic.
To bring it back on topic then, the biggest issue I have is that the spirit of the game is an abstract concept that needs grounding to be a reality. I'm all for picking armies that fall within the background of the faction (probably the reason why when I did play 40k I often lost) but my problem is that while you can stretch the background to accommodate virtually any army you can think of, and therefore freedom is good (for instance, the article in question mentions an Undead army with only horsemen and chariots as being bad, but IMHO that's a perfectly viable themed army) it has to be limited somewhat. People are always going to find what works "best" so the goal should be that "best" is within a few points of each other, not leaps and bounds.
That's where GW utterly fails at both execution and spirit of the game. The spirit of the game shouldn't be that you should only take 1 Riptide and you're a bad person if you take three (even though you aren't prevented from taking three if you choose), it should be that the Riptide is balanced enough so you aren't overwhelmingly powerful if your theme/scenario/whatever has three, because you're giving up something else to field three.
Other games do this. Other than picking things which have zero synergy with anything else, it's very hard to make a "bad" army as everything is within a few points of each other on the power scale. That's what 40k should strive to achieve.
Casual vs Competitive is an artificial distinction that is created by GW's lack of focus of the game. If 40k is to halt its decline, it needs to refocus. Choose a size of game and work the rules to fit that. This "everything and the kitchen sink" idea is too open to abuse and makes the game convoluted and bloated. You can keep the size, but the rules have to match.
(And please, for the love of Talos, re-do the flyer rules. Those are the most unfun rules I've ever played in a tabletop game.)
To bring it back on topic then, the biggest issue I have is that the spirit of the game is an abstract concept that needs grounding to be a reality. I'm all for picking armies that fall within the background of the faction (probably the reason why when I did play 40k I often lost) but my problem is that while you can stretch the background to accommodate virtually any army you can think of, and therefore freedom is good (for instance, the article in question mentions an Undead army with only horsemen and chariots as being bad, but IMHO that's a perfectly viable themed army) it has to be limited somewhat. People are always going to find what works "best" so the goal should be that "best" is within a few points of each other, not leaps and bounds.
That's where GW utterly fails at both execution and spirit of the game. The spirit of the game shouldn't be that you should only take 1 Riptide and you're a bad person if you take three, it should be that the Riptide is balanced enough so you aren't overwhelmingly powerful if your theme/scenario/whatever has three, because you're giving up something else to field three. It becomes a meaningful decision with plusses and minuses not "Three Riptides are insanely powerful".
Ok, well, I'll get back on topic before I go into a meeting then
GW's Spirit of the Game is more about sportsmanship. To make a Canadian analogy, it's like the difference between intramural hockey, where players are there for fun, and the NHL, where players will do whatever it takes to win, even if it means playing dirty, pretending to be injured so that the other team gets a penalty, or even seriously injuring another player to the point where it might be career-ending. It's not that people playing intramural hockey don't want to win, it's just what they're willing to do to achieve that.
GW would like us to all get along, be friends, and have fun. Kind of like turn a tabletop wargame into an RPG.
But if you're playing with strangers, there are cases where that's just not going to happen, because not all people prioritize sportsmanship ^^. And besides, us Canadians like watching the big hits and fights in NHL. We can be a bloodthirsty bunch when it comes to that sport, LOL
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: And please, for the love of Talos, re-do the flyer rules. Those are the most unfun rules I've ever played in a tabletop game.)
MWHistorian wrote: For me, 40k fluff is like fast food. It's got strong flavors that over power the senses.
Fluff from other games are more like the finer restaurants where the flavors aren't so "beat you over the head." Yet when you taste them, you'll find that the flavors are far more subtle, complex and rewarding.
After living in Italy I can't go to Olive Garden because the food there now just seems fake and artificial. That's how 40k fluff is for me now. While I was in it I was like "yeah! This is the best!!" But now it's like eating Taco Bell after having home made carne Asada in Mexico.
I think I can understand that. I view 40K fluff as completely over the top all the time, so I'm just never phased. When the Sanguinor came with the last Blood Angels codex I wasn't phased, nor when Kaldor Draigo was introduced. The comparison I bring up a lot among friends is this one: in the Star Wars universe, the death star, a massive, mobile planet-sized spaceborne fortress that could destroy celestial bodies was important because of how outrageous it was. In 40K most factions own multiple devices that are like the death star, it's just that kind of universe... Everything turned up to 11 all the time!
