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.

Deleted do to lack of concern.

 Byte wrote:
I'll put it up to my group and figure it out. I've been playing 40k for 20 years. The rules are written for exclusion. Its what they don't say. Anyway no reason to labor the point. Our meta will make a ruling, no big deal. One of our members runs the tournies at one of our stores so we'll get it ironed out.

The OP is right. Orks are worthless. He should burn his.

Don't be bloody stupid. Burning them is a childish thing to do. If anything, box them up for storage, sell them on eBay or donate them to a gaming club. Then find something else to do with your time.

Deleted do to lack of concern.

 Runic wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as your comment that they are making "massive leaps in order to improve many things" well no they aren't.

They are. They have:

-Introduced new starter sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier
-Introduced new starter painting sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier
-Introducing a competitive rules system for Age of Sigmar, directly because of demand
-Reinstated Specialist Games
-Started content feeds on social media
-Restarted FAQ:s for their games and even drafting them
-Reopened communications with the community
-Changed the problematic Codex model into the more fluid Campaign model
-Circumvented direct downpricing of miniatures by selling things like Imperial Knight Renegade, which in practice is simply a way to sell miniatures at a discount

You realise none of this matters when the game is a pile of gak?

40k is a complete fustercluck right now. All of the above is moot until they fix the game.

Evidently one man's "great lengths" or "massive leaps" is many other's "bare minimum."

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Runic wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as your comment that they are making "massive leaps in order to improve many things" well no they aren't.

They are. They have:

-Introduced new starter sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier
-Introduced new starter painting sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier
-Introducing a competitive rules system for Age of Sigmar, directly because of demand
-Reinstated Specialist Games
-Started content feeds on social media
-Restarted FAQ:s for their games and even drafting them
-Reopened communications with the community
-Changed the problematic Codex model into the more fluid Campaign model
-Circumvented direct downpricing of miniatures by selling things like Imperial Knight Renegade, which in practice is simply a way to sell miniatures at a discount

You realise none of this matters when the game is a pile of gak?

40k is a complete fustercluck right now. All of the above is moot until they fix the game.

You're right, forget everything they've done. Double down on Formation powers, raise prices by 100%, and shut down Specialist games. That'll show them! COMING THIS DECEMBER, AGE OF THE EMPEROR, NOW WITH ONLY FORMATIONS AND D WEAPONS!!!

I'm too lazy to make the meme with Syndrome, so just imagine it, except with D-weapons.

SemperMortis wrote:
snip

-The new starter sets are different than the ones before and only include easy to assemble kits that are also pre-undercoated. They are vastly different from the old ones and clearly there is more effort with beginners in mind.
-There is also a new Dark Vengeance Style box coming, with more simplified rules than before from which new players can more easily transfer to the full game.
-People you know not liking Age of Sigmar doesn't alter the fact it is going through change.
-Specialist Games was infact shut down years ago, you must've missed it then.
-Content feeds weren't there before, now they are. That is a change, despite it being common.
-"They should've or shouldn't have done it" - is besides the point. The FAQs are a recent change all the same.
-There is already evidence that they are listening, feel free to read up on the FAQ posts and their results, and why they made the FAQ in the first place.
-The Codex problem has been discussed for years, I don't know why or how you've missed it. Campaign format eliminates most of the issues with the Codex format.
-They have done bundles before. They have rarely sold miniatures at a 40% discount (which is what you have in some of the bundles today.) The bundles have better value than before.

It seems to me you are argumenting that the factual changes wouldn't be changes because them somehow not counting as change, in your opinion;

1. I present to you that Age of Sigmar is an example of change, since it has incoming competitive rules because of demand, it has even been stated it is done because of demand.
2. You answer with "no one I know even likes Age of Sigmar." That is completely besides the point and the topic itself. Someone not liking Age of Sigmar doesn't affect it going through a change in any way.

But it is clear to me that you interpret everything they are doing as standing for nothing, and also answer with views that havent got much to do with the original point itself. Therefore it seems to me discussing the matter is not of much use. You are entitled to your view and opinion. Seeing that quote above makes me content that putting Grimtuff on ignore 7 months ago was a good decision. He is ofcourse, entitled to his opinion.

