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.

morgoth wrote:
2. Many of the other games get attention from GW gamers, who exist mostly because of GW advertising and stores. Once you're in the hobby you may turn to other games, but GW clearly is one of the biggest gates. People leaving GW for those games is also surfing on GW's popularity.

This might be true in the UK where the greater population density has allowed GW to drive independent game stores out of business and replace them with GW stores in every town, but it's not true elsewhere. In the US GW's advertising is nonexistent and unless you happen to live in the right part of the right city to be right next to one you've probably never even seen a GW store. The biggest source of new players for miniatures games is probably MTG or RPG players coming into a store and seeing a miniatures game they're interested in. GW's popularity just means that they're the most likely first purchase, remove GW entirely and they'd just buy some other game instead. Remove GW's stores entirely and hardly anyone would even notice that they were gone.

morgoth wrote:
1. For those who still don't get it.
Aussie store buys 5000AUD of stuff from GW, worth 2500 pounds. AUD hikes like crazy, meaning that 5000AUD is now worth 5000 pounds. GW can either say slash the prices in half, give 2500 AUD back to the Aussies, which is the price they paid for the merchandise, or keep the price and let the situation work itself out. There was no easy way out once Aussie stores had purchased GW stuff at the old AUD/pound exchange rate.

The mind boggles.

 Yonan wrote:

morgoth wrote:
1. For those who still don't get it.
Aussie store buys 5000AUD of stuff from GW, worth 2500 pounds. AUD hikes like crazy, meaning that 5000AUD is now worth 5000 pounds. GW can either say slash the prices in half, give 2500 AUD back to the Aussies, which is the price they paid for the merchandise, or keep the price and let the situation work itself out. There was no easy way out once Aussie stores had purchased GW stuff at the old AUD/pound exchange rate.

The mind boggles.

I thought it was really simple...

1. Aussie store buys 2500 pounds worth of stuff from GW, which is 5000 AUD.
2. GW receives 2500 pounds for the stuff.
3. Aussie store prices in proportion of the 5000 AUD
4. AUD/pound fluctuates.
5. GW still only has 2500 pounds
6. Aussie store still prices in proportion of the 5000 AUD
7. Problem: 5000 AUD is now worth 5000 pounds, so the store is pricing way too high
8. Solution:
a. bring the price inline with England: the store loses 2500 AUD or GW loses 2500 pounds.
b. find a middle ground: the store loses a bit less or GW doesn't even make the production costs back
c. have a complex trade agreement that auto-adapts the prices with a maximum of 2.5% change per month, which will be supported 50% by GW as a reduction on next purchase, reviewed on a monthly basis.

I like c., but it's really easy to think of that in hindsight, I would be surprised that a small company like GW had such a thing in place.

Take it from an Aussie, that's not how it works.

For one thing new releases have still been even more expensive here.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.

As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.

The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?

Need a hug?


If anyone's playing apologist bingo, I think you've just won.

I'll stay thanks. I love 40k - I just don't like the rules or the company. I'll keep pushing for change so that my enjoyment of the hobby will improve. If that degrades your enjoyment, ordinarily I would take that into consideration but due to your complete disregard for mine and others, I'll actually take it as a win.

- In the meantime, China and the internet means that price is a non-issue - for us, GW loses out though.
- I can and do get my competitive gaming in elsewhere, but again it's GWs loss. Not just me, but the other people GW has lost there, some directly due to my recommendations.
- Since you're an Aussie, you should realize that the exodus from GW in AU is higher than elsewhere, not only was there a great decrease in sales, but an actual loss in the region.

The end result, which is borne out by the data, is that GW is hemorrhaging sales becaue thankfully very few people are willing to take a rogering like you apparently are.

 Kavish wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Once the bullets (dice) start flying most people, play to win.

Building a list (to win for you) by abusing certain units/rules means you require a handicap to win; in our group those people are jerks.

This sums up the way I see it quite nicely. The battle should begin when both sides are deployed, not before. Really, it's highly unlikely, fluff-wise, that a general would have all his best units ready to fight at one point when a battle begins.