As for the spirit of the game, I'm torn on it. On the one hand, well-written rules that create a restricted (but not overly restricted) environment are better for the game in the long term, at least in my opinion. Everybody buys what they like and due to the restrictions in the rulebook, what you buy can always be played against what anyone else bought. On the other hand, I have something of an obsession with spam armies and concepts taken to the limit. I'm the guy who wants an army of nothing but gorkanauts, because giant orky walkers are just cool to me... And unbound allows for that sort of nonsense, so obviously I have a soft spot for it.
In my opinion, better written rules that made for better balanced units would fix most problems. In addition to that, being able to buy extra equipment for your army depending on what you needed in the upcoming battle through a deck-like system would be great too. For example, this tactical perks deck could include a card that gave every single non-vehicle unit in your army a single melta bomb to one of their members. You'd obviously only take this when facing 'zilla lists or tank companies, but the option would always be there before the battle. The introduction of something like this would help greatly, I think!
Either way, this has been an interesting thread. Threads like these are why I love Dakka. I don't think all the participants realize or remember it, but at the end of the day we're all here for the same reason: we love 40K. Some might be very critical of it, but that's just due to their passion. Keep being awesome, ladies and gents!
To bring it back on topic then, the biggest issue I have is that the spirit of the game is an abstract concept that needs grounding to be a reality. I'm all for picking armies that fall within the background of the faction (probably the reason why when I did play 40k I often lost) but my problem is that while you can stretch the background to accommodate virtually any army you can think of, and therefore freedom is good (for instance, the article in question mentions an Undead army with only horsemen and chariots as being bad, but IMHO that's a perfectly viable themed army) it has to be limited somewhat. People are always going to find what works "best" so the goal should be that "best" is within a few points of each other, not leaps and bounds.
That's where GW utterly fails at both execution and spirit of the game. The spirit of the game shouldn't be that you should only take 1 Riptide and you're a bad person if you take three, it should be that the Riptide is balanced enough so you aren't overwhelmingly powerful if your theme/scenario/whatever has three, because you're giving up something else to field three. It becomes a meaningful decision with plusses and minuses not "Three Riptides are insanely powerful".
Ok, well, I'll get back on topic before I go into a meeting then
GW's Spirit of the Game is more about sportsmanship. To make a Canadian analogy, it's like the difference between intramural hockey, where players are there for fun, and the NHL, where players will do whatever it takes to win, even if it means playing dirty, pretending to be injured so that the other team gets a penalty, or even seriously injuring another player to the point where it might be career-ending. It's not that people playing intramural hockey don't want to win, it's just what they're willing to do to achieve that.
GW would like us to all get along, be friends, and have fun. Kind of like turn a tabletop wargame into an RPG.
But if you're playing with strangers, there are cases where that's just not going to happen, because not all people prioritize sportsmanship ^^. And besides, us Canadians like watching the big hits and fights in NHL. We can be a bloodthirsty bunch when it comes to that sport, LOL
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: And please, for the love of Talos, re-do the flyer rules. Those are the most unfun rules I've ever played in a tabletop game.)
Yes, I hate flyer rules :|
Its not even about sportsmanship most of the time. It's about different ideas of what is fun.
For one person, bringing three riptides is fun. He likes giant robots so he's fielding giant robots. Some like powerful armies and the idea of handicapping oneself seems ridiculous. Others, the idea of bringing an army that doesn't fit the fluff from a book they read would be pointless. Very different ideas about what makes a fun game. GW needs to bring the players together with a more focused idea of what the game is supposed to be.
Telling people "you can bring six riptides!" And then saying that bringing six riptides is against the spirit of the games seems a little split personality.
Azreal13 wrote: Or simply make it so the Riptide is appropriately costed/has appropriate power that it isn't such a no brainer to take.
That's apparently asking too much.
The sad thing is, unbound could work if the internal and external codex balance was good. As it is, it's a train wreck.
