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.

Not changing the rules significantly in each incarnation of the game (edition).

I disagree, if the rules aren't changing then there's no reason to put out a new, $50 book for everyone to buy.

I'm kinda sick of that, actually. They shouldn't be putting out a new edition every few years, there needs to be a bit more time between updates...especially since they can't actually update all the fething armies for each edition.

So that's another thing I want: all armies to be updated to the current edition before work starts on the new, and no more new editions unless the game is changing from the ground up.

How about not acting like pretentious asshats the entire time? That would fix a lot.

agnosto wrote:While we're dreaming...I'd like them to have all the codecii finished and ready to got BEFORE they release a new rules edition that bakes half of the armies.

Since that's not going to happen; I would like to see them at least act like a real company to the extent that their customers know the release schedule at least on a year to year basis. Instead we get the whole rumor thing for 6 months before they surprise everyone with another space marine codex.

New editions dont bake half the armies they just get people to think about the ones that arent updated as much, but alas people like you can't be bothered to try to make said army work so you and complain on forums and some of the new players get put off said army so theres less people playing that army so they aren't updated so you complain because you army hasn't been updated.

Also, erm, i don't know many (or any) companies that show everybody what their doing from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. also if you feel GW aren't being a real company then why do you buy thier products when they obviously are if they make money)? also GW don't HAVE to tell you what they're doing in a year or so because your not a shareholder (or w/e) because if you were you'd know the released schedule.

stop acting like A) GW gives a and B) owes you anything, they owe you what you pay them for what you buy nothing else you should feel lucky you get told anything at all.

twistinthunder wrote:

agnosto wrote:While we're dreaming...I'd like them to have all the codecii finished and ready to got BEFORE they release a new rules edition that bakes half of the armies.

Since that's not going to happen; I would like to see them at least act like a real company to the extent that their customers know the release schedule at least on a year to year basis. Instead we get the whole rumor thing for 6 months before they surprise everyone with another space marine codex.

New editions dont bake half the armies they just get people to think about the ones that arent updated as much, but alas people like you can't be bothered to try to make said army work so you and complain on forums and some of the new players get put off said army so theres less people playing that army so they aren't updated so you complain because you army hasn't been updated.

Also, erm, i don't know many (or any) companies that show everybody what their doing from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. also if you feel GW aren't being a real company then why do you buy thier products when they obviously are if they make money)? also GW don't HAVE to tell you what they're doing in a year or so because your not a shareholder (or w/e) because if you were you'd know the released schedule.

stop acting like A) GW gives a and B) owes you anything, they owe you what you pay them for what you buy nothing else you should feel lucky you get told anything at all.

Did I touch a nerve or are you a company representative? I see a fair number of other people on this board griping about one thing or another related to the hobby, thus threads such as this one. Why read a thread that was created with the intent of letting people air their concerns if it's going to get your knickers in a twist? Who needs the aggravation? I especially like how you zoomed in on the second half of my post and totally disregarded the 1st part or even the first 3 words of the entire thing.

I do admit that my "bake" comment may have been an exageration. Think for a moment though, we, collectively, spend a fair chunk of change in this hobby, is it nor proper for us, as consumers, to expect a certain level of service in exchange for our pecuniary investment? We've all grown well accustomed to having rules editions outdated on a fairly regular basis, that's all well and good but should we not also expect the company to respect the investment of money and time that we've made in their product by ensuring that it is well supported? How would you feel if you buy an operating system for your computer and the company (whether microsoft or apple) never updates the ancilliary processes so that you have a functioning piece of software but are unable to utilize it to it's full capabilities. I don't know about you, personally; however, I would be a bit miffed, as quite a few others seem to be.

As to your second comment; there are numerous companies that provide adequate customer service by at least giving an anticipated timeline for product releases. Books are an appropriate example. Have you ever read a book and then in the back cover is a small statement to the effect that the sequel is expected "fall of 2010"; at least then you have an idea as to how long you have to wait to continue the series. Software companies almost always have an "in development" section on their websites where you may see what projects are currently in progress. Relic has provided more information about upcoming additions to the "Dawn of War" franchise than GW has ever provided regarding it's bread and butter. I reiterate; is it wrong, as a customer, to expect the company to have some sort of communication with its' consumer base? I think not.