@SemperMortis - while I understand your sentiment, a lot of what you're saying is unfair --

SemperMortis wrote:

-Introduced new starter sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier

They have been doing this for years, they just called it by a different name an it wasn't as effective. BlackReach and that nonsense are New User sets.

-Introduced new starter painting sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier

They have released painting sets forever, simply by putting "new starter" in front of it doesn't make it new, it just means they have a "New" label.

The new starter sets are designed for a market GW has never targeted (toy stores) at a different price point, and include the model, paint, and paintbrush -- everything someone needs other than cutters. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't, but GW should get credit for trying.

SemperMortis wrote:

-Introducing a competitive rules system for Age of Sigmar, directly because of demand

Not a single person I know of wanted AoS, most dislike it and it has caused a rather big problem for most Fantasy communities. (That what I gather from my Fantasy friends and Dakkas fantasy players)

It doesn't change that by many accounts, Fantasy had terrible sales, AoS is a relatively better seller for a lot of stores, and most importantly, that GW listened and is making changes into the next iteration of the game (like adding in points back into the game). I know this is a pointless circular argument and that just ends some people who hate AoS versus some people who like it, but again, GW should be credited for listening. It's better than the alternative, right?

SemperMortis wrote:

-Reinstated Specialist Games

They never stopped doing this to my knowledge

That's just not true. The Specialist Games division of GW was shut down. I mean, just Google it.

NVM, not worth the fight.

So I guess the agreement is to burn a random GW model box? (contents may vary...) To appease the rage-quit gods?

Well, there is much gaming happiness out there so I can afford to "take a break" from GW and see if they improve their situation to my liking at some later date.

 Talizvar wrote:
Well, there is much gaming happiness out there so I can afford to "take a break" from GW and see if they improve their situation to my liking at some later date.

I'd say there is not a more sensible and civil way to go about it. This might be a bit funny, but it's an internet forum and I feel like saying kudos for something this reasonable.

Removed. --Janthkin

 Byte wrote:

"In addition, the BEARER can choose to re-roll any failed to hit or to wound rolls or saving throws that they make."

So it should read, "In addition, the BEARER can choose to re-roll any failed to hit or to wound rolls or saving throws that he/the model makes." It doesn't.

NOPE.

"They" here refers to the Singular They:

Singular they is the use in English of the pronoun they, or its inflected or derivative forms, such as them, their, themself, or themselves, as a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to a single person or an antecedent that is grammatically singular. It typically occurs with an antecedent of indeterminate gender, as in sentences such as:
"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"[1]
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."[2]
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."[2]

Note pronoun/antecedent agreement. Antecedent is "Bearer" and pronoun (singular) is "They." "The Unit" is not referred, and therefore is not the antecedent.

Deleted do to lack of concern.

 Byte wrote:
Thanks for the cut and paste. Already saw all that jibber jabber blah blah. That still doesn't explain how magically only one grenade can be used in the assualt phase. Do we really know what GW means. No. Even with the jibber jabber blah blah.

As I already indicated, the issue is resolved. Ill go back and edit my posts as to not clutter the thread. As it doesnt seem people actually read through them.

Pronoun/antecedent agreement is not jibber jabber. It's pronoun/antecedent agreement.

Not sure why that's tough to understand. It is not to me.

No, that does not refer to grenades, only your false claim on DLS.

GW will issue an update on the FAQs soon. Then we will know if it is an errata in FAQ clothing or whether they will go back to multiples.

 Byte wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I'll put it up to my group and figure it out. I've been playing 40k for 20 years. The rules are written for exclusion. Its what they don't say. Anyway no reason to labor the point. Our meta will make a ruling, no big deal. One of our members runs the tournies at one of our stores so we'll get it ironed out.

The OP is right. Orks are worthless. He should burn his.

Don't be bloody stupid. Burning them is a childish thing to do. If anything, box them up for storage, sell them on eBay or donate them to a gaming club. Then find something else to do with your time.

Stupid? Rude much? The internet make you forget your manners? No reason to not keep it civil.

