Your Chance to Make Warhammer 40,000 Even Better with the Gamers’ Survey
Every day, Warhammer 40,000 fans around the world get in touch to share their thoughts on the game, so we have decided to give you an official way to get your voice heard. Whether it’s your experience with your favourite Codex, how the game plays right now, or ideas about what would be great to see in a future edition, we want to hear from you. Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early.
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
Take this survey and have YOUR say on the future of Warhammer 40,000.
The survey is open until the 11th of November, so you’ve got a few days to fill it in. If you have any friends who play Warhammer 40,000 (or used to – we’d love to hear from past players too!), please send them a link to ensure that the Warhammer studio can hear from the widest range of voices.
Voiced my opinions. Basically I love the setting and creating stories on the tabletop but find it hard to remember all the rules, strategems, army rules, unit rules, rules that change every turn, etc.
That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
I basically copy/pasted a the_scotsman post about lethality and cover into their "anything else you'd like to say?" box, in addition to my own (probably less well articulated) complaints about various other things.
Rihgu wrote: I basically copy/pasted a the_scotsman post about lethality and cover into their "anything else you'd like to say?" box, in addition to my own (probably less well articulated) complaints about various other things.
…that is a good idea and I wish I had thought of that. Way better worded than I could have done.
Geifer wrote: That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
Died on the second question. Probably just as well as one of the options was "I can't find anyone to play my" or something.
Also the options were obviously carefully worded. I almost didn't click "The game is too complicated" as a reason for not having played. As has been discussed to death, the game isn't complicated, just bloated, but there's no option for that. In the end I chose too complicated as well as haven't kept up with the rules because that might make whatever AI they have processing the result tell them to strip out some of the bloat.
Haha, also died on the second question... haven't played in a long time because the game is bloated and because pandemic, so that's where my story ended. Guess we don't count, even tho my 40k buying and hobbying hasn't slowed at all.
Yeah, I don't think the questions are brilliant. Like it's odd not to have "there's been a global pandemic" or "I've got young kids" as reasons for not playing much this year. It's not all about you lads!
I asked for -
1) Digital codexes back.
2) Letting units have full wargear options - no more Death Guard style only the stuff in the box, no more pretending Marine captains can't use a given gun and sword combination until a model comes out.
3) Just get rid of stratagems as a way to combat rules bloat - generally rules should apply to miniatures, not be these stand alone things.
I shortened my feedback about Lethality to try and make it more positive and readable.
I didnt copy it but, in essence I wrote:
"the addition of chapter traits, relics, stratagems, traits, purchaseable upgrades and doctrine rules have made the game quite a bit more customizable, which is good, but have also changed the fundamental dynamic of how much damage a unit can do and shifted almost all of it to pre-game decided factors.
The rules for line of sight are very open (any part of any model in the unit visible from any point opens the entire unit up to taking full damage) while the rules for claiming cover are quite restrictive and difficult (typically, all models in the unit must be very close to the cover, as well as the right unit type, to benefit.
This means that an assault intercessor from the Ultramarines chapter may deal X amount of damage, but if you declare him to be Black Templars, with such and such a vow, such and such an upgrade, and using a stratagem, he now deals 7X.
But an intercessor firing at a target unit in the open, 2" away, and an intercessor firing at a target 30" away, with one small bit of one model visible, are very likely to be doing exactly the same amount of damage, or to differ by a very very small amount."
Geifer wrote: That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
Died on the second question. Probably just as well as one of the options was "I can't find anyone to play my" or something.
Also the options were obviously carefully worded. I almost didn't click "The game is too complicated" as a reason for not having played. As has been discussed to death, the game isn't complicated, just bloated, but there's no option for that. In the end I chose too complicated as well as haven't kept up with the rules because that might make whatever AI they have processing the result tell them to strip out some of the bloat.
Wait, it's too complicated was in answer to the second question? Then I died even earlier than I thought. Must have imagined another question in between.
My pick was I don't like the game anymore, though.
Prometheum5 wrote: Haha, also died on the second question... haven't played in a long time because the game is bloated and because pandemic, so that's where my story ended. Guess we don't count, even tho my 40k buying and hobbying hasn't slowed at all.
Oddly enough the article explicitly asks for ex-players to participate, but it seems the survey is content to check if you're an ex-player and not bother to ask why or how you might be tempted back.
I asked for less stuff on special rules and more meat in the basic rules and interactions of the base game of units with other units and terrain, more than just killing each other.
I also said that the change from 65€ start collectings to 110€ combat patrols was bad. I saw a ton of SC! sold as impulse buys, I have yet to see combat patrols sell as good.
Galas wrote: There was a surprising amount of questions about the complexity and the amount of rules.
Yeah, GW knows whats happening here. Let's see if they learn.
Thats interesting. Considering I was told by some posters on here that complaining in a public space achieves nothing and GW would NEVER EVER pay attention to what a bunch of losers on Dakka would say I wonder how they came to that conclusion by themselves?
Dendarien wrote: The question about how often to do errata/points changes was the most interesting for me. Please do it quarterly at the minimum.
Honestly, yearly would be fine if they ever actually did anything.
at this point the points shifts from Chapter Approved tend to be like "we shaved 10pts off a land raider and added 2pts to drukhari raiders, and we completely left these three factions with 30% winrates alone, are you happy?"
The thing I want the most is the AOS style post-codex update books, where instead of adding pointless rules bloat they just go and update the datasheets for a bunch of various underperforming unit types.
Dendarien wrote: The question about how often to do errata/points changes was the most interesting for me. Please do it quarterly at the minimum.
I went with monthly. Quarterly and up, they might do it in a CA that costs money. They aren't going to print a CA every month. We need digital updates.
Dendarien wrote: The question about how often to do errata/points changes was the most interesting for me. Please do it quarterly at the minimum.
I went with monthly. Quarterly and up, they might do it in a CA that costs money. They aren't going to print a CA every month. We need digital updates.
Monthly small changes would be my preference, but quarterly would at least be a huge improvement over what we have right now. The game is so stale and out of whack.
Same thing happened to me ... Last time you played (2+years) and why don't you play it anymore (doesn't appeal to me anymore), survey ends
I mean..yes, theres nothing particularly nefarious about that because if you havent played in 2 years none of the other questions will be relevant to you.
I decided to have fun and chose ''never played'' and then as the answer ''I prefer other non wh games''...and that was it, ''thanks for the survey''. Really? It is like they do not care about aquiring potential customers...unless, they think that once you know other rulesets you will never want to play theirs.
Geifer wrote: That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
Theophony wrote: It died for me when i selected the rules were too complicated and hard to understand. Maybe I shouldn't be so blunt with them.
Was this after you said you hadn't played in 2+ years? Because it looks like it gives you options to explain why you haven't played and that seems like the info they'd need to collect and the rest wouldn't be relevant.
Same thing happened to me ... Last time you played (2+years) and why don't you play it anymore (doesn't appeal to me anymore), survey ends
I mean..yes, theres nothing particularly nefarious about that because if you havent played in 2 years none of the other questions will be relevant to you.
Well this is absolutely not true! There is a reason I haven't played in 2+ years. I still follow the releases, read the rules etc, because I hope they sort of row back from the design decisions they came up with for 8th and especially 9th and I would've loved to point out WHY I haven't touched 40k in that long of a time.
EDIT: Its also just plain stupid not wanting to know, why people quit. Almost everyone asks why you wanna quit something (Mobile-Contract, Internetprovider, even subscription based games like WoW) because it gives good intel
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
No, but if you had a 20 year background in playing chess, then quit for one or two years, then read the updated chess rules you'd have a fair idea of how things would play out.
Theophony wrote: It died for me when i selected the rules were too complicated and hard to understand. Maybe I shouldn't be so blunt with them.
Was this after you said you hadn't played in 2+ years? Because it looks like it gives you options to explain why you haven't played and that seems like the info they'd need to collect and the rest wouldn't be relevant.
Nope, told them I am a current player, just not on the tournament scene.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Quite clear from the way these questions are worded that GW has zero intention of improving 40k.
Huh? There looked to be plenty of areas where you can voice displeasure.
In a very limited and carefully predetermined Way .
I told them to Make rules and pts Free, especially the Updates.
In a way, I prefer that. I'd rather targeted questions which elicit targeted responses. No point inviting feedback which you have no interest in actioning.
What a flocking joke of a survey. I hadn't been able to play in 2 years because of covid, but since that was not a valid answer I just checked all the reasons. Reading this thread it seems to have mattered very little tho
Not Online!!! wrote: I told them to Make rules and pts Free, especially the Updates.
Is that all you told 'em? Seems like a waste of a feedback form to me. You've got to get it all in.
I created a word file and just started writing, going over each and every issue that I could think of with examples and alternatives (don't come to them with problems, come to them with solutions! ).
Chances for Games Workshop to officially ignore us en masse don't come up very often, so I wouldn't want to waste that!
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
No, but if you had a 20 year background in playing chess, then quit for one or two years, then read the updated chess rules you'd have a fair idea of how things would play out.
If Chess rules fundamentally changed that might be a good analogy.
I just wrote that they needed to start accounting for purchases of multiples of a kit when designing these mealy-mouthed unit upgrade options, specifically using Skitarii as my example (since that's what I know by heart).
Also ended with "Officers and Sergeants need to be able to take lasguns again and they're called hellguns not hotshots".
Not Online!!! wrote: I told them to Make rules and pts Free, especially the Updates.
Is that all you told 'em? Seems like a waste of a feedback form to me. You've got to get it all in.
I created a word file and just started writing, going over each and every issue that I could think of with examples and alternatives (don't come to them with problems, come to them with solutions! ).
Chances for Games Workshop to officially ignore us en masse don't come up very often, so I wouldn't want to waste that!
