Concern about GW method to 40k rule changes

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.

**BryllCream**

rbacus wrote:
And the thought that new releases are for new customers is kinda crazy. When someone walks into a GW for the first time, everything is new. The intent (however poorly executed) is for the returning customers, us.

I do agree that they need a bit more stability though. They need to stop coming out with new editions and codexes, and balance the existing ones. The tournemant scene could be utalized as a tool. Basically the biggest play-testing group possible. If anything is over or under powered, then it will show. And at the same time that they are balancing that stuff, listen to the "beer & pretzle" guys. Because ultimately, thats how they want the game played. Tournemants will let you know if the rules work, and everyone else lets you know if the rules are fun.

I'd also like to see equalised rulebooks. Problem is that they only have a finite amount of development time at GW HQ. You'd need to double or triple the size of the design team in order to acheive that, and for negligable financial benefits.

**Goat**

rbacus wrote:
And the thought that new releases are for new customers is kinda crazy. When someone walks into a GW for the first time, everything is new. The intent (however poorly executed) is for the returning customers, us.

I do agree that they need a bit more stability though. They need to stop coming out with new editions and codexes, and balance the existing ones. The tournemant scene could be utalized as a tool. Basically the biggest play-testing group possible. If anything is over or under powered, then it will show. And at the same time that they are balancing that stuff, listen to the "beer & pretzle" guys. Because ultimately, thats how they want the game played. Tournemants will let you know if the rules work, and everyone else lets you know if the rules are fun.

I agree with you whole heartedly, it truely is a shame GW can't be bothered by the consumers and just look for dollar signs. Heck, they even do that poorly. People are truely getting upset with how they conduct themselves.

**Skriker**

NoArmorSave wrote:
I completely agree with you. The Daemon White Dwarf update was the biggest "bait and switch" I have ever seen from GW. There is no excuse, professional game designers wrote it. They new exactly what they were releasing.
They did it for a period of 6 months to maximize sales, and than the Codex released completely changing those units.

GW has done this 2 me at least 3 times.

I don't agree with this completely. The more I think about it now the more I wonder if it was really a "test" to see if those rules really worked well or not before including them in the codex. The end result is that they were too extreme, easily exploitable and made those who faced daemon armies full of nothing but spammed flamers and screamers really cranky. Thus the codex comes out and tones them down. Personally I am liking the fact that so far the 3 released codecies have a capped power level that seems to be reigning in the insanity so far. I just hope they keep it up going forward.

So what have you lost? Some ridiculously overpowered special abilities? You can *still* use any flamers or screamers you bought before the new codex with the new codex. Sorry they aren't as overpowered as they were before, but the world hasn't ended and they are still quite usable.

Skriker

**Goat**

BryllCream wrote:
I'd also like to see equalised rulebooks. Problem is that they only have a finite amount of development time at GW HQ. You'd need to double or triple the size of the design team in order to acheive that, and for negligable financial benefits.

Do you think its due to GW having shortsight of the future and just worry about todays profits? Companies spend on things with little to now financial gain all the time to produce more for the future. I don't want to drag another industry into this but the gaming industry sells all consoles at a loss because they know the money comes from what going into it beyond the construction of the initial product. So do you think "losing" money on proper developement of books wouldn't gain them more profit in the long run with more people enjoying the product?

On a side joke: They could always just raise the price of all the models.

**rbacus**

See thats the thing, if they were to properly use their community, then they could continue to release the same quality product and rules (which in reality are pretty above par IMO) and fix them based on wide gamer opinion (with a grain of salt of course)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And raising the prices is a great idea!! Why, oh why, havn't they done this almost every six months since I started playing ten years ago. Oh... wait... they have.. hahaha.

**Fifty**

You are comparing the core rule book AND the codices to the core rules for Magic, when in actual fact, you should be comparing individual units from the codex to the cards.

As such, whilst the core rule book gets errata'd, it doesn't get changed. Individual codex units get errata's or even changed, just like individual Magic cards.

p.s. As an interesting aside, I am marking GCSE coursework right now. The fact I wrote "rule" as "rool" until I re-read the post suggests I am probably too tired to be doing marking...

**wufai**

Thanks again to everyone who posted and share their views on 40k rules.

Before moving on I want to remind everyone I'm not interested about GW price policies, its another can of worms for another post. I'm interested to know how you, as a paying customer of 40k products, feels about the way GW makes/presents/distribute its 40k rules to you.

Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but GW's rules ARE "any random garbage". They're appallingly low quality. Forget game balance even (which is awful, but let's be 'beer and pretzels' players) the rules are full of ambiguous situations, poorly defined terms, careless wording, obvious typos, etc. We're talking about stuff that even minimal playtesting would catch, so the only conclusion is that GW just doesn't care enough to put out a better product. They're blatantly shoveling out half-finished products because they know people will still buy the models.

