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.

Glorioski wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

And so GW supposedly kicked him out because...they didn't want to be more like a business? They didn't like the "make rules to sell models" mantra?

All these pathetic money grabs like Apocalypse, and the stupid gak they're doing to their core games now for the sake of pushing models (like being able to "buy" terrain, yeah I bet that's not going to be unbalanced at all, and these new allies rules which only have one real purpose), the yearly price increases that happen "just because" and now without even so much as an announcement, turning White Dwarf into an expensive catalog with nothing of any real value in it to actual gamers...

Yeah, they're so much better off now. I often times forget GW is even a business at all, they feel more like my best fething friend. Honestly.

No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave. It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

I don't know if you guys have a short memory or are too young to remember AC. But this is a guy who during third admitted to having not played a game of 40k in a year (while still wiritng codexes). This was not someone who made good ol' balanced codexes of the old days. No, to be honest they never existed.

Yet he also wrote, or co-wrote, some of GW's better rules. I am having a hard time reconciling his body of work with what 40k has become, arguably run along economic rather than creative lines. As I said your version doesn't mesh with what I remember at the time.

Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)

tetrisphreak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is. I get the feeling that the only games people know about or have played themselves are Call of Duty or Halo...it would be the same thing as saying you can't get into wargaming because 40k is too expensive, it's just one game and not indicative of the hobby as a whole.

Just to touch on your point - I have played many games, my entire life from the time i was 6. I'm 28 now. I cannot think of one game i played continuously for 4 years straight, on any system from NES all the way to PS3. I still go back for nostalgia and play SMB or Tetris here and again, but those are classics.

The cost for both is expensive.
The value, however, is actually arguably higher for a big rulebook, considering it's my current go-to hobby. For many of us, I would think the same applies. The comparison to video games is not to straw-man the cost of the book, make no mistake $75 USD is a large chunk of money. It's simply a comparison to the most similarly priced hobby, that is far more common in society today than wargaming.

If you think about it rationally, every $50 or so gives you a week or two (or three or four) of happiness as you build, paint and play with the new box set. Thats about how long a video game lasts you. Its not like you go and buy 10 boxes every week, 1 keeps you happy for arguably longer than a video game.

However, that being said, I wish GW would stop with their penny pinching. They make a premium so they don't need to make more by making half my collection useless

Glorioski wrote:No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave.

...because there's a fething difference, I guess? lol

Glorioski wrote:It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

That wasn't really what you said in the post I quoted though, your choice of words was what made me raise an eyebrow: "more like a business", as if that was something GW didn't want. If you're trying to argue that he simply didn't like the direction they were taking 4th and left because they didn't like his ideas then I can buy that, because it kinda falls in line with what everyone else has been saying anyway.

But you were trying to lay the blame for GW being more "business-like" on Andy Chambers, as if they wouldn't have done that without him anyway, and I thought that part was funny.

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote: His whole mantra was to turn GW into more of a business. I'm sure he'd be very happy.

And so GW supposedly kicked him out because...they didn't want to be more like a business? They didn't like the "make rules to sell models" mantra?

All these pathetic money grabs like Apocalypse, and the stupid gak they're doing to their core games now for the sake of pushing models (like being able to "buy" terrain, yeah I bet that's not going to be unbalanced at all, and these new allies rules which only have one real purpose), the yearly price increases that happen "just because" and now without even so much as an announcement, turning White Dwarf into an expensive catalog with nothing of any real value in it to actual gamers...

Yeah, they're so much better off now. I often times forget GW is even a business at all, they feel more like my best fething friend. Honestly.

No they dind't kick him out they forced him out, i.e. asked him to leave. It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

I don't know if you guys have a short memory or are too young to remember AC. But this is a guy who during third admitted to having not played a game of 40k in a year (while still wiritng codexes). This was not someone who made good ol' balanced codexes of the old days. No, to be honest they never existed.

Yet he also wrote, or co-wrote, some of GW's better rules. I am having a hard time reconciling his body of work with what 40k has become.

Craftworld Eldar, Necrons and CSM 3rd ed codexes were all terrible. He did as much bad as he did good. He was a fun character in WD magazine and I think that's why people rmember him fondly. The idea he was a good designer for GW is a myth.

Sidstyler wrote:

Glorioski wrote:It wasn't because of his outlook on GW but because he was at logger heads with others about 4th edition. He left months before it came out.