I asked for more Primaris lieutenants.
People who got kicked out should do the survey from their phone or at home if they want to kick in more detail.
What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Waaaghbert wrote: You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Well you're not an expert you see, so you shouldn't be allowed to have your say. Only those who regularly play the game and think everything is fine and nothing is broken can give their opinion of just how great and flawless it is.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
Daedalus81 wrote: People who got kicked out should do the survey from their phone or at home if they want to kick in more detail.
I don't know, that feels like cheating. I think I prefer having GW tell me my opinion isn't desired and top it off with a hearty feth you. This way at least both sides are honest with each other.
Not Online!!! wrote: I told them to Make rules and pts Free, especially the Updates.
Is that all you told 'em? Seems like a waste of a feedback form to me. You've got to get it all in.
I created a word file and just started writing, going over each and every issue that I could think of with examples and alternatives (don't come to them with problems, come to them with solutions! ).
Chances for Games Workshop to officially ignore us en masse don't come up very often, so I wouldn't want to waste that!
I kinda gave up on that after gw yeeting my fav faction and not replacing them with anything aswell as elysians and then proceeding to purge any comments on FB asking for either of those. (Or corsairs for that matter...)
They will only hear if they can make more money sadly.
Not that the community is much better considering that that Pill just got swallowed and the General answer was about :" you play fw sucks to suck" Type of nonsense or better yet apathy.
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
No, but if you had a 20 year background in playing chess, then quit for one or two years, then read the updated chess rules you'd have a fair idea of how things would play out.
If Chess rules fundamentally changed that might be a good analogy.
How did the rules between 8th and 9th "fundamentally" change?
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But the editions haven't changed much. 9th just added more bloat and organised strategems into categories. Post-PA 8th is basically the same as 9th. What made people quit in 8th is still the same reason they didn't pick up 9th.
I asked for quarterly updates. I was initially going to ask for monthly updates, but then I decided that it was actually better to have it update every three months as monthly updates could cause headaches for trying to remember what all the latest rules and values are. That said, if all the books were free on their digital app and were kept up to date within 12hrs of publicly released changes, then I suppose monthly could work.
It might cause some problems for tournaments before they figure out how to schedule around it, but it should only throw competent ones off for the first year or so as GW inevitably starts strong and slowly backtracks and pushes the updates later and later until it's back to yearly.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But 40k didn't significantly change from 8th to 9th! Many things that annoyed me in 8th still apply to 9th. It's just stupid behavior to ignore reasons why people quit
SergentSilver wrote: I asked for quarterly updates. I was initially going to ask for monthly updates, but then I decided that it was actually better to have it update every three months as monthly updates could cause headaches for trying to remember what all the latest rules and values are. That said, if all the books were free on their digital app and were kept up to date within 12hrs of publicly released changes, then I suppose monthly could work.
It might cause some problems for tournaments before they figure out how to schedule around it, but it should only throw competent ones off for the first year or so as GW inevitably starts strong and slowly backtracks and pushes the updates later and later until it's back to yearly.
I asked for monthly but they need to improve their app to facilitate it.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But 40k didn't significantly change from 8th to 9th! Many things that annoyed me in 8th still apply to 9th. It's just stupid behavior to ignore reasons why people quit
What annoyed you about 8th that still applies to 9th?
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
No, but if you had a 20 year background in playing chess, then quit for one or two years, then read the updated chess rules you'd have a fair idea of how things would play out.
If Chess rules fundamentally changed that might be a good analogy.
How did the rules between 8th and 9th "fundamentally" change?
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But the editions haven't changed much. 9th just added more bloat and organised strategems into categories. Post-PA 8th is basically the same as 9th. What made people quit in 8th is still the same reason they didn't pick up 9th.
Terrain rules, secondaries, modifier caps, and Crusade have changed the game quite a bit.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
Haha classic GW, finally give people a survey to make it at least seem like maybe they care, and then have it cut people off prematurely if they answer that they haven't played recently. They really can't help themselves from generating bad-will even when they are apparently attempting to do the opposite and trying to solicit peoples' feedback on how to improve.
I clicked that it had been two or more years since I played Warhammer. The next question was “Why so long?” There was no option choice for “because of the pandemic, Einstein.” Top notch survey there.
Geifer wrote: That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But 40k didn't significantly change from 8th to 9th! Many things that annoyed me in 8th still apply to 9th. It's just stupid behavior to ignore reasons why people quit
What annoyed you about 8th that still applies to 9th?
This is not the point. I'm not here to start that discussion with you or anyone, I was just pointing out that it's stupid to deny people a way to explain WHY they haven't played in 2+ years, what GW could've improved on a more "basic" level, that some people (I'm not alone here) dislike on the basic system that 8th and 9th share
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
Waaaghbert wrote: You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Well you're not an expert you see, so you shouldn't be allowed to have your say. Only those who regularly play the game and think everything is fine and nothing is broken can give their opinion of just how great and flawless it is.
I'll be honest friends I was pretty gosh darn negative, I literally just think its the first question where its like 'how recently have you played (i.e....are you a customer of our company)' that kicks you out.
Its a company.
Theyre trying to make money, like a company.
They dont want to change things for the opinions of people who are not making them any money, because it's intended to be a current consumer survey.
there doesnt appear to be any filtering out of negative opinions. I put in the MOST POSSIBLE negative opinions on every survey question, I just answered truthfully on the last time I played...last week.
SergentSilver wrote: I asked for quarterly updates. I was initially going to ask for monthly updates, but then I decided that it was actually better to have it update every three months as monthly updates could cause headaches for trying to remember what all the latest rules and values are. That said, if all the books were free on their digital app and were kept up to date within 12hrs of publicly released changes, then I suppose monthly could work.
It might cause some problems for tournaments before they figure out how to schedule around it, but it should only throw competent ones off for the first year or so as GW inevitably starts strong and slowly backtracks and pushes the updates later and later until it's back to yearly.
I asked for monthly but they need to improve their app to facilitate it.
They could just release a digital document. They already did it once this year.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But 40k didn't significantly change from 8th to 9th! Many things that annoyed me in 8th still apply to 9th. It's just stupid behavior to ignore reasons why people quit
What annoyed you about 8th that still applies to 9th?
This is not the point. I'm not here to start that discussion with you or anyone, I was just pointing out that it's stupid to deny people a way to explain WHY they haven't played in 2+ years, what GW could've improved on a more "basic" level, that some people (I'm not alone here) dislike on the basic system that 8th and 9th share
I get that, but I'm a willing audience: what in 8th annoys you that is still present?
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
No, but if you had a 20 year background in playing chess, then quit for one or two years, then read the updated chess rules you'd have a fair idea of how things would play out.
If Chess rules fundamentally changed that might be a good analogy.
How did the rules between 8th and 9th "fundamentally" change?
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
I don't think GW much cares why people didn't like 8th edition, because they're on 9th edition and probably working on 10th edition. If I started talking about the state of Warhammer 40k 5th edition I don't think they would be able to apply any of that feedback at all...
You're allowed to have an opinion! Nobody is saying you aren't! It's just probably not a useful one if it's about 8th edition.
But the editions haven't changed much. 9th just added more bloat and organised strategems into categories. Post-PA 8th is basically the same as 9th. What made people quit in 8th is still the same reason they didn't pick up 9th.
Terrain rules, secondaries, modifier caps, and Crusade have changed the game quite a bit.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
Surely people salty enough wouldn't just lie about playing recently and still skew the survey results this way.
If anything, this would let GW filter out the truly toxic feedback easier.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
I do love the way you characterize experience as 'needless salty whiners.' That certainly makes things open for discussion.
Not having any option to mention COVID etc seems like a massive blind spot for such a survey. However, one of my last questions did ask about my living situation, so I at least one person in charge thought having kids might affect gaming time.
I got to complain about there being too many stratagems, the rules being too complicated (read - bloated) and have a go at them for the wargear restrictions in the open section.
I'm also +1 for quarterly balance updates. The current tournament results show how quickly the game can get stale, even with a steady supply of new codexs.
Gregor Samsa wrote: Quite clear from the way these questions are worded that GW has zero intention of improving 40k.
Huh? There looked to be plenty of areas where you can voice displeasure.
Two questions. That’s all I got. The only way to get to the area where one can voice displeasure is to lie and kiss up for the first few questions, which renders honest feedback useless.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
I do love the way you characterize experience as 'needless salty whiners.' That certainly makes things open for discussion.
About as open as taking feedback on something someone has never experienced eh?
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
The cut off is 2+ years, don't use hyperbole to make it seem like it's a bunch of grognards complaining.
I covered how it's good that a single Codex can make distinct armies that feel different from one another, how I think Crusade is a great idea, the problems with the coherency/horde rules, the morale rules, cover & line of sight rules, vehicle/monster durability - made specific mention of Rhinos being tougher than Carnifexes! - the general absurd lethality of the game, the endlessly layered rules, the overabundance of stratagems (especially those that are unit specific, and therefore should just be special rules for those units, and equipment strats, that should just be wargear), the asinine changes to weapon options based on specific kits, how the fortification rules don't function, how there are too many similar rules that do mostly the same thing and how standardisation, codification and scalability would go a long way to fixing that, how the FOC is pointless, how Guard need platoons and Officers should be in command squads and not separate, how the objectives in 9th are awfully boring and that as a result secondary objectives have become the primary focus, how Chapter Approved has collapsed into a sterile tournament book devoid of any of the creativity and fun it once had, how we shouldn't have to fething pay for points changes, and, finally, why it doesn't make sense for Rhinos to be tougher than Carnifexes.
I may have mentioned that last one more than once.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'll be sure to ask for more stratagems, smaller tables, and more killy power next time.