As soon as the dice start rolling, I'm in it to win it, but I prefer winning with an army rather than building an army to win.

The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?

That all might be worth it if the rules were good or if GW deserved my money.

Apparently Australians like a good rogering. That's why we voted in the liberals again. Lol. GW isn't the only company struggling in the current financial climate. The stock market is headed for another big crash you know.

Apologist, apologist. Meh. Sticks and stones. Call me names and I'll act immature too. Let's all be immature.

I'm always up for more hugs. Hugs are great.

My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot. Those who aren't are not compelled to keep playing.

 Kavish wrote:
"But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby.

The thing is I can afford to be a wargamer. I can afford to play Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity as part of my wargaming hobby budget. OR I can afford 'the HHHobby'.

 Kavish wrote:
My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot.

Your point was obvious and didn't need to be made, of course people are enjoying 40k. Our point is that number is decreasing daily as more people get fed up with this bollocks which you don't seem to acknowledge.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
"But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby.

The thing is I can afford to be a wargamer. I can afford to play Warmachine, Malifaux and Infinity as part of my wargaming hobby budget. OR I can afford 'the HHHobby'.

Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.

The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.

 Kavish wrote:
Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.

What a horrible way to effect change. We love 40k, and we want to enjoy the tabletop game. As it is, we find it lacking so are seeking to improve it by whatever means we can. An important distinction however is that we're putting the game down, not the people that enjoy the game.

The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.

Enjoying the rules is defintiely subjective. The quality of the rules is not. At an objective level when compared to other game systems, the rules are complex without added depth, poorly balanced and poorly written. When you're asked to pay a premium for them, you should expect a premium product in return that is noticeably better than the competition. Objectively, we do not receive that - however much fun you might have with it.

 Yonan wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
My point (because you obviously missed it) is that there are plenty of people in the real world enjoying 40k a lot.

Your point was obvious and didn't need to be made, of course people are enjoying 40k. Our point is that number is decreasing daily as more people get fed up with this bollocks which you don't seem to acknowledge.

I acknowledge that finecast is flawed. I have been avoiding it like the plague. It is certainly getting very expensive, true. I'm very selective in what I buy these days and am therefore that makes a statement to GW. We buy less, and they will hopefully stop raising the prices so far beyond inflation. No one will pay $60 for a single infantry unit. Surely GW wouldn't be so stupid as to go that far. It has to stop somewhere. The rules are great though. If you easily table everyone, every time your being a jerk (if you realise it or not). It's up to us as the players to keep that kind of thing in check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.

What a horrible way to effect change. We love 40k, and we want to enjoy the tabletop game. As it is, we find it lacking so are seeking to improve it by whatever means we can. An important distinction however is that we're putting the game down, not the people that enjoy the game.

The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions. That is a subjective thing. I think the rules are better than ever. I think 7th ed did a great job of fixing issues. Unbound and malefic are optional. Just putting it out there.

Enjoying the rules is defintiely subjective. The quality of the rules is not. At an objective level when compared to other game systems, the rules are complex without added depth, poorly balanced and poorly written. When you're asked to pay a premium for them, you should expect a premium product in return that is noticeably better than the competition. Objectively, we do not receive that - however much fun you might have with it.

By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?

I think making the rules really machanical is how you make them work perfectly. Unfortunately that also makes the game really dry (see Warmachine and MTG).

So you think the 40k rules are not mechanical feeling?

 Kavish wrote:
If you easily table everyone, every time your being a jerk (if you realise it or not). It's up to us as the players to keep that kind of thing in check.

That's only one small aspect of the rules problem. The games take longer than they need to because of cumbersome rules. IGOUGO is a flawed system where the inactive player stands around doing bugger all for 10 minutes at a time. The internal and external balance between codices is horrible with many great units and many shocking units, and whilst perfect balance is impossible, much better balance would be ridiculously easy if GW patched the game between releases and did better testing before release. You should not have units that are so lacklustre (rough riders) competing for slots with units like the pre-nerf vendetta. Look at Necron elites compared to Necron fast attack or annihilation barges for another comparison of bad unit balancing. There are many more examples of poor balancing, which is my main problem with the game - it results in one sided games which is bad regardless of the side that you're on.