That wasn't really what you said in the post I quoted though, your choice of words was what made me raise an eyebrow: "more like a business", as if that was something GW didn't want. If you're trying to argue that he simply didn't like the direction they were taking 4th and left because they didn't like his ideas then I can buy that, because it kinda falls in line with what everyone else has been saying anyway.

But you were trying to lay the blame for GW being more "business-like" on Andy Chambers, as if they wouldn't have done that without him anyway, and I thought that part was funny.

I never said he was dismissed from GW because of his rules for selling models mentality. You joined them two cmments up so you could make some snidey little sarcastic paragraph which you considered humorous. Neither did I say GW wouldn't have become more business like either. I was responding to someone who said Rick Priestly and Andy Chambers would be turning in their graves at this new edition. i was explaining that AC and RP are worlds apart. You could do better by reading things properly before you go off on one. Sarcasm is a fairly lame and easy form of wit, especially when you make up your own conclusions about what people are saying.

To be honest I stopped playing 40k in 3rd ed so I can't remember those codices and the story goes that he had become disillusioned by 3rd ed so its not exactly suprising. However he most certainly was, and probably still is, a good games designer, Necromunda and BFG alone are proof of this.

Palindrome wrote:To be honest I stopped playing 40k in 3rd ed so I can't remember those codices and the story goes that he had become disillusioned by 3rd ed so its not exactly suprising. However he most certainly was a good games designer, Necromunda and BFG are proof of this.

He had his moments, just like Gav Thorpe. But they were both hit and miss.

This is rather ironic. If the game is imbalanced, and that is a problem for you, maybe you should consider a different game.

No what's ironic is that you didn't understood anything I said. If I've played this game for two decades (and I'm willing to guess that's longer than you have played it), why would I consider a different game now? I already play a lot of games, and one of them is Warhammer 40K.

There have always been good rules and bad rules and we the players have always been able to deal with it. Now, I always hope that GW comes up with as interesting and balanced rules as possible and I'm one of the first to criticise and ridicule them when they fail, but I also know that us the gamers are the real check and balance in the system. A vast (99%) majority of tournaments and gaming events have always been organised by players for players instead of by the parent company for players. The players decide which rules they use and if they want to make any adaptations of their own to the rules. GW encourages this approach. I could write a small book about the cycles in composition scoring and house ruling throughout the different editions of Fantasy and 40K. In some periods people house rule everything, even core rules like line of sight and terrain, sometimes we just restrict or penalize overpowered armies or unit choices, and sometimes the game is in a state of a completely open no-comp free for all deathmatch. This also varies a lot between gaming clubs, countries and even continents. I remember the time on Dakka something like eight or ten years ago when guys like Ed Maule used to moan how Americans were all soft as butter fluffbunnies because they had composition restrictions on everything while the crazy Europeans like me played with insanely cheesy lists against eachother. He complained that he was being forced to play with bad armies. Later on it seems especially on the Fantasy side that the whole of EU went comp crazy and straight out of the box GW gaming was refused altogether. Noone saw any point in playing unrestricted.

Yet there's something in GW's fictional worlds that makes people come back to them. It's definately not the mostly mediocre rules or even the brilliant models (which keep improving and improving). The universe is just addictive as a whole and even if you take a break for a few years it's easy to come back to it.

Daemons allying with Dark Eldar?
Black Templars allying with Tau?
Chaos Marines allying with Necrons?
Dark Angels allying with Orks?

What sort of insane (and embarrassingly cynical attempt to sell more models) madness is this!

I think the thought of Andy Chambers being a bad game designer or bad for GW is absolutely preposterous. The game has been an utter shadow of its self since he left, WD died the day Paul Sawyer left. The early naughties and late 90's were the renaissance of GW in a lot of ways spurred by a lot of designers trying to take an old system into the a modern market by a means of expansion and creativity the company has not had since outside of the BL. Some examples born out of this era come in the form of Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor, minor psychic powers, monster design rules.. at least they attempted to make a codex eldar craftoworld and beast rules for things like the enslavers (a major part of 40k history I hasten to add)..

What they accomplished may not have been perfect, but to that I would only say what is and only an idiot would think what came after they left was anything good. Final example... 4th/5th Ed CSM codex has 3rd in the rear view mirror when it comes to heading for utter crap.

Glorioski wrote:

Palindrome wrote:To be honest I stopped playing 40k in 3rd ed so I can't remember those codices and the story goes that he had become disillusioned by 3rd ed so its not exactly suprising. However he most certainly was a good games designer, Necromunda and BFG are proof of this.