I just can't tell anymore if you're being serious or not. Maybe you could better explain if you posted an entire page of math for me to read.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
The cut off is 2+ years, don't use hyperbole to make it seem like it's a bunch of grognards complaining.
What is a reasonable cut off? They want feedback based on the current edition of the game.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
I do love the way you characterize experience as 'needless salty whiners.' That certainly makes things open for discussion.
About as open as taking feedback on something someone has never experienced eh?
Good gatekeeping. Well done.
You definitely don't want returning or new customers from other systems, or just new customers in general, no sirree.
Next year, I guess the cutoff will be anyone not subbed to the App, right? That good for you?
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
The cut off is 2+ years, don't use hyperbole to make it seem like it's a bunch of grognards complaining.
What is a reasonable cut off? They want feedback based on the current edition of the game.
There shouldn't be a cut off. As has been mentioned, if someone selected an option that dated their last game to pre-9th, it should have gone to "what will bring you back", no "okay, feth off then".
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
I do love the way you characterize experience as 'needless salty whiners.' That certainly makes things open for discussion.
About as open as taking feedback on something someone has never experienced eh?
Good gatekeeping. Well done.
You definitely don't want returning or new customers from other systems, or just new customers in general, no sirree.
Next year, I guess the cutoff will be anyone not subbed to the App, right? That good for you?
I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
Dudeface wrote: I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
And people have been countering that by saying that the ability to read and understand the game without necessarily having played it still means that they should have a voice.
I mean, by your logic, we can't have an opinion on any new book that comes out until we personally have played a game using that book, even if we have complete understanding of the base rules and can read the new rules and comprehend how they interact.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forget cut-offs or no cut-offs. The people who designed this should have gone "Oh, right: COVID!" and just scrapped that portion of the quiz.
Bunch'a idiots...
No, no, the danger is over, everyone go back to the GW stores to Forge the Narrative. If you weren't forging the narrative in the last two plague-ridden years clearly you a hater, sir.
Zero reason to cut people off from providing more feedback. If GW isn't interested in hearing feedback from people who haven't played in the last 2 years (I mean, that would be stupid, but let's run with it for a moment), all it had to do was just filter that data out and not pay attention to it. Even if you're going to ignore someone, there's no reason to tell them that to their face.
Sometimes you really get the feeling GW is run by a bunch of utterly clueless middle managers who have never actually interacted with a real person in their lives.
Dudeface wrote: I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
And people have been countering that by saying that the ability to read and understand the game without necessarily having played it still means that they should have a voice.
I mean, by your logic, we can't have an opinion on any new book that comes out until we personally have played a game using that book, even if we have complete understanding of the base rules and can read the new rules and comprehend how they interact.
Well no, sometimes if something is so hideously misrepresented in the rules it'll stand out like a sore thumb, but I don't think anyone on the release of the Ork book was expecting the sort of dominance from buggies/planes the way we're seeing it now. That has become more apparent with time and experience most importantly.
Reading the books (if they have bought them and read them which I doubt if they're not intending to play), will grant you a knee-jerk response at best because it can't be quantified.
Dudeface wrote: I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
And people have been countering that by saying that the ability to read and understand the game without necessarily having played it still means that they should have a voice.
I mean, by your logic, we can't have an opinion on any new book that comes out until we personally have played a game using that book, even if we have complete understanding of the base rules and can read the new rules and comprehend how they interact.
He's using the "how do you know that dog turd I put on your plate tastes like dog turd? Have you tried it?" defence. Don't engage.
Dudeface wrote: I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
And people have been countering that by saying that the ability to read and understand the game without necessarily having played it still means that they should have a voice.
I mean, by your logic, we can't have an opinion on any new book that comes out until we personally have played a game using that book, even if we have complete understanding of the base rules and can read the new rules and comprehend how they interact.
He's using the "how do you know that dog turd I put on your plate tastes like dog turd? Have you tried it?" defence. Don't engage.
Dudeface wrote: I'm gatekeeping feedback on the current rules by accepting they want feedback from people who have actually played it, sounds appropriate.
And people have been countering that by saying that the ability to read and understand the game without necessarily having played it still means that they should have a voice.
I mean, by your logic, we can't have an opinion on any new book that comes out until we personally have played a game using that book, even if we have complete understanding of the base rules and can read the new rules and comprehend how they interact.
He's using the "how do you know that dog turd I put on your plate tastes like dog turd? Have you tried it?" defence. Don't engage.
How do you know what dog turd tastes like?
Smell and taste are the same particles hitting your senses.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just can't tell anymore if you're being serious or not. Maybe you could better explain if you posted an entire page of math for me to read.
It's very important for me to fill out this survey about the flavor of dog turds. Why are they gatekeeping my opinions on dog turds?? I should be able to tell them what breed of dog to collect turds from, even though I won't eat their dog turds.
edit: but I am strongly considering eating their dog turds if they collect them from German Shephards, like they did in the 4th iteration of their turd menu!
Rihgu wrote: It's very important for me to fill out this survey about the flavor of dog turds. Why are they gatekeeping my opinions on dog turds?? I should be able to tell them what breed of dog to collect turds from, even though I won't eat their dog turds.
Glad we can agree that 40k is currently a dog turd.
They really took the wind out of the sails of the “keep politics out of my hobby” crowd by openly denying the existence of Covid and lockdowns, and shutting down anyone who practices social distancing. Can’t wait to see how this plays out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They really took the wind out of the sails of the “keep politics out of my hobby” crowd by openly denying the existence of Covid and lockdowns, and shutting down anyone who practices social distancing. Can’t wait to see how this plays out.
I and many others have been practicing social distancing and respecting lockdowns, etc, while still playing Warhammer 40k (over virtual tabletops). While acknowledging that this option isn't available or interesting for everybody, I'm not going to pretend like the only way for anybody to have played 40k in the last 2 years is by being the wrong politic? Not 100% sure what you're implying with the politics comment.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They really took the wind out of the sails of the “keep politics out of my hobby” crowd by openly denying the existence of Covid and lockdowns, and shutting down anyone who practices social distancing. Can’t wait to see how this plays out.
Just redo the survey and pick 1 year or w/e. There isn't anything GW can do about COVID.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I am needling GW for sticking their foot in something they try so hard to avoid.
It’s a similar own-goal to advertising a survey where their customers can finally feel heard, and then immediately telling most of them to f-off.
Is it a customer survey or a player survey? I got the impression that since it was asking about the game, and not about my purchases, that it was a player survey.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I am needling GW for sticking their foot in something they try so hard to avoid.
It’s a similar own-goal to advertising a survey where their customers can finally feel heard, and then immediately telling most of them to f-off.
Is it a customer survey or a player survey? I got the impression that since it was asking about the game, and not about my purchases, that it was a player survey.
I got a few customer questions, so there is at least one path that leads to those in there.
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
You wanna be toxic, go ahead and be toxic.
I have played various GW games since the mid-90s, and still do. Warhammer 40k lately? No.
I still have an opinion on that game, though.
Sure. But if I'm a company, and I'm currently going from "Stocks go up" to "Stocks go down" i want to know about my RECENT customers who are pissed off. I dont want data from you, I want to go back to "Stocks go up".
If I was pissing you off but pleasing enough other people for stocks go up....thats what I want. I want to piss you off and please other people.
But stocks go down! Why stocks go down, customers????
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I am needling GW for sticking their foot in something they try so hard to avoid.
It’s a similar own-goal to advertising a survey where their customers can finally feel heard, and then immediately telling most of them to f-off.
Is it a customer survey or a player survey? I got the impression that since it was asking about the game, and not about my purchases, that it was a player survey.
I got a few customer questions, so there is at least one path that leads to those in there.
Oh, interesting. I don't think any of the questions I got related at all to purchasing product! I wonder what the path to get there was?
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
You wanna be toxic, go ahead and be toxic.
I have played various GW games since the mid-90s, and still do. Warhammer 40k lately? No.
I still have an opinion on that game, though.
Sure. But if I'm a company, and I'm currently going from "Stocks go up" to "Stocks go down" i want to know about my RECENT customers who are pissed off. I dont want data from you, I want to go back to "Stocks go up".
If I was pissing you off but pleasing enough other people for stocks go up....thats what I want. I want to piss you off and please other people.
But stocks go down! Why stocks go down, customers????
This is the truth of it really and as much as the game can be greatly improved, I don't think the rules of 40k are really the issue.
I dare say people coming out of furlough/lockdown and having notably less time are the main causes for a dip.
Imagine thinking that good data is generated through statements such as “how often should we fix the broken things that we designed”.
The fact of the matter is that GW got sloppy and cheap in not investing enough resources into game design for its flagship tabletop products.
I don’t know why people who think 9th edition is good are getting upset ITT. You should be celebrating because this survey demonstrates unequivocally that there will be absolutely no fundamental changes to the deep flaws (features) in the core mechanics of warhammer. So rest east and go out and collect all those strategem expansion warzone books and have it at it!!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I am needling GW for sticking their foot in something they try so hard to avoid.
It’s a similar own-goal to advertising a survey where their customers can finally feel heard, and then immediately telling most of them to f-off.
Is it a customer survey or a player survey? I got the impression that since it was asking about the game, and not about my purchases, that it was a player survey.
I got a few customer questions, so there is at least one path that leads to those in there.
Oh, interesting. I don't think any of the questions I got related at all to purchasing product! I wonder what the path to get there was?
If I was aware before, I would have taken note just for interest sake. I was more focused on the game portion of the survey thinking everyone would get the same questions.
If I read a book on chess would I become an expert at chess or would I have to put that knowledge into practice?
You wanna be toxic, go ahead and be toxic.