Players wouldn't have to artificially limit themselves if the rules were balanced - other companies manage it, GW should be able to too.

By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?

You're right - GW does only respond to money. My money is a drop in the ocean - every additional person we convince to stop giving money adds up fast. Discussing why the game is bad on the forums helps show others why it's bad, what the alternatives are, and why they shouldn't support GW - *especially* if they like 40k. If you want 40k to be better, you can't give GW money, it's the only way we have a chance to make them listen.

The thread started out well... How did this turn into an argument about profits? And another GW bashing thread? I signed up to this forum to enhance my enjoyment of Warhammer 40k. Lately all it does it upset me. I've just about had it. I try to just look at the nice models and threads that seem nice, but so many of them devolve into this crap I see here about money and "the rules aren't balanced enough". As you can see by this old article from 1995/6, GW has always been the same! Perhaps you never realised it wasn't something you wanted to be a part of before. But who's fault is that? Not GW's that's for sure. If I bought a bunch of movies and discovered that I don't like them, I can't say that the movie producers ripped me off. I bought them, and some people like the movies. Furthermore, it's not Warmachine. It's 40k. If your so hung up on competitive balance then go play Warmachine, post on Warmachine threads, and leave those of us who are trying to enjoy 40k alone! I just went to a 40k campaign day at a FLGS and there had to have been 30 guys there. All enjoying the crap out of 40k. The only gripe I heard was about Helldrakes being nerfed. But that guy was outnumbered 3:1 by others saying they didn't mind (perhaps it was a bit too powerful). But I digress. Everyone was having a great time! The next argument I'm going to predict is; "but I don't have a group and rely on pick up games". We'll make some friends silly! The next time you have a good pick up game, ask the guys for his number so you can organise more games. Make up scenarios. Talk about the game before you have it. If he brings Wave Serpent spam, tell him that's a bit much. If he's worth knowing he'll tone it down for you. Seriously, all this crap that gets winged about here only exists if you let it. I only come across problems with 40k here on the internet. In real life, people are having a ball. "But it's too expensive", yep it's expensive. So are most hobbies. A playstation game is $100 aud, doing up cars is crazy expensive. Business' will do what they will. Sorry, but if you can't afford it, get a cheaper hobby. Now those of us who are still keen; can we just enjoy ourselves?

Easily one of the best posts I have seen on here so far and gets right to the point. The issues have been around for a long time, a very long time, yet those with the biggest gripes continue to play and continue griping, always comparing it to another game. There is a simple answer and you've told them what it is, the question now is, do they do the mature thing and realize that griping on forums like these isn't going to change anything, or are they going to continue on.

Either way, we need more people like you on these forums sir!

The codex balance. I agree with you there. Tau and Eldar being the main offenders. All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though. There is an Eldar player in my gaming group. He knows he can kick everyone's ass if he wants to, but he chooses to bring friendly lists so everyone can have fun. There is a Tau player too. He's got all the toys. Riptide, buffmander, rocket broadsides, marker lights, hammerhead gunship... He's not invincible. The last time I saw him play he lost rather convincingly. Land raiders or battlewagons stitch him up pretty good. I think it was Guard that time though. Didn't see what happened as I was busy with my own game.

I don't mind the IGOUGO system. There's deny the witch, armour saves, overwatch, and close combat to be had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you Lobomalo.

 Kavish wrote:
Then do it. Just don't hang around 40k threads putting it down.

 Kavish wrote:
By spending money elsewhere you are effecting change. That's the only way you can. Do you think GW actually reads your posts?

That's exactly why I'm here. I love the 40k IP, I grew up playing 40k, and one of my first jobs was working in a GW store.
Look at my sig- I still have my Blood Angels from over 20 years ago. Like it or not I have an emotional investment here, like many others. I want GW and 40k to be what they used to be. Once they were a company I wanted to be a part of, that I couldn't want to see the lastest releases from. My whole group was like this. Now we look at our stuff fondly and laugh about the latest GW PR blunder, pricing absurdity or other misstep they made this week that leads them further down the path to failure as a company.