He had his moments, just like Gav Thorpe. But they were both hit and miss.

Starcraft 2 wasn't his finest hour but I liked all of his GW rules that I came into contact with (at least I can't remember disliking anything).

Just got back from the San Jose GW store. I went there to see if they had a store copy of 6th for people to look at but sadly they didn't. I had a chat with one of the black shirts there and he told me one of the things coming in 6th ed is to be able to swap out 2 of the same slots in your FoC to get another slot elsewhere in your FoC. Not sure how true that is but, if it is true, then you could see Necron Armies with 24 Wraiths, 3 Overlords with the attendant Royal Court or 4 Annihilation Barges.

Semper wrote:I think the thought of Andy Chambers being a bad game designer or bad for GW is absolutely preposterous. The game has been an utter shadow of its self since he left, WD died the day Paul Sawyer left. The early naughties and late 90's were the renaissance of GW in a lot of ways spurred by a lot of designers trying to take an old system into the a modern market by a means of expansion and creativity the company has not had since outside of the BL. Some examples born out of this era come in the form of Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor, minor psychic powers, monster design rules.. at least they attempted to make a codex eldar craftoworld and beast rules for things like the enslavers (a major part of 40k history I hasten to add)..

What they accomplished may not have been perfect, but to that I would only say what is and only an idiot would think what came after they left was anything good. Final example... 4th/5th Ed CSM codex has 3rd in the rear view mirror when it comes to heading for utter crap.

He was hit and miss, like I said. All I'm saying is he wasn't the messiah of games design like some people seem to believe and he produced a lot of crap along with the good stuff. I agree the early noughties were my favourite time in 40k. Mainly because of inquisitor, which he played little part in. And i also agree WD began it's downward curve after Paul Sawyer left.

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

Pony_law wrote:Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)

YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .


Shoot me now and get it over with. . . .

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

I have played nearly 700 hours in TF2 and thats free, a wargames rulebook isn't likely to match that

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

The only place think the analogy fails is that you need more than just the rulebook to play 40k, whereas a video game you don't. Ohter than that I can see your point. There is more enjoyment to be hand from the BBB than there is from a video game.

JohnnoM wrote:Dear god,the allies are up:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=0&aId=22400024a&start=1&multiPageMode=true

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Nids get nothing...I don't know why I'm surprised. That kind of sucks...but makes sense fluff wise I guess...

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid

I played Diablo 3 for about 85 hours before I cleared it solo on inferno difficulty. Skyrim gave me 120 hours of gameplay before I was done with it. I'm pretty sure Fallout New Vegas was also good for more than 50 hours but I can't remember now. All of those games cost about 50 euros.

I'm not sure which modern games are only worth 10 hours of gameplay in single player but I've never bought any. Maybe I've just been picking and choosing the bigger franchises.

Lysenis wrote:

Pony_law wrote:Allies is a stupid concept game balance wise but smart from a sales perspecitve. We all know which of those 2 considerations win when GW makes a decision.

It will be fun times seeing IG armies with Th/ss termis or purifiers sitting near their lines. Or draigowing armies with 90 boys as well. I just can't see a way this could work without absolutely breaking the armies theselves. If allies are allowed in tournaments i predict we will never see a pure 1 codex army win another thing ever again. (i mean sonme of the things I'm imaging are so broke, but hey at least my SM can finally take longfangs, and fast vindicators)

YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .


Shoot me now and get it over with. . . .

Will do, at least then we won't have to deal with your incessant whining and poor attempts at sarcasm

Glorioski wrote:The only place think the analogy fails is that you need more than just the rulebook to play 40k, whereas a video game you don't. Ohter than that I can see your point. There is more enjoyment to be hand from the BBB than there is from a video game.

If you're already playing 40K and just looking for 'justification' to buy the new edition, those extra costs don't apply. Just as you don't factor in the cost of buying an Xbox if you already have one and are trying to decide whether to buy a new game.

Therion wrote:

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid

I played Diablo 3 for about 85 hours before I cleared it solo on inferno difficulty. Skyrim gave me 120 hours of gameplay before I was done with it. I'm pretty sure Fallout New Vegas was also good for more than 50 hours but I can't remember now. All of those games cost about 50 euros.

