Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hecaton wrote:

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

Well, I expected them to do better than this.

Why??? What would lead you to expect that?

Hecaton wrote:
Satisfying the community is not impossible. Except, perhaps, for GW's design team, but that seems to be more a matter of incompetence than unwillingness.

So the same people you already think/know to be incompetent were supposed to somehow magically get it right this time....
Well, I suppose that could randomly occur. Maybe it'll happen in 11th ed?

Hecaton wrote:
GW had, during 9th, refused to balance options appropriately with points. Now they've abdicated that responsibility entirely to the detriment of game balance. That's on them, not the community;

So the designers were both incompetent and unwilling up until several weeks ago, but have now shifted to being more incompetent but less unwilling?

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

Step 1: write an email to the GW feedback line
Step 2: get angry on a thread online
Step 3: stop buying GW products and encourage your friends and store to do the same
Step 4: play other games & stop being invested in GW products
Step 5: never look back at a life no longer filled with anger and disappointment

Karol wrote:
Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.

As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.

Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models

actually you would need to stop playing and encourage others to do so

some people not buying but still playing does not change anything as new people walk buy, see those playing that game, it looks cool and they buy it

GW sees that sales numbers rise and see no need to change something

so best chance would be if tournaments would stop or switch to other rules so that GW gets the message and starts doing their job
but as long as people make good money with marketing GW as the best and only game, that won't happen
and as long as tournaments run, the game will be popular among beginners and this will keep the sales up

 alextroy wrote:

Karol wrote:
Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.

As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.

Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models

Depends why they're buying them, if it's meta chasing or simply enjoying the kits. How omg uber amazing rules super cost efficient is something that will run through a lot of players heads, but it shouldn't be the main reason something sells ideally. Although I'd wager it is the largest driver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
actually you would need to stop playing and encourage others to do so

some people not buying but still playing does not change anything as new people walk buy, see those playing that game, it looks cool and they buy it

GW sees that sales numbers rise and see no need to change something

so best chance would be if tournaments would stop or switch to other rules so that GW gets the message and starts doing their job
but as long as people make good money with marketing GW as the best and only game, that won't happen
and as long as tournaments run, the game will be popular among beginners and this will keep the sales up

There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.

 alextroy wrote:
As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.

Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models

Even if their army is something like Votan or WE? Change for change sake is stupid. Someone with invalidated or bad army, is going to pull a me, in general. He is just going to quit. At best move to a different game, at worse decide that the whole table top thing is a waste of time and money. There were some GK players exited about the idea of using purgators, they were less exited after seeing GK point costs, after the "fix" they are not stuck with bad units. The 30y of tradition isn't just some dude with lemman rus bought in 1992. It is all the dudes that bought lemman russes over 30 days. It is as important as faction theme being expressed by rules. Although as DG show, GW knows how to mess those too, and again, a change made for changes sake.

Dudeface wrote:
There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.

well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made

yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game

the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen

and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.

Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).

You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.

40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.

It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.

I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).

You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.

40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.

It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.

I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"

Yup. Miniatures wargaming is the hobby. There's a good amount of people locally who are switching to ASOIAF and Infinity, and interest in 40k tournaments is already on the floor compared to 9th.

I'm sure GW is making plenty of money with the Leviathan release, but the thermocline of trust is still a thing.

I'm sure ccs is having a conniption that I'm doing those things, though.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).

You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.

40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.

It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.

I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"

kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.

well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made

yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game

the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen

and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.

You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

Dudeface wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).

You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.

40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.

It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.

I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"

kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.

well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made

yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game

the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen

and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.

You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.

Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."

You just don't have to exclusively play one game. You've got your 40k models and armies and if you want to play another game for a bit, they will still be there to go back to or you can even bounce around. I played Shatterpoint Monday and I'll be playing a round of 40k tonight unless someone asks to play Judgement instead. Next week I'm getting in some MCP. You don't need to quit one game to enjoy another.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.

Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."