WH40K and WHFB are fine quality products, heck I just finished a game of blood bowl earlier this evening; however, my enjoyment of the products that GW makes and my respect for their creative prowess do not preclude my desire for quality service, just as I would from any other service or product provider that I do business with. If I didn't care about the product, I would not care how it was provided or if it was provided at all. I suppose that one might say that I as you so quaintly put it, because I do care and I want GW to fulfill the potential I know it has so that I desire to give them even more of my money and recommend that my colleagues and friends do as well.

finis.

Was that post supposed to be a joke? He sounds just like GW, it's all our fault, not theirs. The only reason our armies don't get updated is because we don't buy enough models. The only reason the rules are so confusing is because we don't play the game right.

And for your information, we know GW doesn't give a gak, that's part of the fething problem. Telling the customer to "feth off" isn't really good for business, either.

I'd like to see the following:

1. Lower prices.
2. Update all the Codices before the new edition so all armies are up to date with the new rules.
3. More plastic models especially for older armies.
4. Condense the Marine armies into one book if possible or at least have a generic Marine book and free PDFs for each specialty army.
5. Bring back the old Daemonette models.
6. Plastic Sisters of Battle.
7. Lower prices.
8. Faster delivery time to my LGS.

agnosto wrote:Since that's not going to happen; I would like to see them at least act like a real company to the extent that their customers know the release schedule at least on a year to year basis. Instead we get the whole rumor thing for 6 months before they surprise everyone with another space marine codex.

You sir, are full of win and dark elf boobies.

I still don't understand their mentality on this one.

New-style (see 5e C:SM) Codices for all Warhammer 40,000 armies.

@Fetterkey: Because we don't spend enough time flipping pages back and forth trying to find the relevant rules for various units and items?

I don't care about that. The new Codices are more interesting and more balanced than their predecessors, and that's a net win for me.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see all the books released in a ring bound format so it's possible to keep fluff/hobby sections separate from the rules and so that rule/codex updates don't need to be full new books.

FAQs, alternative forces (such as Ork tribes or Armoured companies) or Apocalypse data sheets could be given away with WD. At the end of each year they could roll up all these into a yearly, paid for, update pack like the old Annuals.

Yes, I realise it'd likely cause it's own problems (and that I'm living in dream land), but it'd make keeping rules consistent easier as codex releases would have to use existing pages for weapon rules and if they want to change a weapon/rule they change it for everyone by adding in a replacement rule page or two

[update] I realised that I failed to say that the FAQs would consist of replacement pages for the rule/codex sections... so could get a little large if there are lots of actual text changes for a page. Assuming this is how the rules are released, I'd also like to see FAQs rephrase paragraphs, with examples, in the correct section of the rulebook rather than a separate faq section.

The idea behind this comes from those monthly Star Wars data file type things released by DeAgonisti where the pages are colour coded so you would split up the Codex/rulebook into things like Fluff, Rules, Hobby, Arms/Armour, units (the page long descriptions of each unit), force lists (the army list part of the books with points) and of course the reference sheets. That way you'd only need to take the Rules, Reference sheets and maybe the Force lists sections with you to games... I could go on, but you'd all be bored

endtransmission wrote:In an ideal world, I'd like to see all the books released in a ring bound format so it's possible to keep fluff/hobby sections separate from the rules and so that rule/codex updates don't need to be full new books.

FAQs, alternative forces (such as Ork tribes or Armoured companies) or Apocalypse data sheets could be given away with WD. At the end of each year they could roll up all these into a yearly, paid for, update pack like the old Annuals.

Yes, I realise it'd likely cause it's own problems (and that I'm living in dream land), but it'd make keeping rules consistent easier as codex releases would have to use existing pages for weapon rules and if they want to change a weapon/rule they change it for everyone by adding in a replacement rule page or two

You sir a a genius!

ring bound also means book don't crease and that you can always see everthing on the page.

twistinthunder wrote:

endtransmission wrote:In an ideal world, I'd like to see all the books released in a ring bound format so it's possible to keep fluff/hobby sections separate from the rules and so that rule/codex updates don't need to be full new books.

FAQs, alternative forces (such as Ork tribes or Armoured companies) or Apocalypse data sheets could be given away with WD. At the end of each year they could roll up all these into a yearly, paid for, update pack like the old Annuals.

Yes, I realise it'd likely cause it's own problems (and that I'm living in dream land), but it'd make keeping rules consistent easier as codex releases would have to use existing pages for weapon rules and if they want to change a weapon/rule they change it for everyone by adding in a replacement rule page or two

You sir a a genius!

ring bound also means book don't crease and that you can always see everthing on the page.