I'm not sure which modern games are only worth 10 hours of gameplay in single player but I've never bought any. Maybe I've just been picking and choosing the bigger franchises.

AAA FPS games like one of the many CoD games typically last under 10 hours. Aside from them the only games that will list under 10 hours to complete are small indy gamebut they only cost a few £.

Palindrome wrote:I have played nearly 700 hours in TF2 and thats free, a wargames rulebook isn't likely to match that

And 40k doesn't even have HATS!!

Lysenis wrote:YES! Now my outflanking Baal Predator with a Flamestorm cannon (or normal version) will have a Storm Talon as Escort! That way I can have it flying in, Then I can have Necron warriors to back up my assault marines. . .

I very much doubt that combination with be possible.

AAA FPS games like one of the many CoD games typically last under 10 hours.

Ah yes, of course. I didn't think of them or RTS games because I generally consider the single player campaigns just introduction to the multiplayer game which can (and often does) last for years.

Therion wrote:I'm not sure which modern games are only worth 10 hours of gameplay in single player but I've never bought any. Maybe I've just been picking and choosing the bigger franchises.

Tomb Raider Anniversary lasted about 13 or 14 hours. Underworld considerably less. GoldenEye for Wii is around the 8-10 mark. Force Unleashed was around 8, likewise (or possibly slightly less) for the sequel. Transformers: Cybertron Adventures lasted around 3 and a half minutes (wouldn't have bought that one if I had seen it beforehand ) and I'm currently working though Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions, which looks like it will come in around the 10-12 mark given how rapidly I'm going through it.

Then again, maybe it's just the Wii... The last non-Wii game I bought would have been the Knights of the Old Republic games and Lego Star Wars for PC... although those too would have been around the 10-14 hour mark to complete.

So I went into mflgs to preorder a rulebook when I tumbled upon to guys who decided they were too cool to buy a rule book. they decided they would just learn the game by playing games where their opponent told them how to do everything. Fair to say that they're 5th edition know-how wasn't up to snuff

insaniak wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Can we stop talking about video games? It's a bs analogy anyway because not every game is this "4-hour grind and then you're done, unless you play multiplayer" kind of thing that everyone here seems to think it is.

That doesn't invalidate the analogy, unless nobody actually buys those sort of games.

Speaking as someone who does buy a lot of games that have a single-player story that gives around 10 hours or so of playtime, the analogy is perfectly valid. I have never played Call of Duty, or Halo. If those were the sort of games I was talking about, then it would have been a bad analogy, because primarily multi-player games potentially give you a lot more game time.

In fact, using something like Halo as a comparison, the 40K rulebook would be a bad investment, rather than a good one... because I would get just as much play out of Halo for a lower cost up front.

Video games also can go down in price without having to go to ebay and get an used copy, if you go by Steam sales, then even AAA games could be 50% off 6 months later, and that's off the already cheaper( than console) PC price. The other thing to consider is the fact that you could get an online multiplayer game(MMO, shooter, whatever) going almost every night even if you and your friends all have to work, it's far easier to set up an online mp game than a tabletop wargame. Not to mention the entry price point, really isn't fair to compare rulebook to the game, getting the models will cost as well, but even if you add the console price(totally skippable if you have a decent pc), I'd say you still get more value out of the video game system than WH40k, afterall, most consoles these days can be used for more than games, but what else could you do with your mini's outside wargaming? Last but not least is the lack of pre-game preparations(modelling/painting), It's good and fun for those who enjoy it, but you can't say everyone enjoy that aspect.

So, let's say I am trying to get a friend to join me in WH40k or a game of TF2, which do you think is more likely to happen? WH40k is more like a specialist hobby, you have to dedicate so much time, effort and money into it, while video games are mostly just gonna be plug-and-play.

Anyhow, I'd say the analogy is just plain bad, sure they're both entertainments, which is exactly why it's hard to bring the two together and compare, because fun is ultimately subjective.

A lot of big AAA games these days have pathetic single-player aspects. Most of the Call of Duty games these days have 4-6 hour single-player games.

On the other hand, I bought Just Cause 2 for $18 and got over 70 hours out of it.

Oh, dammit. I just realized that the allies rules are going to make entire units that I've already built useless because they'll be too damned confusing. My =I= army has two units of henchmen that use Eldar and Orks respectively. Since they were constructed with the Henchmen unit rules in mind, they're not really usable as anything else, and I suspect that if I field them in 6E it's going to cause problems for my opponents.

Drat. :\