I have played various GW games since the mid-90s, and still do. Warhammer 40k lately? No.
I still have an opinion on that game, though.
Sure. But if I'm a company, and I'm currently going from "Stocks go up" to "Stocks go down" i want to know about my RECENT customers who are pissed off. I dont want data from you, I want to go back to "Stocks go up".
If I was pissing you off but pleasing enough other people for stocks go up....thats what I want. I want to piss you off and please other people.
But stocks go down! Why stocks go down, customers????
This is the truth of it really and as much as the game can be greatly improved, I don't think the rules of 40k are really the issue.
I dare say people coming out of furlough/lockdown and having notably less time are the main causes for a dip.
yeah probably.
But hey, maybe if we get them to make the game a little better because of it itll be a win win.
I do like to think that at least a little bit of the dip was caused by people who built armies during lockdown actually cracking open a rulebook and going
"wait...
....what? Doctrina...whats? What is a "logos." how do I....canticles? OK, this guy gives me a "stratagem" for free so what's a *flips page* Ohhhhh, oh no...."
Geifer wrote: That was entertaining, choose your own adventure style. I died after the third question and the survey just stopped. Didn't know this was a rogue-like.
You got a third question?
Probably not. Upon reflection I think I may have counted "start survey" as a successful answer. Or the goodbye page.
It seems pretty foolish of them to cut off survey feedback if you let them know you haven't played in a long time.
Even if they had no intention of actioning anything suggested by someone that hasn't played in a while, it would be much easier to take their feedback and just filter it out of the results and ignore it when they do their analysis. Not that it's a good idea mind you. Would it really hurt to look at what the people who don't play say and see if it lines up with what the people who DO play say?
I really can't see a reason for it. If someone takes the trouble to open a survey, let them give you some data. Now they've just pissed some people off that at worst, could have given them data they don't plan to do anything with.
Yeah someone obviously realised they didn't want feedback on how the game plays from people who aren't playing, which is understandable, but they could've just filtered it at the analysis stage without losing data
Basically put over the message that I have no interest in professional matchplay and want to see at least one supplement that covers solo-coop play, as they did for Age of Sigmar via WHC and WD. Would also like to see more experimental rules and ideas for open play, instead of just "yeah, sure, just do whatever you want" and call it a mode of play. We can easily deduce that ourselves without even reading the rules.
I did not appreciate the questions about the combined income of our households and our living situation as its none of their business. If they want to be greedy and price players out of their brand without giving a damn then thats their prerogative, but those questions are insult to injury. Refused to answer them.
Also put in a complaint regarding the constant barrage of £100+ boxsets when players just want to buy their new codex and a model to add to their collection. If I'm an Ork player, why would I want a bunch of Space Wolves as well? How am I supposed to get excited over "yeah! you can buy Ghaz separately in a few months time! isn't that great? Got your credit card ready?".
Fed up with the chapter approved and warzone supplements. A codex should be the bible for a faction. Full stop. A new book on the shelf every few years is one thing, but multiple hardbacks for each edition is quite another.
Man, a form of Open Play that would actually allow me to play games of 40k with folks who only get a game in every couple of months/people who dont know the game....that would be, you know, easier?
Most of my free form feedback was on how hard it is to bring in new players and make them stick around. Rules complexity, lack of guidance on building your force, price pressures on new players (hard for those who are not themselves well set or with well set parents to get in), etc. I've seen a lot of RPG and boardgame companies make initiatives to bring in new folks, but not seeing it from GW (or not effectively done)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They really took the wind out of the sails of the “keep politics out of my hobby” crowd by openly denying the existence of Covid and lockdowns, and shutting down anyone who practices social distancing. Can’t wait to see how this plays out.
Just redo the survey and pick 1 year or w/e. There isn't anything GW can do about COVID.
Acknowledging it as a reason for not playing over the last 18-24 months doesn't seem an unreasonable accommodation, though.
Commisar Marbh wrote: Most of my free form feedback was on how hard it is to bring in new players and make them stick around. Rules complexity, lack of guidance on building your force, price pressures on new players (hard for those who are not themselves well set or with well set parents to get in), etc. I've seen a lot of RPG and boardgame companies make initiatives to bring in new folks, but not seeing it from GW (or not effectively done)
I think Kill Team is effectively this, but whoever theyve got on their 40k team really, REALLY likes making these huge enormous mind-numbing wall of words lists for their rules.
Like this is supposed to be your friggin intro game, GW?
Your kill team can include 2 fire teams
your kill team can include either a skitarii maniple fire team or a sicarian clade fire team
if you include 2 sicarian clade fire teams one operative must be a sicarian leader operative or a sicarian ruststalker leader operative with a flechette blaster and power sword OR a stubmaster 9000 and electric cheese grater
if you include 2 skitarii maniple fire teams then you get an EXTRA leader operative who must be a skitarii ranger alpha or skitarii vanguard alpha with two of the following weapons: (Long parenthetical list)
one of your sicarians may be a sicarian warmaster
one of your sicarians may be a sicarian toasterstriker
one of your sicarians may be a sicarian huntleader
one of your skitarii may be a skitarii dogilius
one of your skitarii may be a skitarii shlaxamor
one of your skitarii may be a skitarii gunner with transyouranus arcklebark
one of your sktitarii may be a skitarii gunner with plasmic slamser
one of your skitarii may be a skitarii gunner with arc blaster
you MAY NOT NOT NOT INCLUDE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE GUNNER WITH THE SAME OR DIFFERENT WEAPONRY IN BATTLEFORGED FIRE TEAMS
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have a creeping feeling that whoever The Mad Namesmith at GW works on the team that designs the unit selection rules.
They certainly had a time when codex had a lot of options but were written in a simple manner. Then they seemed to go nuts for several editions - breaking up the information has long been a problem (its a bit better now); flipping through 3 or 4 pages in the book for each model for points, abilities, weapon options and the core unit stats is a pain.
Granted it likely makes it easier to update with an errata, but at the same time having more info on each unit page AS WELL as summary tables (points, weapons etc...) makes things much easier when flipping between two or three units to compare and make choices.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
Excuse me? The link to the survey even says
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, [b]we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
If the survey then kicks you haven’t played 9th, that’s a bunch of BS.
Luckily, I must have answered I played more recently (it didn’t ask if it was specifically 9th I played anyways), so I gave them both barrels, reloaded and hit them again. I’ve got several thousand dollars worth of 40K I’d like to use - a fair bit bought during 8E, but no desire to play the current version nor do I like the path they’ve chosen. Personally, I’d like to roll back to the 8E indexes and have them take the other path towards less complexity/power creep and instead working on balance and fixing rule hiccups.
But hey, maybe if we get them to make the game a little better because of it itll be a win win.
I do like to think that at least a little bit of the dip was caused by people who built armies during lockdown actually cracking open a rulebook and going
"wait...
....what? Doctrina...whats? What is a "logos." how do I....canticles? OK, this guy gives me a "stratagem" for free so what's a *flips page* Ohhhhh, oh no...."
This survey has absolutely nothing to do with stock. GW hasn't released any half year or full year report. The stock is primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend and COVID and Brexit messes with that.
I found it odd that they didn't have an option for 1500 on ideal playing level. Across most any edition I have played that is my preferred point level. I guess it has to do with their specific tiering system tieing CP and such to 1k and 2k specifically, but just seems like an odd oversight.
On my freeform bit I just said I felt the game was simultaneously too simple and too complex, what with poor morale rules, no ability to pin foes down, flank them, or really interact beyond "kill them" while at the exact same time having wombo combos of stratagems and buffs and subfactions that can be layered onto each other to create what to a new player or outsider to be an unintuitive wrecking ball. I then went on to mention how I disliked the way line of sight/true line of sight works and how terrain is still not in a great place, mentioned that the game is just too lethal on the whole, and that I'd like a return to Universal Special Rules over having what is similarly worded (or sometimes the exact same wording) rules under different names across units and codices (I believe the example I used to highlight it was Duty Eternal and Disgustingly Resilient and how they could easily just be called "Damage Reduction X").
But hey, maybe if we get them to make the game a little better because of it itll be a win win.
I do like to think that at least a little bit of the dip was caused by people who built armies during lockdown actually cracking open a rulebook and going
"wait...
....what? Doctrina...whats? What is a "logos." how do I....canticles? OK, this guy gives me a "stratagem" for free so what's a *flips page* Ohhhhh, oh no...."
This survey has absolutely nothing to do with stock. GW hasn't released any half year or full year report. The stock is primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend and COVID and Brexit messes with that.
I think it makes more sense that the financial analysts at the large entities holding most of the GW stock are all in agreement that GW 'needz moar better rulez' and are therefore dumping most of their clients' positions.
Lord Damocles wrote: I like how I couldn't be both 'living at home' and 'living alone'...
In the US at least, the phrase 'living at home' usually means 'living with your parents'.
Yea, but GW's Bri'ish, innit mate.
That has nothing to do with my comment. I just explained what's meant by that phrase. If this is a source of outrage for you, you should start a online petition or something I guess.
I laughed so hard. Man, the first question, "when was the last time you played 40K". And then they proceed to ask about the current game modes.
I just ended up calling it yugioh.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad.
But hey, maybe if we get them to make the game a little better because of it itll be a win win.
I do like to think that at least a little bit of the dip was caused by people who built armies during lockdown actually cracking open a rulebook and going
"wait...
....what? Doctrina...whats? What is a "logos." how do I....canticles? OK, this guy gives me a "stratagem" for free so what's a *flips page* Ohhhhh, oh no...."
This survey has absolutely nothing to do with stock. GW hasn't released any half year or full year report. The stock is primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend and COVID and Brexit messes with that.