If you pull the WD's book spine off , the page will separate easily without ripping. And you can just put the pages you need
into those 3 hole punched transparent plastic pockets things ( dunno their name -_- )

lunahound wrote:If you pull the WD's book spine off , the page will separate easily without ripping. And you can just put the pages you need
into those 3 hole punched transparent plastic pockets things ( dunno their name -_- )

True. The old WDs and Rogue Trader era books even had grey spots for punching the holes in, but there's always something printed on the other side that should be elsewhere, such as a fantasy painting article on the back of a 40K rules bit

To hit modifiers and armour save modifiers for 40k. Full of win and would really knock MEQ's down a few pegs and probably hurt their marine sales to xenos races and we'll see less space marines everywhere on gaming tables

Vermillion wrote:To hit modifiers and armour save modifiers for 40k. Full of win and would really knock MEQ's down a few pegs and probably hurt their marine sales to xenos races and we'll see less space marines everywhere on gaming tables

They had those in 2nd Edition and Marines were just as popular

endtransmission wrote:In an ideal world, I'd like to see all the books released in a ring bound format so it's possible to keep fluff/hobby sections separate from the rules and so that rule/codex updates don't need to be full new books.

FAQs, alternative forces (such as Ork tribes or Armoured companies) or Apocalypse data sheets could be given away with WD. At the end of each year they could roll up all these into a yearly, paid for, update pack like the old Annuals.

Yes, I realise it'd likely cause it's own problems (and that I'm living in dream land), but it'd make keeping rules consistent easier as codex releases would have to use existing pages for weapon rules and if they want to change a weapon/rule they change it for everyone by adding in a replacement rule page or two

[update] I realised that I failed to say that the FAQs would consist of replacement pages for the rule/codex sections... so could get a little large if there are lots of actual text changes for a page. Assuming this is how the rules are released, I'd also like to see FAQs rephrase paragraphs, with examples, in the correct section of the rulebook rather than a separate faq section.

The idea behind this comes from those monthly Star Wars data file type things released by DeAgonisti where the pages are colour coded so you would split up the Codex/rulebook into things like Fluff, Rules, Hobby, Arms/Armour, units (the page long descriptions of each unit), force lists (the army list part of the books with points) and of course the reference sheets. That way you'd only need to take the Rules, Reference sheets and maybe the Force lists sections with you to games... I could go on, but you'd all be bored

I have to say that I like it; a brilliant idea!

Tim the Biovore wrote:Instead of complaining about what they've done, what do we want GW to do? I don't want sarcasm, unless necessary. I know I want Titans for all races, not just orks and IG.

I'd vote for a side-project to do the fabled '40k Advanced' alongside the cash-cow current 40k, with the idea that the Advanced version will take over when it is ready. Start from the ground up, and eliminate any rules 'sacred cows' while keeping the setting in mind.

(In practice, I'd want the game to refocus more on normal humans as the balance point instead of Space Marines. So a force would be 20-40 Guardsmen, or a handful of Space Marines. Yes, this would mean Space Marine armies would be ridiculous pints values, but that's OK... they can either be sued for big games or can work with Imperials.)

Internal Playtesting.

Balance wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:Instead of complaining about what they've done, what do we want GW to do? I don't want sarcasm, unless necessary. I know I want Titans for all races, not just orks and IG.

I'd vote for a side-project to do the fabled '40k Advanced' alongside the cash-cow current 40k, with the idea that the Advanced version will take over when it is ready. Start from the ground up, and eliminate any rules 'sacred cows' while keeping the setting in mind.

(In practice, I'd want the game to refocus more on normal humans as the balance point instead of Space Marines. So a force would be 20-40 Guardsmen, or a handful of Space Marines. Yes, this would mean Space Marine armies would be ridiculous pints values, but that's OK... they can either be sued for big games or can work with Imperials.)

You could use 40K Advanced to introduce correctly scaled Marines/Orks via Forge World in order for their increased points/stats to make sense. You could also run 40KA as a subscription service that nets you updated pages for a ring bound rulebook each month as the rules develop and are playtested; also granting a discount on the new scale marines if you turn in playtesting info and suggestions for improvement. At least that's what I'd do if I ran the company

Sorry. I'm starting to sound like a stuck record...

Pure WIN:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1520119&prodId=prod1490005
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1530159&prodId=prod1590018

Pure FAIL:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1530159&prodId=prod1550006
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1530125&prodId=prod1050083


What would I love to see? New Codexes: Dark Eldar, Lost & Damned, Sisters of Battle/Grey Knights/Inquisition, a small update fot Black Templars (even a White Dwarf article would be enough). And -dreaming awake- a Tanith plastic troops kit, like Cadia and Catachan.