Ultimately I don't want it to go there. I sincerely don't. I want to see GW return to being a maker of games that I want to play like they used to be. But you're right, they do only listen to money. So here I am, encouraging people to spend their money elsewhere- because it grows the gaming hobby.

 Kavish wrote:
The rules ARE good in mine and a lot of other peoples opinions.

Man, we just had like a six page argument over the timing of Jink. And that wasn't even resolved!

The average number of answers- and this is without even a definitive resolution on everything- for the 40K YMDC 1st page is currently at 24 (1139 posts over 47 topics). The WM/H YMDC is 5. What is your explanation for that?

 Kavish wrote:
All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though.

You don't see a lot of units that are far less effective than other choices in most of these codices?
- Basically any Necron elite compared to the troops, dedicated transports, fast attack, HQs and most heavy support. The praetorians and lychgardes are really overpriced and flayed ones are just plain ineffective.
- Rough Riders compared to any other IG unit. The new codex finally did improve a lot of glaring problems though, ie. vendetta, vet upgrades, sentinels... though I'm not sold on them yet.
- CSM Zerks, 1KSons, mutilators, possessed and warp talons are all really lacklustre compared to anything nurgle, drakes and bikes. They either cost too much (warp talons), are ineffective (Zerks) or both (1KSons).

Those are the dexes I know the most about. Speaking more from a 6th ed perspective than 7th if that matters, not sure what's changed since the new edition.

Some of the balancing is down to overall "ranged vs assault" rule balance, ie. favouring ranged lately - a criticism of poor rules writing. Others is the arbitrary distinctions between walkers, MCs, vehicles etc. where walkers were a very subpar unit type (somewhat remedied supposedly), another general poor rules thing. But a lot of it is just down to poor costing for the units, where they could easily be adjusted to cost more or less to make many more units "balanced" and therefore increase the avaialble units for every one to use and play against. You won't have to not use penitent engines due to how pathetic they are, and you won't have to avoid riptides since they won't stomp your friends. Everyone wins.

 Yonan wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
All the other 6th ed codices are fairly well balanced though.

You don't see a lot of units that are far less effective than other choices in most of these codices?
- Basically any Necron elite compared to the troops, dedicated transports, fast attack, HQs and most heavy support. The praetorians and lychgardes are really overpriced and flayed ones are just plain ineffective.
- Rough Riders compared to any other IG unit. The new codex finally did improve a lot of glaring problems though, ie. vendetta, vet upgrades, sentinels... though I'm not sold on them yet.
- CSM Zerks, 1KSons, mutilators, possessed and warp talons are all really lacklustre compared to anything nurgle, drakes and bikes. They either cost too much (warp talons), are ineffective (Zerks) or both (1KSons).

Those are the dexes I know the most about. Speaking more from a 6th ed perspective than 7th if that matters, not sure what's changed since the new edition.

Some of the balancing is down to overall "ranged vs assault" rule balance, ie. favouring ranged lately - a criticism of poor rules writing. Others is the arbitrary distinctions between walkers, MCs, vehicles etc. where walkers were a very subpar unit type (somewhat remedied supposedly), another general poor rules thing. But a lot of it is just down to poor costing for the units, where they could easily be adjusted to cost more or less to make many more units "balanced" and therefore increase the avaialble units for every one to use and play against. You won't have to not use penitent engines due to how pathetic they are, and you won't have to avoid riptides since they won't stomp your friends. Everyone wins.

Perhaps all melee units should be cheaper. And a small increase in price of jump packs and assault vehicles. The thing is right. If I am really good at Kung fu, and I charge at you with a sword, and you have a gun, who will win?