Exactly, if everything was reasonably sensibly balanced, nobody would care if you spammed stuff.
I mean, people may still get stomped, but it would be more "I didn't bring enough units to fulfil x battlefield role and that got exploited" rather than "my opponent brought a load of undercosted/overpowered easy mode units and I brought a fluffy Wych coven list"
That's it, really. Balance overcomes spam. A better example than the Riptide (which is rare in-fluff) is the Wave Serpent. Imagine if Space Marine Rhinos suddenly had punisher cannons by default.
The funny thing is that price isn't the issue. Forge World are just about universally praised, beyond groaning about yet more Contemptors and the like or a misguided sense of hatred towards anything FW due to it being "alien". This is because they are much more engaged with their own craft than GW are, which makes the fanbase far, far more amicable to them even if their prices are enormously high. It would be so easy for GW to achieve this, and it would be greatly helpful to the game, community, and their sales. This is why customer relations are important.
Toofast wrote: I'm pretty certain investors aren't flipping through rulebooks for a war game to determine how many shares of stock to buy in the company.
You dont? Well thats interesting. Because I dont think you are a professional investor if you dont think someone whose invbesting in a company doesnt keep up on it.
Toofast wrote: I'm pretty certain investors aren't flipping through rulebooks for a war game to determine how many shares of stock to buy in the company.
You dont? Well thats interesting. Because I dont think you are a professional investor if you dont think someone whose invbesting in a company doesnt keep up on it.
I think you're overestimating the importance of a company the size of GW to any professional investment fund.
GW isn't owned by hobbyists, it is mainly owned by share funds who have purchased shares because the share price growth and dividend payments make them a sensible choice. When those criteria cease to apply, the shares get sold.
Nobody from some private investment firm is phoning Kirby and saying "Dude, fix the Waveserpents or there'll be trouble."
Azreal13 wrote: Or simply make it so the Riptide is appropriately costed/has appropriate power that it isn't such a no brainer to take.
That's apparently asking too much.
The sad thing is, unbound could work if the internal and external codex balance was good. As it is, it's a train wreck.
Absolutely, other games have variations on a more open list building style but due to balance, people tend not to spam as much.
Or they could simply forgo the FOC and limit individual units, but they don't want to do that because that means fewer sales.
Azreal13 wrote: Or simply make it so the Riptide is appropriately costed/has appropriate power that it isn't such a no brainer to take.
This x100. The problem isn't that you can take six Riptides and it makes you a jerk, it's that taking six Riptides is too overpowering.
Same with the Wave Serpent. It's a transport, it doesn't need to also have awesome weaponry and be super fast and whatnot, because then it becomes too easy to spam it and win because you're spamming it, even though Wave Serpents are a common thing in the fluff. The level of difference between a Rhino and a Wave Serpent, both transports, is astounding when it should be a lot closer. The Rhino might be more resilient but not quite as fast, the Wave Serpent is very fast but fragile. Points should be roughly the same with roughly the same options because there should have been a framework for options not "Oh well we can give the Wave Serpent these because it's cool, but Rhinos have always had Storm Bolters so they just get those"
Azreal13 wrote: Or simply make it so the Riptide is appropriately costed/has appropriate power that it isn't such a no brainer to take.
No, this is still not a good fix, because of 4 different problems:
- There are units which literally cannot damage other units (impossible to wound), or only have 1 model in a squad of 10 that can only damage a unit by an incredible sequence of unlikely dice rolls. 14 armor is no joke; *double* the cost of a baneblade, add in some grunts to fill up the points, and play to table against either starter box force.
- There isn't really a difference between 5 riptides and 6 riptides :( or 4 wave serpents instead of 6 wave serpents. If you hate playing against it, you'll still hate playing against a couple less.
- Some of the units are too good, even in small numbers (like wave serpent), but hey, it's a transport, and transports shouldn't be super expensive.
- Some of the units are a good idea, and are point-balanced just fine when taken in moderation, but they break the game if you go crazy on them (like drop pods / infiltrate / deep strike).
To fix the army list problem, if you want to call it that, GW should add a set of rules that:
- More strictly enforces detachment/force organization, so that a player MUST take a variety of units.