Now, maybe I'm just used to MTG where rule changes are pretty much nonexistent and you never have to have a long forum debate about how the game works, but it's just shocking to me that supposedly professional game designers working for the industry leader would produce such a minimal-effort product and still have a job.

@Peregrine, that's pretty much how I feel GW rules are and reason why I started this post. GW makes a fun CORE game. but makes really ambigious rules when trying to introduction new aspects.

2 such examples
- Beast of War noticed that in the allies rules 'Allies of Convience' list your ally as 'enemy' that can't be shoot/charge/ etc. but didn't say anything about what happens your primary detachment and ally unit multi charge enermy unit and kills it. There is no ruling to prevent your two unit from attacking each other. Also if your Ally of Convience troop captures an objective, who gets the VP? the player who paid the points for the unit or your opponent player because those unit are treated as 'enemy' units (ref 40k 6ed rulebook pg 112)

- The 11th Company podcast (forgot which epsiode) talked extensively about rules regarding the quad gun for the Ageis Defense Line, who owns it? is it in 'enemy' that can be charged? shoot at? who own it if both players have b2b contact to it?

These two examples might already have been FAQ by GW I do not know. What I do know is that these two examples arise since 6th ed came out and was not addressed by GW after the first 2 FAQs. I do not support the view that GW goal is to focus on making models and selling them. They are call GAMES Workshop for crying out loud! As a modeller myself I can claim that no one buys 9 Valkyries becuase they like the model. I do it to field 9 Valkyries in a game!

I'm not looking for a 'perfect' set of rules as well. but I do expect GW can make sound, logical rules that players can agree to. I wish GW would FAQ the two rules issue I have above rather then the latest FAQ ruling for helldrake flaming templete as 'turrent' which raised more eyebrows than nods from players.

**rbacus**

You are comparing the core rule book AND the codices to the core rules for Magic, when in actual fact, you should be comparing individual units from the codex to the cards.

As such, whilst the core rule book gets errata'd, it doesn't get changed. Individual codex units get errata's or even changed, just like individual Magic cards.

My intention was to compare the core rules of each. My apologies if it's not what I said. And I agree, core rules should stay the same and factions (armies or cards) should have new stuff sometimes to keep people interested.

These two examples might already have been FAQ by GW I do not know. What I do know is that these two examples arise since 6th ed came out and was not addressed by GW after the first 2 FAQs. I do not support the view that GW goal is to focus on making models and selling them. They are call GAMES Workshop for crying out loud! As a modeller myself I can claim that no one buys 9 Valkyries becuase they like the model. I do it to field 9 Valkyries in a game!

I'll agree that GW isn't just in it for the sake of making great models. But again, they aren't in it for the people who need every little nuance of the game spelled out in black and white either. They (IMO) make a (great) game for the people who can say, "ok, on a 4+ my two units disengage and continue the game normally, and on a 1-3 they get so caught up in fighting that they dont even remember any alliance and continue swinging" or "ok, so on a 1-2 i get to use the quad gun, a 3-4 you do, and on a 5-6 it blows up and every unit within d6" takes blah, blah, blah..."

Do they miss a lot of stuff? Absolutely. Do they fix things? Most of the time. Do they look at their sales trends and buisness graphs and whatnot before releasing an faq? I really really doubt it.
They have provided us a great game, that thousands of people really enjoy. I for one like being one of the people that enjoy it, instead of getting angry about every new codex that comes out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And btw, my wife bought 4 helldrakes because she loved it so much, she wanted to paint one for each chaos god. I think her largest army list (3000 points) has two. You never know when someone bought 9 valkaries cuz they just love it that much.

**Lanrak**

Here are some facts that might help explain things...

Unlike other game companies, GW plc studio staff do NOT set the release shedule.(It is set by the sales department.)

Unlike other game companies GW make the minature/models first, then write the rules afterward.And the studio staff are made acutely aware of how expencive the development process of the new minatures was...

Other game companies that release more balanced rule sets,and multiple faction releases, and updates .
This means ALL units and options are popular ALL the time.

This generates long term sales through positive word of mouth and natural progression through the deeper game play, retains players longer...

GW plc know 40k/WHFB game system are unbalanced.But they use this as a means to achive short term sales.

The latest NEW units that have better cost effectiness in game are bought by the more competetive player to remain competetive.
And the players that do not like the preaching of the more competative player and 'math-hammer' buy the other 'less competative 'units because they think they look cool....

Everyone plays 40k DESPITE the state of the rules not because the rules are any good.

I honestly belive anyone STILL buying GW product must be GW plc's prime demoghraphic.

This is NOT , gamers, hobbiests, just 'price insensitive'...