Lolwut? Of course GW is concerned about stock; this is the first (okay, looking at the graph, second) significant contraction since we got nuGW, I guarantee that's a hot topic right now (regardless of the timing of a report). And naturally a survey would be a good place to get some insights into how a decline might be reversed.
Also c'mon, "primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend", gimme a break. Yes, rich people own stocks. Regular average Joes do too. You've got a 401k, right? You own stock then. Additionally, dividend aristocrat stocks are often owned by pension funds and the like. Most dividend stocks don't rocket up like GW's did either, so it's not like that's how rich people got rich; it's just a relatively secure, conservative place to park your money.
Waaaghbert wrote: What's up with this "if you haven't played in the last two years you not entitled to have an opinion" crowd going wild here?
You like 40k and have played in the last 2 years? cool, enjoy it give your feedback and continue. I tried 8th didn't enjoy it and would love to have the opportunity to say why. My opinion is not suddenly "worthless"
Let's reword the scope of the survey:
"Please provide feedback based on your games of 9th edition, to help shape improvements to the game and the next edition"
'Improvements to the game and next edition' aren't improved by shutting people's previous experience out.
Or even the things they'd like to see.
If you haven't played 9th, you have no real world experience of the current game to provide feedback with, it's really not unreasonable. I understand what you're saying but they likely didn't want to open it up to a horde of needless salty whiners who haven't bought or played anything in a decade.
One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad.
One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
You know what they could have curtailed all this with a "your games gak and I won't play it" option at the start, it could redirect to a "please tell us why you think it's worthless trash" and then end and all gripes are resolved.
Lolwut? Of course GW is concerned about stock; this is the first (okay, looking at the graph, second) significant contraction since we got nuGW, I guarantee that's a hot topic right now (regardless of the timing of a report). And naturally a survey would be a good place to get some insights into how a decline might be reversed.
Also c'mon, "primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend", gimme a break. Yes, rich people own stocks. Regular average Joes do too. You've got a 401k, right? You own stock then. Additionally, dividend aristocrat stocks are often owned by pension funds and the like. Most dividend stocks don't rocket up like GW's did either, so it's not like that's how rich people got rich; it's just a relatively secure, conservative place to park your money.
*sigh*
The dip literally coincides with the press release from GW:
Games Workshop Group PLC announces today that trading for the three months to 29 August 2021 was in line with the Board’s expectations. Sales continue to grow but, as with other businesses, we have seen pressure on freight costs and currency exchange rates.
The Board has also today declared a dividend of 25 pence per share. This is in line with the Company’s policy to distribute truly surplus cash. This will be paid on 5 November 2021 for shareholders on the register at 1 October 2021, with an ex-dividend date of 30 September 2021. The last date for elections for the dividend re-investment plan is 15 October 2021.
The top 10% own 89% of the stock market. The same will be true of the LSE. Mutual funds don't typically cut and run on stocks like a day trader.
I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, so have seen the game go through some changes over the decades.
My understanding is that 9th edition was meant as a clean up of 8th edition, which was a departure from the cluster of a mess that 7th edition had become. It (7th edition) suffered from rules bloat, so needed the change. During the Index period of 8th edition it was a fun enjoyable game. However this soon stopped when the Codexes came out, and yet again we saw rules bloat.
9th edition has just escalated that process, and now we are in the same situation where 7th edition was. The game is no longer fun, or accessible. A game is won or lost mainly in the list building part of the game, which feels like the game has taken an odd direction. What a player does on the battlefield should be key to deciding victory and defeat.
I honestly think that a few changes need to be made to make the game fun, an more accessible to a wider audience.
• Alternative activations. IGOUGO is an out dated game format, and with the increase in just how lethal the shooting phase is now armies can easily be removed within a one shooting phase. That is not fun, and can turn people away from the game. Alternative Activations allow for greater player interaction, while also making the game more about what a player does on the table and less about what list they brought. It also stops the chances of alpha strike, while creating more fire fights, and protracted combats. Things that are exciting as they ebb and flow, with no clear victor known until the end.
• Weapon Ranges are far too long now. As Rapid Fire weapons can move and fire at full range (a change that was made in 4th edition), Heavy Weapons can now move and fire, all on a smaller table size now is a recipe for a bad experience. Rapid Fire weapons as they were in 3rd edition were brilliant. They put players in a situation where they had to make choices, sometimes difficult choices. Do I hang back to get maximum firepower from my unit, or do I advance towards that objective knowing that my units fire power will be reduced. Now that choice has been removed.
• Scale of the game. 2nd edition was a skirmish game, and the rules reflected that. 3rd edition was a platoon level game, and the rules reflected that. 9th edition is all over the place, supersonic air craft which move like hover craft (there should be a dedicated aircraft phase, where aircraft fly on to the table, shoot, fly off the table with any anti air craft getting the chance to take take out), super heavy vehicles from the old Epic game system now stride the battlefield. All the while we have detailed rules for unique pistols. The scale seems to straddle both the small and the large. This creates a very odd mixture and makes the game feel like it doesn't know what it is aiming to be. Personally I found that as soon as the super heavies and fliers were added the game suffered immensely. Thise things belong in Epic, or the Apocalypse game format, not standard 40K.
• Rules bloat. So now we have A plethora of Faction specific Stratagems, unique Faction Relics, Warlord Traits, Faction rules, and Sub-Faction rules, in addition to unit special rules. This is simply too much front loaded complexity and rule interaction. It creates a lot of areas where players are left not knowing what is happening and how things interact. It is all too easy to forget some rule which can lose them the game. Adding complexity to a game doesn't make it deep and tactical, one need only lookat the likes of the game Go to see how simple rule set can create a very tactically deep game. Scale back the sheer number of special rules.
• Number of factions. The game groans under the number of factions now, especially as each flavour of Marine Chapter have been given their own Codex, each with unique units, wargear, etc. Adding to the already high number of factions can also put players into a position where they don't know what their opponent force is or does, which again can create a few issues, because factions are a lot more than just their stat line due to all the extra rules dotted around. What is even more of an issue is that we see long time factions such as the Eldar and Tyranids suffer with models that are very old, yet new Marine factions are getting the Primaris treatment left right and centre.
• Speed of editions. If players want to keep up to date with the rules they need to purchase all the books that go with an edition. As we are seeing editions come and go so quickly it is creating a lot of waste. We live in an age where people are conscious of their environmental impact. Printed books that have a short shelf life are something that needs changing.
Essentially I think the setting and lore of the game are what appeal to me. The game rules just frustrate me and leave me cold. I honestly thinknthe game could do with either going back to basics, or a complete overhaul. Every edition since 3rd edition has felt like it is just modifying the core rules of 3rd edition without looking at what made 3rd edition work so well. The end result is we get a game that is a bit of a Frankensteins's Monster with parts added here and there with no understanding of how this will impact the game.
What I find deeply puzzling is that GW have shown recently that you can make fantastic rule sets, Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth, Warhammer Underworlds, and Imperialis Aeronautica come to mind. So why is 40K so bad?
Lolwut? Of course GW is concerned about stock; this is the first (okay, looking at the graph, second) significant contraction since we got nuGW, I guarantee that's a hot topic right now (regardless of the timing of a report). And naturally a survey would be a good place to get some insights into how a decline might be reversed.
Also c'mon, "primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend", gimme a break. Yes, rich people own stocks. Regular average Joes do too. You've got a 401k, right? You own stock then. Additionally, dividend aristocrat stocks are often owned by pension funds and the like. Most dividend stocks don't rocket up like GW's did either, so it's not like that's how rich people got rich; it's just a relatively secure, conservative place to park your money.
*sigh*
The dip literally coincides with the press release from GW:
Games Workshop Group PLC announces today that trading for the three months to 29 August 2021 was in line with the Board’s expectations. Sales continue to grow but, as with other businesses, we have seen pressure on freight costs and currency exchange rates.
The Board has also today declared a dividend of 25 pence per share. This is in line with the Company’s policy to distribute truly surplus cash. This will be paid on 5 November 2021 for shareholders on the register at 1 October 2021, with an ex-dividend date of 30 September 2021. The last date for elections for the dividend re-investment plan is 15 October 2021.
The top 10% own 89% of the stock market. The same will be true of the LSE. Mutual funds don't typically cut and run on stocks like a day trader.
IF GW releases lower sales figures THEN you can tie this to that, but the statement above indicates that sales continue to grow.
Also of note is that by tying people's retirement funds to the stock market you create a system where rich people can gamble company assets for more money or dividends, but should they fail then either the government bails the wealthy out (like with the airline industry, the banks post housing market crash, the automobile industry, investment funds, etc. etc...) or a bunch of people with 401K's find their retirement funds destroyed... So now your tax dollars bail out rich people making stupid bets. And yes the overwhelming majority of stocks are in fact owned by the wealthy as was cited earlier. Billionaires get bailouts all the time when they mismanage their billions in assets and millionaires their millions, and proceed to lay people off, but when a mistake or god forbid a pandemic happens, or should the rich person you work for mismanage their assets and lay you off, there's no bail out for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back on topic though yes I definitely explained various barriers to entry, barriers to retention, and a few general fixes I would make to make the game better.
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
Lolwut? Of course GW is concerned about stock; this is the first (okay, looking at the graph, second) significant contraction since we got nuGW, I guarantee that's a hot topic right now (regardless of the timing of a report). And naturally a survey would be a good place to get some insights into how a decline might be reversed.
Also c'mon, "primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend", gimme a break. Yes, rich people own stocks. Regular average Joes do too. You've got a 401k, right? You own stock then. Additionally, dividend aristocrat stocks are often owned by pension funds and the like. Most dividend stocks don't rocket up like GW's did either, so it's not like that's how rich people got rich; it's just a relatively secure, conservative place to park your money.