A system for creating IC's and new unit's. Some way to be able to make your own without being overpowered and can go with conversions.

Lost and the Damned

Plastic Demon Prince that has options for the four Demon Gods: Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzneetch.
(The Nurgle Demon Prince looks slowed IMO.)

Things I'd like to see:
1.Less space marine and in particular less ultrasmurf pushing (2 ultra pages in the showcase section of tbrr)

2.Price cuts

3.Price cuts

4.Price cuts

5.More plastic kits for older armies

Building on what some of you are saying, I especially like the "rules in development" concept. I think it would be smart for GW to allow public playtesting.

They have a good number of GW stores which are staffed with experienced company employees; why not utilize this workforce by asking them to hold events that playtest proposed rules or changes. Record the event and the folks in the corporate office would be able to analyze the matches and determine if things are luck of the dice or just plain overpowering. Best of all, it'd be free, produce good will and build fervor for the upcoming rules set by offering a teaser.

GW, let your customer base have some ownership in the game; they'll be more loyal and have less reason for complaint.

*sigh* It's a crying shame that GW will probably never see the ideas being tossed around here.

Marines were popular during 2nd ed aye, but so were certain other armies and I saw a lot less marines armies when there wasnt a must keep a 3+ save against most weapons" thing I keep hearing from some players :(

I demand ALL OF THE DEVLAN MUD!!111!!11

But all seriousness:

I'd like them to revert the US websales shenanigans.
I'd like to see Forge World get a huge staff increase(I don't have any issues with them as is, but I always call ahead to ensure what I want is in stock).
I'd love to see the Guardsman's statline as the "base" from which everyone else is priced as points.
I'd LOVE to see a Grenadiers plastic kit.
I'd LOVE to see them explain why my Guard Sergeants can no longer have lasguns.

and uh...I'm fresh out.

Regarding the playtesting, just paying basic attention to principles of game design would really help!

"Rules of Play" is pretty much the standard starting point:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9802

Employing game designers who've not even at least *read* that book, even if they have no other formal game design training, is a bit like employing miniatures sculptors with no formal art background -- sure, you might get a good product out of them, but it's completely hit and miss.

One of the basic principles outlined in RoP is that game design is an iterative process, with comprehensive, systematic playtesting between each new iteration. It's pretty clear that that is *not* going at GW HQ when they make their codices. You can't do it just by grabbing whichever staff are handy and having them play a few games; you need, in my experience, at least 10 different, independent playtest groups, all of which are testing the hell out of your design, deliberately looking for loopholes, lack of clarity, and broken rules.

It's not hard to co-ordinate that, and you get far better feedback that way than from the game designer's own playtest games (because the game designer is very unlikely to spot exploits in his design). Sure, you need to get everyone in each group to sign NDAs, but that's not hard either -- GW fans would be falling over themselves to help out.

Hi all.
I would like Games Workshop to put game play as a proirity.
Develop actual game systems rather than just develop minature ranges and leave the game play to a last minuite poorly conceived and executed mismash of 'rule of kool' and 'pimping' whats just been released.

As loads of other companies can produce well defined and comprehensive rule sets to maximise game play , why dont GW PLC bother?
(Do GW belive well defined and comprehensive rules writing has been copywrited by another company?)

As gamers buy the majority of minatures, surley providing an 'optimised end use' would drive sales more than 'woot! you must but this look at the kewl new rulz!!!!' and end up with FUBAR gameplay....

But then GW IS a minatures company, and '...the games are just icing on the cake...'

So gamers beware, Games Workshop isnt interested in game play!
Just selling Citadel Minatures...(perhaps the company should be called Citadel then, it would be less confusing.IMO)
TTFN
Lanrak.

agnosto wrote:They have a good number of GW stores which are staffed with experienced company employees; why not utilize this workforce by asking them to hold events that playtest proposed rules or changes. Record the event and the folks in the corporate office would be able to analyze the matches and determine if things are luck of the dice or just plain overpowering. Best of all, it'd be free, produce good will and build fervor for the upcoming rules set by offering a teaser.

This would be good to run, at least initially, as a second games night for older players; kind of like an after hours lock in with snacks and gamers who aren't out to be *whiny* power gamers. Many many years ago we used to have evenings like that in our local store for the regulars who weren't . It was much more fun as you didn't have little Johnny moaning about his Marines all the time.

I would like GW to buyback their stocks from the UK Index, and become a private company again.