A large part of the 40k setting is that melee has it's place on the battlefield. It's unrealistic yes, but that's the setting we all know and love. The rules should reflect that. If you wanted, you could rationalise it as melee weapon and armour technology advancing faster than ranged technology. Think plate without crossbows or firearms - arrows were largely ineffective, you had to get in there with a mace and go to town. Or use a ballista ; p

Melee being cheaper would help, but would largely be a bandaid over the ranged-oriented rules. No assaulting out of transports, squishy transports, removal of casualties from the front resulting in actually moving backwards each turn and so on mean a simple points adjustment might not be enough to counteract it, at least not without having something like 2 point boyz which just gets ridiculous.

Points adjustments can fix lots of things - vendettas, night scythes, annihilation barges, 1ksons. Maybe Warp Talons as a faster infantry, but Zerks get screwed over too much by the basic rules. Walkers had the same problem.

It can still be powerful. I had two thunderwolves and a lone wolf survive 6 turns in kill team the other day. They are pretty beast units though. I would like to see the return of being able to assault out of normal transports. Other than that what can we do besides make all the guns weaker or the armour on assault troops better? All that sounds like it could really bust up the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify. Those 3 models where the only models I had on the table. By the end I think I just had the 1 thunderwolf. But it was an epic run.

Like I said, fast assault units can work under the current rules, just like Necron Wraiths - no one argues how powerful they are. Thunderwolf Cavalry are still probably overcosted compared to wraiths - 50 points for an S5 T5 3+ 2w cavalry comapred to 35 for an S6 T4 3+/3++ 2w jump infantry that are overall just awesome. They have the speed and durability to get into close combat whereas zerks, lychgardes, praetorians don't. Praetorians cost 5 more than wraiths, are slow, have half the wounds and no invuln save... there's no way you'd take them over wraiths.

What can be done? That's for GW, whom we pay a lot of money for rules to determine. As is though, it *is* broken when a lot of assault units can't be used effectively and a lot of other units are clearly worse than alternatives in the same codex.

Assault from stationary transports.
Assault from outflank.
Consolidate into a new combat (no charge bonuses).

These three would go a long way to fixing the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The consolidate thing wouldn't make them broken IMHO. Opponents should know your coming and keep some distance between units.

 Kojiro wrote:

The average number of answers- and this is without even a definitive resolution on everything- for the 40K YMDC 1st page is currently at 24 (1139 posts over 47 topics). The WM/H YMDC is 5. What is your explanation for that?

Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?

morgoth wrote:
Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?

No. The number is the average number of posts per topic, not the total number of posts or topics. Non-GW YMDC topics get fewer posts per topic, which means that questions are answered much faster and don't get much discussion beyond "here's the answer". The number of people playing either game is irrelevant, unless you think that 40k has a lot of players who just post "I agree with this" in every YMDC thread while non-GW games don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Maybe that there are a lot more people playing 40K ?

No. The number is the average number of posts per topic, not the total number of posts or topics. Non-GW YMDC topics get fewer posts per topic, which means that questions are answered much faster and don't get much discussion beyond "here's the answer". The number of people playing either game is irrelevant, unless you think that 40k has a lot of players who just post "I agree with this" in every YMDC thread while non-GW games don't.

Maybe there are more people who like to complain about 40k?

If we look at the numbers right now:

WM/H has 48 topics, 201 replies for an average of 4.18 replies per topic. With 17,116 views.

40K has 46 topic, 1,102 replies for an average of 23.95 replies per topic. With 20,620 views.

WM/H YMDC gets 80% odd of the views of the 40k one but generates about one sixth the discussion.
Call me crazy but less arguing about rules is good, right? A 'good' rules system would have as little dispute over rules as possible, right?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:

Maybe there are more people who like to complain about 40k?

Are you implying that people ask how a rule works and twenty odd people jump in and deride GW? Because if that actually happened you would be pretty close to the numbers. Alas I'm pretty sure most YMDC threads are actually rules arguments.

No I am just raising a confounding factor in the analysis. I do not have data to back it up. Strangely, unless you look through and classify all the posts, I think it is not easy to come to a conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A smaller player base may not spot as many problems? May have not so diverse a view? Some number churning with statistical significance should be done if you really feel your conclusion is the most definitive and correct one.