*sigh*
The dip literally coincides with the press release from GW:
Games Workshop Group PLC announces today that trading for the three months to 29 August 2021 was in line with the Board’s expectations. Sales continue to grow but, as with other businesses, we have seen pressure on freight costs and currency exchange rates.
The Board has also today declared a dividend of 25 pence per share. This is in line with the Company’s policy to distribute truly surplus cash. This will be paid on 5 November 2021 for shareholders on the register at 1 October 2021, with an ex-dividend date of 30 September 2021. The last date for elections for the dividend re-investment plan is 15 October 2021.
The top 10% own 89% of the stock market. The same will be true of the LSE. Mutual funds don't typically cut and run on stocks like a day trader.
IF GW releases lower sales figures THEN you can tie this to that, but the statement above indicates that sales continue to grow.
I didn't make any comments on whether sales were growing or not. I'm sure the rate of growth has decreased but that's besides the point. GW stock matters, that's the bottom line. Earlier this year, when GW paid out bonuses to employees, it was in the form of shares. We know Rountree and many others under him get a significant portion of their compensation in stock options and stock. *Of course* it matters to those folks when the stock goes down. That's got nothing to do with some weak argument about the 10%/1%, and anyway that's all venturing into politics anyways, so let's steer clear of it.
Lolwut? Of course GW is concerned about stock; this is the first (okay, looking at the graph, second) significant contraction since we got nuGW, I guarantee that's a hot topic right now (regardless of the timing of a report). And naturally a survey would be a good place to get some insights into how a decline might be reversed.
Also c'mon, "primarily owned by rich people who expect a dividend", gimme a break. Yes, rich people own stocks. Regular average Joes do too. You've got a 401k, right? You own stock then. Additionally, dividend aristocrat stocks are often owned by pension funds and the like. Most dividend stocks don't rocket up like GW's did either, so it's not like that's how rich people got rich; it's just a relatively secure, conservative place to park your money.
*sigh*
The dip literally coincides with the press release from GW:
Games Workshop Group PLC announces today that trading for the three months to 29 August 2021 was in line with the Board’s expectations. Sales continue to grow but, as with other businesses, we have seen pressure on freight costs and currency exchange rates.
The Board has also today declared a dividend of 25 pence per share. This is in line with the Company’s policy to distribute truly surplus cash. This will be paid on 5 November 2021 for shareholders on the register at 1 October 2021, with an ex-dividend date of 30 September 2021. The last date for elections for the dividend re-investment plan is 15 October 2021.
The top 10% own 89% of the stock market. The same will be true of the LSE. Mutual funds don't typically cut and run on stocks like a day trader.
IF GW releases lower sales figures THEN you can tie this to that, but the statement above indicates that sales continue to grow.
Also of note is that by tying people's retirement funds to the stock market you create a system where rich people can gamble company assets for more money or dividends, but should they fail then either the government bails the wealthy out (like with the airline industry, the banks post housing market crash, the automobile industry, investment funds, etc. etc...) or a bunch of people with 401K's find their retirement funds destroyed... So now your tax dollars bail out rich people making stupid bets. And yes the overwhelming majority of stocks are in fact owned by the wealthy as was cited earlier. Billionaires get bailouts all the time when they mismanage their billions in assets and millionaires their millions, and proceed to lay people off, but when a mistake or god forbid a pandemic happens, or should the rich person you work for mismanage their assets and lay you off, there's no bail out for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back on topic though yes I definitely explained various barriers to entry, barriers to retention, and a few general fixes I would make to make the game better.
Ugh this definitely is not on topic, talking about stocks does not have to inherently be political, but posts like this make it that way...
8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...
Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...
Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.
Yes, because SOOOOOOO much has fundamentally changed in 40k in the last two years that anyone's wealth of experience playing prior is moot. Yup. Course. All those 8th ed books still kicking around are unusable, and the gameplay knowledge gleaned from them also.
Because no one wants the opinions of long-term and/or former players, despite the bloody article saying the opposite from the outset. Nope. Not at all...
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...
Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.
Yes, because SOOOOOOO much has fundamentally changed in 40k in the last two years that anyone's wealth of experience playing prior is moot. Yup. Course. All those 8th ed books still kicking around are unusable, and the gameplay knowledge gleaned from them also.
Because no one wants the opinions of long-term and/or former players, despite the bloody article saying the opposite from the outset. Nope. Not at all...
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
Agreed, they should have given a "why aren't you playing" text box and ended there which they could choose to peruse or ignore, then these arguments wouldn't be happening. If they want peoples opinions of 9th, which is their seemingly primary goal, they should have been clearer. Although I doubt that would have prevented these same conversations.
Dudeface wrote: One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.
Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.
Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.
2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...
Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.
Yes, because SOOOOOOO much has fundamentally changed in 40k in the last two years that anyone's wealth of experience playing prior is moot. Yup. Course. All those 8th ed books still kicking around are unusable, and the gameplay knowledge gleaned from them also.
Because no one wants the opinions of long-term and/or former players, despite the bloody article saying the opposite from the outset. Nope. Not at all...
Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?
Seems that I have struck a nerve, and I'm sorry about that.
Having played within the past 2 years, I can tell you from experience that that experience of playing a game of Warhammer 40k has fundamentally changed quite a bit since November 2019. For one thing, it was a lot less complicated and more enjoyable to play the game in November 2019. Which is not to say it was an enjoyable experience, honestly.
Even beyond that, the idea that the game hasn't fundamentally changed a lot since then is so ridiculous to me (because my experience has been so fundamentally different between November 2019 and now) I wouldn't believe that anybody who is saying such things has even read the current set of rules. There's some big changes! There are terrain rules and secondaries (although I guess if your experience in November 2019 was primarily within ITC this would feel familiar to you). There are modifier caps! Space Marines have 2 wounds and Chaos Space Marines do not! Every book has 7 layers of army rules (instead of just Space Marines). Re-rolls are dying down, smokescreen is a stratagem, melta does appreciable damage to vehicles! Command points are TAKEN AWAY by detachments instead of ADDED by them! The board is smaller! If you don't have the exact terrain layout tournaments are playing your game will end on turn 1 and be miserable!
I dunno, it just seems like if somebody is going to give feedback based on November 2019 it doesn't seem like that's going to be super useful. Experience is just not really the same at all.
Problem is GW doesn't understand why you would NOT be playing the current edition. So from their POV, if you haven't been playing lately, your input regarding the current game is nil.
GW obviously constructed the survey to illicit specific data they want.
Just like how the stuff in the vault doesn't have any rules in it. It's for a reason, not a bug but a feature.
I didn't make any comments on whether sales were growing or not. I'm sure the rate of growth has decreased but that's besides the point. GW stock matters, that's the bottom line. Earlier this year, when GW paid out bonuses to employees, it was in the form of shares. We know Rountree and many others under him get a significant portion of their compensation in stock options and stock. *Of course* it matters to those folks when the stock goes down. That's got nothing to do with some weak argument about the 10%/1%, and anyway that's all venturing into politics anyways, so let's steer clear of it.
I reread the statement and it lists them as discretionary bonuses not stock. Additionally, any such survey would not have an impact well past a year or more, which is well out to influence any near term stock price. Share price doesn't increase the dividend payout. If they're truly facing issues with shipping and currency conversion then no level of sales increase will brute force them out of the current problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: Problem is GW doesn't understand why you would NOT be playing the current edition. So from their POV, if you haven't been playing lately, your input regarding the current game is nil.
GW obviously constructed the survey to illicit specific data they want.
Just like how the stuff in the vault doesn't have any rules in it. It's for a reason, not a bug but a feature.
If a large number of people indicate they haven't played in over two years due to complexity I'm sure someone over there is smart enough to figure it out, but FYI the survey has been modified and you get more questions now on 2+ years.
It's also important to note that whilst you may not have played, or played much, if you watch enough battle reports etc, you can gauge a lot about the game, and what aspects you like and dislike about it.
Fans of sports get asked quite often their opinions on things (especially in regards to rules), and they are not playing directly.
macluvin wrote: 8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.
To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.
macluvin wrote: 8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.
To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.
But where the BFG at though... but yeah. Trying to take that approach with any other game of theirs would probably kill the specialist game in question in its track. They don’t move the volume of specialist games product to introduce that marketing technique and people aren’t invested enough to get away with it.
I answered I hadn't played in 2+ years, answered "The game no longer appeals to me, and was then asked which 9th edition format(s) I play....... Morons....
See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.
macluvin wrote: See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.
They wanted feedback from lapsed fans as well, they should have probably set up some new questions to ask rather than asking for feedback and then giving them a survey that then tells players they don’t really care.
Commisar Marbh wrote: Most of my free form feedback was on how hard it is to bring in new players and make them stick around. Rules complexity, lack of guidance on building your force, price pressures on new players (hard for those who are not themselves well set or with well set parents to get in), etc. I've seen a lot of RPG and boardgame companies make initiatives to bring in new folks, but not seeing it from GW (or not effectively done)
This. Why did they abandon start collecting impulse buy sets and pocket, softcover (regularly updated!) rulebooks?
Overread wrote: They certainly had a time when codex had a lot of options but were written in a simple manner.
Yup. In 5th edition, when they had competent head rule writer
I still miss points individually balanced to models (power fist on A1 sergeant costs less than on A2 chaplain and this less than on A3 captain, such revolutionary concept...), lack of idiotic armoury system pageflipper, and HQs unlocking new troops (which AoS kept with great results so I wonder why incompetent removed it in 40K after 6th).
Stormonu wrote: Personally, I’d like to roll back to the 8E indexes and have them take the other path towards less complexity/power creep and instead working on balance and fixing rule hiccups.