Suggesting that someone burn all their stuff because the game isn't to their liking IS bloody stupid. There's nothing rude about what I just said there.

I like how one guy burned his minis and it became a crown argument for GW lemings when faced with a critique of the game. "Orks are crap, I stop giving GW money" - answer, burn your minis lololol. It's a bit boorish, isn't it?

Why burn your models? Like wow shock and short term factors are great but long term you spent all that money just for a pretty fire?

If you must make a dent, put them up for sale. Not only do you cut your losses as opposed to lose all your money, but someone else gets your models to use as they enjoy the hobby and GW doesn't get your money (which I assume is the intent of burning stuff)

I believe, that as a customer, I should be presented with all the armies with either a) a warning that some of them aren't competitive or b) the strong attempt on the side of the company to have all armies possess a strong chance of winning, in a vacuum. My aesthetics choices in choosing one or other variety of tiny toy soldier to spend a shedload of money on should not punish or elevate me when playing the game they are designed to be used in.

As it stands, that is very far from the truth. Whilst 'tiers' have always existed, whilst 'codex creep' can also be said to have always existed, right now the Orks are bitterly bad in the current rules. GW can and should be doing better than this, and I believe much of the blame lies on letting all the genies out of the bottles in terms of D weapons and spammable options on elite armies, with a strong emphasis on shooting, leaving the horde armies, with a strong emphasis on melee, to suffer. Coupled with the obnoxiously awful ork codex (hi, we're going to take a 3 editions old codex and nerf it to gak, because someone complained about nob bikers 8 years ago...) and most especially the disgusting change to the mob rule, is it honestly any wonder Ork players are peevish?

If timmy and jonny walk into GW and spend their hard earned pocket money on an army each and timmy got army X and jonny got army Y, given that timmy and jonny are equally skilled players, there should be a near-to balanced number of wins, loses and draws, based on the codices, rules and sway of scenario/terrain/other random influences.

I don't think having a screaming meltdown is the answer, I don't think abandoning the games and minis is either, but sharing your opinions, frustrations and suggestions with GW politely might yield better results. They do seem to be taking baby steps back into the light after hiding in their bunker for the last 10 years, so lets encourage them to open a dialogue.

As to those piling on the OP with criticism, I'm also the owner of an ork army and share his great disappointment, having watched my years of modeling, converting and painting reduced to showing up to be the npc targets for some heroic types who are just autoplaying. Its frustrating, its also not a case of being a bad player or hating the game, we want to play the game, we thought we could, we spent a large amount of money and dedication on the armies to do so and then get offered product that fails very badly to meet our expectations, whilst those around us who made other, purely aesthetic initial choices, get dramatically more in-game potential.

We are often told the 'balanced' game is impossible, but the 'more balanced' game shouldn't be, and right now we are a long way off that.

Runic wrote:GW is currently doing massive leaps in order to improve many things as we have concretically seen, and recovering from a Kirby led age of bad decisions.

It seems the "blame Kirby for everything" trend has hit hard among the lines of GW apologists. The same people who one or two years ago were saying literally "everything is fine, nothing is broken". Hardly a surprising change of narrative anyway, it was to be expected.

Now let's see those "massive leaps".

Introduced new starter sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier

Virtually what every other model company does and has been doing for years and decades.

Introduced new starter painting sets for new hobbyists to get into the hobby easier

You mean the twenty-five years old kits with pots of paint that will barely allow "new hobbyists" to give said kits three basic colors? Because first, they aren't really cheap products to begin with, and second, they're being marketed as toys and sold in toy shops.

Introducing a competitive rules system for Age of Sigmar, directly because of demand

Wasn't Age of Sigmar a non-competitive game, meant for True Hobbyists(TM) willing to forge the narrative as hard as neccesary? Wasn't the non-inclusion of a points system hailed as a great move by GW barely a year ago? Has the Narrative(TM) changed already on that matter?

With points or without them, AoS is still a turd of a game. Dead on arrival. The community has moved on and won't likely come back.

Reinstated Specialist Games

I'm curious about this. Could you tell me where I can find those reinstated "Specialist Games" in GW's website? Thanks in advance.

Started content feeds on social media

2016 here. Are you truly serious about this being a "massive leap"?