- Have a separate point system for superheavies, monstrous creatures, and fortifications, so that there aren't situations where one side has them while the other doesn't, or have them in overwhelming numbers.
- Nerf a small number of units that the overwhelming plurality of players feels are just too good.
- Buff some of the units that nobody uses in competitive lists, because there are obviously superior alternatives.
Toofast wrote: I'm pretty certain investors aren't flipping through rulebooks for a war game to determine how many shares of stock to buy in the company.
You dont? Well thats interesting. Because I dont think you are a professional investor if you dont think someone whose invbesting in a company doesnt keep up on it.
I think you're overestimating the importance of a company the size of GW to any professional investment fund.
GW isn't owned by hobbyists, it is mainly owned by share funds who have purchased shares because the share price growth and dividend payments make them a sensible choice. When those criteria cease to apply, the shares get sold.
Nobody from some private investment firm is phoning Kirby and saying "Dude, fix the Waveserpents or there'll be trouble."
Im not though. I do this for a living. You dont get in on a company unless you know it. You just dont.
And no you DONTY short sell. What you do is get on your phone and raise hell with the board, which you own, and tell them to FIX THIS. Lol Trust me. You do.
What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
Im not though. I do this for a living. You dont get in on a company unless you know it. You just dont.
And no you DONTY short sell. What you do is get on your phone and raise hell with the board, which you own, and tell them to FIX THIS. Lol Trust me. You do.
I get what Azrael is saying, though. The culture of a company, how they deal with their customers, how their products are perceived, and what the company does on an ongoing process to improve these things is important as intangible assets (these off-sheet factors will add or subtract from the value of the company). However, specifically, Riptides and Waveserpents are too cheap or need to be nerfed is a non-issue.
The intangibles help the investor to determine its true value. The company's share price is the most important factor, because a going concern, even if it is a declining business and everything else about them is horrible, has a value. The value on the market is what the world at large perceives the company is worth today, and the way a sharp investor that makes money isn't by buying good companies at market price, because that's not profitable. The fact that they're good companies is already factored into the price.
The way you turn a profit is by going against the market, buying companies at a lower price than what they're worth, whether they are good or bad companies, and correctly assessing that its value will be higher than its present undervalued price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
And besides, what's wrong with short selling? It's a perfectly legitimate investment tool when used properly.
Azreal13 wrote: Nothing wrong with it, but it isn't what I was discussing.
Sorry, it wasn't directed at you The message was for Jancoran's reply to your message, who seemed to imply that short selling was a bad thing, or something an experienced investor wouldn't do (generally speaking). Even though you never brought up short sell.
MWHistorian wrote: Casual vs Competitive is an artificial distinction that is created by GW's lack of focus of the game. If 40k is to halt its decline, it needs to refocus. Choose a size of game and work the rules to fit that. This "everything and the kitchen sink" idea is too open to abuse and makes the game convoluted and bloated. You can keep the size, but the rules have to match.
Then again, you can just take sufficient anti-air inform of your own flyer or an actual AA-unit. Flyers are hardly the only thing you need to gear up for, Imperial Knights are also quite metashifting. This goes for other games aswell. If you want to deal with Konquest, you´re bringing hardhitters or a massive tarpit or you´re gonna end up exactly like you do without AA when those Night Scythes show up.
And personally I´m fine with it. Expecting to deal with everything with the units you want to use I find ridicilous, as I would bolt pistols hitting supersonic futuristic armored aircraft. Infact I can´t understand why some players have issues with the fact that not everything can be dealt with without putting effort into it/specialization in a game.
Out of curiosity, how would you have ground units hit flyers?
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
People being able to have a good game with the units they want to use. What sort of game would allow such nonsense?
Do I understand correctly that you expect that in a game you should be able to use whatever units you want, and comfortably deal with everything that will be pitted against you?
RunicFIN wrote: Do I understand correctly that you expect that in a game you can use whatever units you want, and comfortably deal with everything that will be pitted against you?
I expect to be able to make a list without taking some very specific units.