And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)

Karol wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.

Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models

Even if their army is something like Votan or WE? Change for change sake is stupid. Someone with invalidated or bad army, is going to pull a me, in general. He is just going to quit. At best move to a different game, at worse decide that the whole table top thing is a waste of time and money. There were some GK players exited about the idea of using purgators, they were less exited after seeing GK point costs, after the "fix" they are not stuck with bad units. The 30y of tradition isn't just some dude with lemman rus bought in 1992. It is all the dudes that bought lemman russes over 30 days. It is as important as faction theme being expressed by rules. Although as DG show, GW knows how to mess those too, and again, a change made for changes sake.

I wouldn’t call LOV or WE armies of yore. They are very much modern armies with current models. They are the exemplars of what the designers should be keeping in mind for the new edition.

In contrast, whether or not someone put sponsons on their 15 year old Leman Russ and Predators is something they shouldn’t give more than a passing thought. I’d say just assume sponsons in basic wargear and let the players sort it out.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.

Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."

And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)

Then find the ones that aren't comfortable with 10th. It's not like they have to choose between the Crusade and doing a demo of another game. They can do both.

I mean really, I would be surprised if there are folks in an area who are 100% fine with how things are unfolding and don't see any issues at all. If there ARE then that's the sort of zealot who needs to see this thread.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.

Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?

Different people will have different tolerances for gameplay and people and all that. There's not a universal right answer to my question. For some people, even if they're not a huge fan of GW rules, they'll still have fun playing GW games with friends, especially if said friends are reticent to try other systems.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.

Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?

Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.

Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?

Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.

That's your answer.
Other people can answer differently. I won't lie and say I like 10th or the direction 40k is going in, but if a group of folks are genuinely having fun, I ain't gonna crap on their parade. Unit had a good point-it's basically never gonna work to say "Your game sucks, don't play it." But "Hey, want to try something else that's also fun?" is much better at actually changing things.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.

And that's a bad thing.....why?

Because the hobby is fun.

40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.

Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?

Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.

That's your answer.
Other people can answer differently. I won't lie and say I like 10th or the direction 40k is going in, but if a group of folks are genuinely having fun, I ain't gonna crap on their parade. Unit had a good point-it's basically never gonna work to say "Your game sucks, don't play it." But "Hey, want to try something else that's also fun?" is much better at actually changing things.

GW won't listen otherwise though. People enjoying anything and spending money on stuff that's objectively bad is a problem for everyone involved, and then we got people like Dudeface they say "nooooo don't boycott" as if sending several polite emails has done any good.

And yes, products can be objectively bad and don't try to pretend otherwise. Look at what's happening with GW recalling those cards. We'd expect ANY other company to do that as standard, yet when GW does it some people treat them as generous gods.

But GW is a generous God. Some gods ask that you fight for them or what you believe in. GW asks only that you kneel and spend all of your money on them.
Your allowed to kneel while you lick the dog gak from their boots on a weekly basis.

Why arent we all praising them harder? Shut up you fools and spend, I mean praise.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.

LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.

You seriously think that because YOU dont like rules xyz of one game, I should:
A) stop buying models I like, be they 40k, Sigmar, Bloodbowl, or whatever else because they're made by GW? For the record, this is where most of my GW related spending occurs. Buying models I like.
There's only really three things that'll stop me purchasing more GW models.
•they make something I'm not interested in/don't like.
•eventually the prices may rise to a point I find unacceptable.
•Death - either my own or GWs. (Mine will likely come 1st)

B) Join you in badmouthing a company that I don't really have much against? Engage in an action IRL that will make me unwelcome at all my local FLGS?
Yeah, I don't think so.

You know what I have done though?
I sent them an email detailing my concerns about the current edition last week.
I doubt that they act on it. He'll, it probably went straight to a spam filter.....
It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.
That's it. That's all. Maybe I'll resend it this time next year. Especially if my las/plas Razorbacks still lack Legends entries.