This. So much this. This is pretty much what I wrote - no idiotic orkstodes, no 2+ eldar, no W2 squats, no D2 on every weapon, none of this gak, go back to Index and balance from there. Back then, vehicles were worth taking, armies actually lasted a few turns on table, and units had far more abilities actually on sheets, not stratagems.
Once you do so, push most of stratagems to sheets, make simple faction/subfaction rules, go back to FOC with troop unlocking, there, done, no more bloat. If you want to introduce more rules, make more diverse chapters/regiments/hive fleets/whatever, not more rule layers
If there was an option for "40k has a barebones ruleset, whilst simultaneously having so much bloat that one additional wafer thin cracker would cause it to explode, all whilst having the depth of a puddle and the balance of the Vasa" I would have chosen it.
I've moved on to other systems because 40k is an exercise in frustration. The local narrative scene has completly dried up, and all that's left is the comp scene.
macluvin wrote: See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.
I would have liked it if there was more survey that applied to me. Input from people who don't currently play is valuable, too.
Just Tony wrote: I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.
Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.
I play magic and sort of understand his point. Strategems really do play like instants and sorcery's. If they launch a mission pack and new strategems that function like control mechanics in magic and dominates like in magic then it'll be another giant leap forward into magic like territory.
Synergizing between faction rules, aura and targeted buffs from units like psykers and other HQ's, and strategems is a lot like synergizing a magic deck as well.
Just Tony wrote: I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.
Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.
I play magic and sort of understand his point. Strategems really do play like instants and sorcery's. If they launch a mission pack and new strategems that function like control mechanics in magic and dominates like in magic then it'll be another giant leap forward into magic like territory.
Which is a problem for something that has individual models you need to build and paint rather than .001 cent pieces of cardstock...
There is a big difference between the level of $€£¥ involvement required for MTG and 40k to even play moderately "current".
macluvin wrote: Synergizing between faction rules, aura and targeted buffs from units like psykers and other HQ's, and strategems is a lot like synergizing a magic deck as well.
I have to disagree with this on anything more than the most simplistic of levels. Any strategy game which allows you to apply multiple static and/or continuous effectss to the way you play will encourage you to find combinations which synergize those abilities and create focused gameplay styles. That goes for Warhammer, any trading card game or deckbuilding video game, most tabletop RPGs, RTSs and MOBAs, turn-based RPG video games from Pokémon to Darkest Dungeon, and even conventional skill-based video games with skill/tech/talent trees like Dishonored or the Borderlands series.
The only strategy games which don't allow for this sort of decision-making are those in which player choice is emitted entirely, such as chess or checkers, or ones in which no gameplay pieces you control can never predictably affect each other, a design choice so rare I genuinely cannot think of an example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a big difference between the level of $€£¥ involvement required for MTG and 40k to even play moderately "current".
So to answer the question, you haven't played Magic recently.
You can make functioning pauper decks for 5 bucks. You won't win any tournaments but you'll slaughter those ten dollar prebuilt decks. Also for 30-40 bucks you can get event decks loosely based on decks that win tournaments. They aren't bad. And Commander gets exactly as expensive as you want it to be...
Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.
No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...
macluvin wrote: Synergizing between faction rules, aura and targeted buffs from units like psykers and other HQ's, and strategems is a lot like synergizing a magic deck as well.
I have to disagree with this on anything more than the most simplistic of levels. Any strategy game which allows you to apply multiple static and/or continuous effectss to the way you play will encourage you to find combinations which synergize those abilities and create focused gameplay styles. That goes for Warhammer, any trading card game or deckbuilding video game, most tabletop RPGs, RTSs and MOBAs, turn-based RPG video games from Pokémon to Darkest Dungeon, and even conventional skill-based video games with skill/tech/talent trees like Dishonored or the Borderlands series.
The only strategy games which don't allow for this sort of decision-making are those in which player choice is emitted entirely, such as chess or checkers, or ones in which no gameplay pieces you control can never predictably affect each other, a design choice so rare I genuinely cannot think of an example.
I would like to point out the behavior of stratagems as sorcery and instants depending on the stratagem. Strats aren't necessarily static or continuous but they often factor into the syngergizing factor. For example, competitive chaos space marine lists that are shooty would be built around the endless cacophony stratagem to allow a shooty unit to double tap. Then, you may start looking at static buffs to enhance them like a lord's reroll aura. You may use veterans of the long war to synergize even more, or if it is obliterators or melta guns you are shooting you may use a command re-roll to reroll the damage roll.
Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.
I said that I would prefer a system for 40K more akin to what is used in AoS, where all the math is complete on the data sheet, you need only roll and add or subtract due to modifiers. I also stated that I'd really like to see the rules more simplified and easier to locate within the books, instead of having to flip back and forth, points should be literally in the data sheet in the corner where "PL" is.
Furthermore I took the time to plug for the Return of EPIC by explaining my feelings that Apoc just doesn't work at the 28MM scale due to the cost, transportation and setup.
macluvin wrote: 8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.
To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.
<Looks at Necromunda, BB, Underworlds>
...yeah. About that...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote: Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.
This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.
I found their questions about points and FAQ updates to be a bit odd, I mean... frankly the BEST answer would be "as soon as the need is aquired" and is GW really considering focusing less on that?
in hindsight though I wish I had commented that points updates need to be free
macluvin wrote: Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.
This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.
I agree. I suspect they are trying to snipe the magic the gathering players or expand to the TCG crowd in general.
Well I was sure to complain and I got pretty far but I have to say this the real treat was reading this thread.
I love you Dakka, never change, only here can people white knight so hard for a soulless money grubbing git company and turn it around on the community that they shouldn't have a say if they haven't played the current edition.
Really, that is a poor survey and sure some questions could be skipped pertaining to this edition but they could have had questions of how they could interest them back ? What could they do better ? Past experiences ? All of that would be good feedback to woo returning customers back.
Of course though, unless you live the GW life at all times you should have no say, so silly.
Seriously though, Dakka, you are the wind beneath my wings.
I didn’t say that they shouldn’t have a say. I said the company only cares about the customers that made their stocks go up so damn much which unfortunately excludes anyone that was playing exclusively before 8th unless you just pure hobbied and not gamed. Have your say but the company is interested in making this edition better and the customer base most intimate with that are the ones that have been playing.
I absolutely believe that GW should try to collect your input a bit better. Just don’t be surprised if it gets drowned out from the customer base that stuck through 8th and 9th edition. Also unfortunately quality is often inversely proportional to profitability...
I have also stated my gripes with the company...
Just Tony wrote: I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.
Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.
Blue/white deck based off of Coat of Arms/Serra's Blessing/Meekstone combo with Sunscape and Stormscape Familiars to cheapen my stuff along with Feldon's Cane and whatever artifact did the exact same thing to keep me from decking myself in multiplayer.
BrianDavion wrote: I found their questions about points and FAQ updates to be a bit odd, I mean... frankly the BEST answer would be "as soon as the need is aquired" and is GW really considering focusing less on that?
in hindsight though I wish I had commented that points updates need to be free
I had trouble deciding on that answer (I went with quarterly)
One thing points/FAQs do is shake up the meta. How fast do you want that to happen? I’ve looked at minis, saw how they would fit into my army, purchased them, and by the time they got painted, they were nerfed into uselessness. Or the edition changed and could no longer do the things I wanted them to do. Now I’m not some top-table tournament guy, but I like to have a fair shot at winning games. There are only so many “dud” units I can work into a list. How my people who currently chase the FOTM will continue to do so if it’s the flavor of the actual month? Only so fast you can buy/build/paint.
Having longer times between updates lets them gather enough data to see what needs to be changed. And lets them think about the impact of the errata/FAQ, and if there might be secondary fallout from them. Plus just time to do them. There are a lot of moving parts in 40k.
I do think for glaring errors they can do out of cycle updates. The shortly after release of new books and twice a year isn’t a horrible schedule, but I think we can be a little more aggressive than that.
The two things I brought up is how both No Model, No Rules, and the format of how they deliver the rules both bother me, and cost them sales. When I kitbash options, I buy GW kits to get them. And the act of buying the rulebooks (and maintaining them through editions) keeps me from buying minis. Shiny model syndrome would have a ton of the new releases in my pile of shame, but I’m not buying stuff purly for painting projects, and getting the rules to play them overshadows the price of the plastic.
Racerguy180 wrote: Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.
No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...
Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person
macluvin wrote: 8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.
To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.
<Looks at Necromunda, BB, Underworlds>
...yeah. About that...
Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.
macluvin wrote: Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.
This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.
Sigh, yeah, this is exactly why my WM/H scene collapsed, we just got done with setting up and then (combo, combo, combo...) okay, my movement 4" heavy is in your deployment zone with your commander on its pike, GG. I don't feel it's anywhere near that bad with 40k, but it's still way too much stacking info that takes a strong knowledge of your opponent's list to even prepare for. It's way too imprecisely balanced for me to put that sort of effort into it.
Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.
But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.
Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.
But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.
Now now, that would suggest that any of Necromunda's ruleset has been cohesively planned...
I jest (partly); I do think that the latter part of the structure with the 'House of X' rules has been an improvement but at the same time it has left a lot of material from earlier tomes as deadwood unfortunately for anyone who invested in them. The constant haphazard approach to proofing in particular makes its own problems across so many different books but I don't think 'Munda' has even close to that same degree of built in redundancy for older models as, say, 40K, more that there was a clear shift in direction after the initial run on the House Gangs and the release schedule is finally catching up. They seem more to want to expand the game 'sideways' and incorporate a broader, (even more RPG-esque) design ethic, for better or worst rather than a tighter 'meta-gamey' system.
CMLR wrote: Managed to reach the end of Rogue-like. Want me to send any comments? only 2.5k characters.