If I want anti-vehicle weapons, I have a lot of options. I have meltas, lascannons, missiles, autocannons, plasmaguns, etc.. I can take these on virtually every infantry squad in my army, along with similar anti-vehicle weapons on my vehicles (inc. Multi-meltas, multilasers, Taurox Autocannons, Vanquisher Battle Cannons etc.) - some more specialised, some less so.
If I want anti-flier weapons, I have 3 options:
- Hilariously overpriced flakk missiles
- Hydra
- Vendetta
Sorry if I feel a bit constrained in terms of anti-flyer weapons.
Also, what if I want anti-flyer stuff as Dark Eldar?
I'll just take... um... nothing. The only thing I can take is my own flier. Is that reasonable? Having to take a flier to kill another flier?
If so, when why are vehicles allowed anti-infantry weapons? How about we strip all blasts, templates and weapons with more than 2 shots off every vehicle and flier? So, if you want anti-infantry, you'll have to bring your own infantry. Is that reasonable?
People being able to have a good game with the units they want to use. What sort of game would allow such nonsense?
Do I understand correctly that you expect that in a game you should be able to use whatever units you want, and comfortably deal with everything that will be pitted against you?
That's the point of a balanced game, yes, within reason. If you don't prepare for flyers, you will get curb stomped by them with little or nothing you can do to deal with them as they walk all over your forces. That indicates that flyers are too powerful under most circumstances since often you will not be able to build a list on the fly tailor made to deal with a particular opponent. A balanced game would either relegate flyers to once per game things that can add to a battle but not turn the tide (see: Bolt Action) or else reduce the durability of flyers against things that aren't dedicated AA weapons so that you can better deal with them.
IMO flyers should be like they are in Bolt Action, something you can buy as an extra that does a strafing run or similar during the game, and then goes back to dogfighting or whatever it is they do above the battlefield, instead of basically an overpowered unit that can hover around.
RunicFIN wrote: Do I understand correctly that you expect that in a game you can use whatever units you want, and comfortably deal with everything that will be pitted against you?
I expect to be able to make a list without taking some very specific units.
If I want anti-vehicle weapons, I have a lot of options. I have meltas, lascannons, missiles, autocannons, plasmaguns, etc.. I can take these on virtually every infantry squad in my army, along with similar anti-vehicle weapons on my vehicles (inc. Multi-meltas, multilasers, Taurox Autocannons, Vanquisher Battle Cannons etc.) - some more specialised, some less so.
If I want anti-flier weapons, I have 3 options:
- Hilariously overpriced flakk missiles
- Hydra
- Vendetta
Sorry if I feel a bit constrained in terms of anti-flyer weapons.
While the options for AA are limited, so are the options for air. So what´s the problem, why not use a Vendetta then?
And I´d still like to hear how you would rule flyers being hit, if not the current way.
WayneTheGame wrote: If you don't prepare for flyers, you will get curb stomped by them with little or nothing you can do to deal with them as they walk all over your forces..
I am closing in on 70 matches of 7th edition this year, and I have not lost a single game due to fliers, so I can´t agree with this. Fliers were overpowered back when they first appeared as no one had any tools, these days they are nothing ( unless you go down the classic "I want it my way or else I quit!" -path, which I find the most comical way to approach pretty much anything in life. )
As a sidenote, just building a list that plain ignores fliers is also a valid and often times a competitive strategy, as evidenced by many big tournament winning armylists.
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
And I´d still like to hear how you would rule flyers being hit, if not the current way.
Well, personally, I'd like so see them removed from the core game and put in Apocalypse or somesuch. But that's wishful thinking on my part.
Anyway, my suggestions for their rules would be twofold:
1) The snapshot mechanic is removed, but flyers have a permanent Jink save (that does not result in a loss of accuracy). You could perhaps make it a 3+ jink if they moved fast enough during their previous turn. Hovering flyers do not benefit from this, but can still jink like normal skimmers (suffering the penalties).
2) Not sure about this, but I was thinking of giving all fliers an effect like the old 'Night Shields' - where anyone firing at them counts as being 12" further away (unless the flier is hovering). This is intended to represent the flier's height off the battlefield (you talked before about it being strange that a bolt pistol could *hit* a flier, well I think it's a lot stranger that a short-ranged pistol could even *reach* a flier).
if you don't have fun the way we like to have fun".