Dudeface wrote:
And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)

than you wait until the campaign runs out of steam or people become unhappy during it
also the a campaign needs someone to push for it and organise it, if that person does not like were it is going, it will be the one to talk if the campaign should be using other rules to play

but for now in 10th, tournaments are those were people look at if 10th is going or not and as long as 100 people GTs happen and those are just complaining that 3 armies dominate casual players will see this as fine and that the game is worth spending money on it

because one set dominating a season is not something special in sports, specially if the top people are using the same equipment.
also banning something that is broken still does not let people think that something is wrong with the game itself, just that tournaments are having a problem with a specific part of it

advocating that there is something better than 40k and people will think GW will fix it and it will be better because otherwise tournaments would not keep using those rules but use the better option (specially if GW is not able to fix it)

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.

LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.

It's a dumb idea for you, not for everyone. If you still like 40k when you get bonuses for having had a bypass surgery while playing Iron Hands and wearing glasses as Adeptus Mechanicus then you can continue paying for it, other people have had their fill now or sometime previously and think GW continues to release terrible rules products.

It's not magic that determines whether GW does a good job, a teacher doesn't expect everyone to deliver work worth a passing grade every time, but every time the hope is the teacher won't have to fail anyone, that doesn't change that the teacher has to give James a failing grade when his work isn't up to what makes for a passing grade in the subject. The teacher also hopes that along with the failing grade the explanation for the failed grade will help James not make the same mistake again. So this is what this thread is, this is what similar threads other places are, telling James why he failed or didn't get top marks.

GW has just good marketing combined with goodwill and faith

if Riot Games say their next game will be doing something specific people believe them because of their track record

if Blizzard say next version of Starcraft will be balanced people believe them because of their track record

and if GW says, the next time we really try to get it working, people believe them despite their track record and knowing that GW never tried but just hopes people buy it anyway

Bizzard announcing that because they did not get Starcraft RTS balance 100% right, the next Edition of Starcraft II will need some basic changes and will be round based instead of real time and weapons will function differently so that anti-tank is weaker against tanks because this is the only way to increase balance, people won't give them the credit for "at least they tried"

GW gets a pass for no good reason on the gaming side just because they reset the game once in a while saying "sorry but the next time will be better"

so people don't even think about being mad but just keep on "it will be fixed in 3 years with the next reset of the game" or even ask for GW to reset it earlier

ccs wrote:

It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.

Well then, to be blunt, you like the game to be unbalanced. What do you do if one of your opponents has a sword-and-board wraithknight assembled? Just laugh at them? Jeer at them for being such a dumbass as to try to run the thing that gives you a massive unearned advantage? Or how about that thing pointed appropriately so the game is fair?

Fundamentally, the PL-style balancing cannot handle that. If your priority is something other than balance or fair play, however, I could see how that might be attractive.

Like someone upthread said, it's someone's baby and they refuse to admit the problems with it.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.

How exactly do you propose I do that?

Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.

LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.

You seriously think that because YOU dont like rules xyz of one game, I should:
A) stop buying models I like, be they 40k, Sigmar, Bloodbowl, or whatever else because they're made by GW? For the record, this is where most of my GW related spending occurs. Buying models I like.
There's only really three things that'll stop me purchasing more GW models.
•they make something I'm not interested in/don't like.
•eventually the prices may rise to a point I find unacceptable.
•Death - either my own or GWs. (Mine will likely come 1st)

B) Join you in badmouthing a company that I don't really have much against? Engage in an action IRL that will make me unwelcome at all my local FLGS?
Yeah, I don't think so.

You know what I have done though?
I sent them an email detailing my concerns about the current edition last week.
I doubt that they act on it. He'll, it probably went straight to a spam filter.....
It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.
That's it. That's all. Maybe I'll resend it this time next year. Especially if my las/plas Razorbacks still lack Legends entries.

You're the one that asked "how do you propose I do that", and I gave an answer. It's not my fault you're admitting you have zero standards for your game.