- STOP "Day 1 DLC" or books that are separated from codexes with extra rules - we DON'T like having to buy extra books so often
- Produce more "get you by" updates for armies that aren't receiving a codex early in an edition
- Consider selling books and making digital rules free or at least a subscription to rules without the need to purchase a book
- Rules are so often flawed and in need of FAQs that print media almost makes no sense - digital is more nimble
- Add more variety to GT pack missions and more generic secondaries to allow more choice against all types of opponents
- Consider more mechanics that increase the depth of the game
- Add back stacking modifiers when they are imposed by opponent's choice ( e.g. when I run assault and shoot a plane I get -2 ), but not when a player stacks their own ( e.g. giving a plane -1 to be hit via spell / strat / etc )
- Rule of 1 for buffs - a unit cannot benefit from more than one stratagem or spell per round. Auras excluded
- Weapons that can shoot without line of sight need a penalty - perhaps -1 to wound since -1 to hit would hurt Orks more than others or an increase of the cover save to +2
- Vehicles need some method of getting a cover save to increase survivability
- Limit AIRCRAFT to 0/1/2 per Patrol/Battalion/Brigade or something similar
- Change certain abilities to be inactive at certain ranges like Chaff Launchers. Have them "turn off" if you are within 12". This prevents overly aggressive moves and gives the opponent movement options for better counterplay.
- Free points
Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote: You can make functioning pauper decks for 5 bucks. You won't win any tournaments but you'll slaughter those ten dollar prebuilt decks. Also for 30-40 bucks you can get event decks loosely based on decks that win tournaments. They aren't bad. And Commander gets exactly as expensive as you want it to be...
Commander is great if you don't ever want to be cEDH and have a group of friends that understand the power level and what would make for a bad game. Of course it's also super easy to proxy cards these days.
Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.
But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.
NM might come closest in that bunch, but I don't see the same kind of churn in those games that 40K creates. The entire games industry -- tabletop to video -- uses waves of expansions to tweak metas and add new options. There will always be certain amounts of sprawl and balance changes, because that's how they keep players engaged and make money. And while obsolescence is a factor in actual built-for-competition games like CCGs or Underworlds, that's more of an above-board thing. To me, it's different than the wild and intentional pendulum swings we've historically seen in 40K. Units and even whole armies go from penthouse to outhouse or vice versa and then later maybe back again, and it's completely calculated to drive sales.
Hell, I can remember joking 20 years ago about '40K market timing' -- the idea of buying the gak units and armies low at pennies on the dollar and selling them high after the next codex or edition arrives. GW is just scattershot enough for that to be a risky plan, but I can't say that I haven't made some money along the way selling off 40K minis after a rules change caused demand to spike. I don't feel like that could really even be a thing for their SGs.
I'm not outraged about any of this, FYI. I'm fine letting others engage in the tail-chasing exercise of 40K so that I can enjoy my SGs...which I maintain mostly come with a better overall customer experience (well, other than the shortages).
Racerguy180 wrote: Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.
No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...
Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person
The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...
Racerguy180 wrote: Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.
No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...
Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person
The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...
Well, it's more economical to pay the $40 for that card you really want on TCG these days than to crack packs for the adrenaline.
I'm probably too optimistic, but to me it sounds like GW realising most players can't keep up with the rule changes, and while rules changing all the time might be fun to the tournament scene, casual players just get unhooked. If people have to learn to play again every 6 months, most of them won't, they'll just turn their attention elsewhere.
I'm probably too optimistic, but to me it sounds like GW realising most players can't keep up with the rule changes, and while rules changing all the time might be fun to the tournament scene, casual players just get unhooked. If people have to learn to play again every 6 months, most of them won't, they'll just turn their attention elsewhere.
One can always hope, but hope is the first step on the road to damnation.
GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.
Racerguy180 wrote: GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.
Unfortunately, the way GW tends to react to things is to swing the pendulum hard in the opposite direction, so prepare for 10th Edition, the "Do whatever you want, the rules are kinda just there if you want them..." edition.
Racerguy180 wrote: GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.
Unfortunately, the way GW tends to react to things is to swing the pendulum hard in the opposite direction, so prepare for 10th Edition, the "Do whatever you want, the rules are kinda just there if you want them..." edition.
So basically business as usual for garagehammer dudes?
Albertorius wrote: You must have a lot of people on ignore if that's the only thing you've seen.
I've actually never blocked anyone here, but the fact anyone here can say if you haven't played it in awhile they should have no say is silly, it's as stupid a concept as love it or leave it which is also tossed around an awful lot here.
If you didn't ever say that however, then my comment really wasn't for you and I didn't say everyone said it but enough that it stretched multiple pages of this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
macluvin wrote: I didn’t say that they shouldn’t have a say. I said the company only cares about the customers that made their stocks go up so damn much which unfortunately excludes anyone that was playing exclusively before 8th unless you just pure hobbied and not gamed. Have your say but the company is interested in making this edition better and the customer base most intimate with that are the ones that have been playing.
I absolutely believe that GW should try to collect your input a bit better. Just don’t be surprised if it gets drowned out from the customer base that stuck through 8th and 9th edition. Also unfortunately quality is often inversely proportional to profitability...
I have also stated my gripes with the company...
Here I was thinking they wanted to maybe grow their numbers and instead this survey is just for those currently playing. A long term strategy would be to not only make a better edition but also see how they can get old players back or entice new ones in. Neither of which they would reach only speaking to those currently playing. I'm just a silly goose like that, thinking more is better.
That's not entirely correct. "Is suited for new/experienced/all players" is an option for many questions. This is clearly aimed to find out what parts need to be changed to not overwhelm new players.
Racerguy180 wrote: Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.
No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...
Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person
The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...
I don't remember what the rules for official tournaments are these days, but for casual games you absolutely can paint over the artwork on MtG cards. It just requires a bit more skill.
But yes, it's almost like they're fundamentally different game types- MtG is a game that happens to have collecting hobby attached, 40k is a collectible hobby that happens to have a bad game attached.
I wrote that I wanted to see alternate activation come to the next edition of 40K. I mean, it’s fruitless, I don’t think they really care. But at least I could officially write something to GW fruitlessly rather than not at all.
I also ticked the boxes a lot of others did, about it being too complicated.
I do wish that I’d also write about the lethality and wanting it to be a lot less lethal though.
The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
Well that would only be 1 year earlier than expected. 2023 is where 10th could be expected.
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
If it was a good update then I don’t think it’s a bad thing, one issue GW has is they have so much bloat in 40k right now. That they would need a full reset again I think to fix some of the issues.
But put some real effort in and it could work for them no worry.
With a 3 year cycle and 1 year totally lost to Corona and a 2nd year likely damaged as a result in terms of actual games we could potentially see GW go one of three directions
1) Stay the course and keep going as close to normal as possible
2) Rush out a new edition earlier than normal as a kind of "corona is controlled/maintained/gone/gaming is back" celebration
3) Take a bit longer so that the current edition gets a proper showing and spend longer working on the rules.
One problem is that new editions spark BIG sales increases and are a big marketing boom in themselves. They also have to slot in around others and at some point we know Old World is coming. You don't really want two main games having super-massive sales events in the same year - its a huge pull on resources for the company and its a marketing nightmare because your customer base does cross over. Release too many big things all at once and your customers run out of money and the latter releases suffer
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
I wouldn't really call that cynic.
More prophetic than anything.
Ha ha well jokes on GW this time, I was ahead of the curve and didn't buy any of the books this edition, so when they throw out a new edition way sooner then expected they aren't leaving me with dead product this time, these cheeky gits.
Gimgamgoo wrote: The cynic in me is thinking that GW will release a new version of 40k after only a 2 year cycle, with the "you asked for a new version, and here it is, the bestest bestest version ever".
And everyone will be happy, re-buy everything again and share prices and profit go up.
I wouldn't really call that cynic.
More prophetic than anything.
Kids these days. Real cynicism works like this: GW can only produce so many books a year. They will keep the already very short three year cycle in place to make sure every codex gets updated during the edition and have a wrap up period. This way they can sell every player the rule book, their codex, one or two day one DLCs, and at least one edition wrap up book. Worst case scenario for GW, four books per player*. Hopefully more.
If they shortened the edition cycle to two years they'd produce less DLC, which makes them less money and has to be made up by the new rule book, and not update every codex, so they definitely lose out on codex sales for a portion of their players and risk making DLC books for those armies less attractive if the foundation on which they build is so outdated that the DLC won't help. They'd also miss out on sales of day one DLC that does not get produced for lack of the updated codex it would tie in with. And since the number of armies in the game doesn't decrease, it's a snowballing effect that they'll feel in further editions as well.
No, three years is the sweet spot. It's the maximum amount of books sold to the maximum amount of players while making everyone feel loved and getting them to come back for the next round, next edition.
*Edit: Not accounting for Chapter Approved which they'll also sell. Selling errata once a year is completely detached from the edition cycle, though, and does not figure into it.
I'm thinking Tyranids... or Ynnari, if they even count anymore. Both seem far down the pipe (or just non-existent for the latter).
While releases are getting pushed back, I'm not sure the bean counters will let a new edition get pushed back. They certainly didn't for AoS, despite the release mess with various orcs, stormcast and dragons.
I don't remember what the rules for official tournaments are these days, but for casual games you absolutely can paint over the artwork on MtG cards. It just requires a bit more skill.
From what I remember, alters are fine in tournaments, mostly because you're expected to sleeve your cards anyway. There's some guidelines (no making it look like a different card, retain the important info and most of the original art, etc.), but in general judges tend to be reasonably permissive.
... Last time you played (2+years) and why don't you play it anymore (doesn't appeal to me anymore), survey ends
removed it in 