Restarted FAQ:s for their games and even drafting them

Releasing FAQs for their own games, something virtually every games company out there does, is meant to be another "massive leap"?

Reopened communications with the community

Same response as "started content feeds on social media".

Changed the problematic Codex model into the more fluid Campaign model

Completely subjective statement. In any case, the switch has done nothing to improve the absurdly bloated mess that 40k has become, as the Campaign books keep piling more formations and special rules on top of more formations and special rules, while the core issues of the game are left unnatended.

Circumvented direct downpricing of miniatures by selling things like Imperial Knight Renegade, which in practice is simply a way to sell miniatures at a discount

The discounts are nice. Also pretty much every other company does it, and has been doing it for years and years.

In short,

 Azreal13 wrote:
Evidently one man's "great lengths" or "massive leaps" is many other's "bare minimum."

The only way I can understand someone calling all these baby steps "massive leaps" is to live in some sort of bubble where only GW exists, so when GW (with the water up to their necks) starts doing pretty much what every other model company has been - quite successfully - doing for years, we're supposed to drop any kind of complaining or negative remarks to everything they've done wrong and keep doing wrong. Their rules are still gak, their prices - discounted or not - are still too high.

So great, such lenghts, wow.

I decided to play One Page 40K rules with my Orks and I find them more usable than using the GW rules.

 Korinov wrote:
snip

You're doing the same thing as the guy before, and argumenting that change isn't change or doesn't count as such because it doesn't appease you personally. You seem like one of the people who would never be happy with the game in the end, no matter what was done to it. It's evident by the fact that no improvement counts as such for you. That also tells me you already know what you've decided and your view won't be changed.

Be unhappy about GW and their changes, I hope you get something out of it I guess.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not or don't see it, that's the way it is still. I have nothing more to add, as what I say is true and perceivable by anyone and simply a fact. I see no reason to continue when I have been stating what is factually correct to beginwith. You won't accept it as a fact despite it being so, that means an impasse.

GW has changed a lot of stuff and almost all of it is something people have been asking for. Period.

GW has burned a lot of bridges over the last several years and not everyone is forgiving as you seem to be.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
GW has burned a lot of bridges over the last several years and not everyone is forgiving as you seem to be.

The thing is, that some are reading too much into it. I haven't stated anything about forgiveness, or if something is a common practice by default these days, or not. I am completely aware that the moves done by GW are commonpractice for many competitors.

I have stated GW has done big changes, and most of them are something people have been asking for.

That is what I am stating, and it is true.

Turn it into something more, and that's on you.

Lets be real Runic, who've never been very critical of GW regardless of their actions.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Lets be real Runic, who've never been very critical of GW regardless of their actions.

I do not understand what you mean/are after with this. Does a persons standing somehow affect factually perceivable details, such as change in a companys behaviour? I can't even begin to imagine someone not seeing all the altered approaches they have taken compared to say, 1,5 years ago. Come on, it's obvious. I already articulated as clearly as possible, that I am simply stating that GW has made big changes, and most of them things that people have been asking for.

I refuse to be sidetracked. Continously repeating a correct statement hardly does anything. It doesn't change the reality of clearly perceivable changes made by the company, and it also doesn't change the opinion of someone who has made up their mind and refuse to acknowledge what is crystal clear. Therefore I have nothing more to add. Some see the changes, some don't/refuse to acknowledge them and that's pretty much that.

Still too little, too late.
And forgiving them, to turn 40k in a mess, and dumping more crapy rules on it, as well as killing my first and favourite system?
Never.
I believe in 2nd chances. Not in.... 10th chances.

BURN YOUR ARMY.
YOU TOO CAN BE THIS GUY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUPJ0inN4c

(Or just be sensible and sell or donate it on if you no longer enjoy it. Each to their own.)

I don't know why people get their knickers in a twist when someone wants to burn their army. I couldn't give two feths about the money I might get selling them, to me it's all the same if they are on ebay, in the trash can or on a funeral pyre, the fire is just more entertaining.

If I ever reach the point where I decide to throw in the towel and get rid of all my models I'll probably burn them just for the fun of it.