**greyknight12**

In response to "what I would like to see from GW", I think the answer is simple: I want a game that CAN be played competitively. For the most part I personally think it's mostly there,granted I've only been to small tournaments and seen games won and lost. I think there are aspects of the gaming community that want Korean Starcraft-style play, and that's not where it should go. I just want a game where in a competitive setting the rules are more clearly defined. I think the key word is standardization, and an attempt to align the game as a whole would be good. I see the FAQs as moving in this direction.
Making the game more "competitive" doesn't mean alienating the beer and pretzel group. The thing is, with some players I know approaching 15 years in the hobby it's time for them to make sure the game can work like that. People still play this game to have fun and win, and the older players who are still in this are an important demographic.

**TheCaptain**

BryllCream wrote:
I've said I'm not going to respond to your trolling. Let's just let the OP get his thread back eh.

I don't understand.

Everything Peregrine said is legitimate.

You just kindof handwavingly dismissed it.

GW targets kids; there is no question. Kids with parents who have disposable incomes. Adults who can decide clear-headedly don't need as much targeting by GW's marketers. They know what they like, and they're going to buy what they like. Kids are more fickle, and more easily subjected to advertising.

WotC makes so few rule changes; it is a fantastic model for GW to emulate. Their rules aren't perfect, of course, but they are much more well written, concise, and less error-prone.

-TheCaptain

**kb305**

BryllCream wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
That's not how spending works. If people buy flamers because their new rules are awesome, then they're buying flamers instead of buying a LOC or pink horrors. Making certain units more powerful doesn't mean GW are making more money off them.

That's true for an individual purchase, but not in the long run. The bait and switch strategy works because they get you to buy unit X instead of unit Y one month and then unit Y next month when unit X gets nerfed. So in the end, instead of picking the one you like from a balanced pair of options and using it forever you have to buy both of them.

So instead of buying x or y, they buy x and y? What do they refrain from buying in the latter that they could afford to in the former? The GW hobby is by and large paid for with disposable income, which is set. The fact that a new model is OP doesn't mean my pay packet's gotten bigger.

You say that with sarcasm, but it's actually true. GW is focused on making a "beer and pretzels" game and doesn't see any need to invest extra effort on making perfect rules, while GW management doesn't care how terrible the rules are as long as 12 year olds are still buying space marines and short-term profits are still good. GW's rules suck because of a lack of effort, not because it would be impossible to do it.

12 year olds buying starter sets is *not* where the profits are. They go after the 20 and 30 somethings who aren't tied down to a family and still have a bit of money to spare.

It also does amuse me that you casually mention a "perfect" ruleset. Philosophers the world over have been contemplating the meaning of perfection for thousands of years, but you expdct GW to come up with it in a couple of years. I'd sure love a perfect ruleset, just like i'd love a perfect sandwich, or a perfect world. You keep chasing that dream, slugger.

I agree with peregrine for once.

lets not even worry about GW making a "perfect" ruleset. First they need to reach the "competent" level.

**BryllCream**

TheCaptain wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
I've said I'm not going to respond to your trolling. Let's just let the OP get his thread back eh.

I don't understand.

Everything Peregrine said is legitimate.

You just kindof handwavingly dismissed it.

GW targets kids; there is no question. Kids with parents who have disposable incomes. Adults who can decide clear-headedly don't need as much targeting by GW's marketers. They know what they like, and they're going to buy what they like. Kids are more fickle, and more easily subjected to advertising.

WotC makes so few rule changes; it is a fantastic model for GW to emulate. Their rules aren't perfect, of course, but they are much more well written, concise, and less error-prone.

-TheCaptain

The average 20 something with a job who collects 40k, will probably spend £40-£60 a month on 40k, often for years on end. I really don't think most children have that sort of disposable income.

The starter set is aimed at kids, and the stores main purpose is to teach newcomers the game. But the hobby as a whole is quite obviously priced at adults.

**Psienesis**

Goat wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
I'd also like to see equalised rulebooks. Problem is that they only have a finite amount of development time at GW HQ. You'd need to double or triple the size of the design team in order to acheive that, and for negligable financial benefits.

Do you think its due to GW having shortsight of the future and just worry about todays profits? Companies spend on things with little to now financial gain all the time to produce more for the future. I don't want to drag another industry into this but the gaming industry sells all consoles at a loss because they know the money comes from what going into it beyond the construction of the initial product. So do you think "losing" money on proper developement of books wouldn't gain them more profit in the long run with more people enjoying the product?

On a side joke: They could always just raise the price of all the models.

This is because, with the exception of Nintendo, most video games are developed by outside companies, and the console-maker gets a cut of the price-tag for those games. So, while Sony might be taking a loss on each PS3 it sells, it knows that games ABC, DEF, XYZ and 123 from external developers for the PS3 will each sell millions and millions of units, earning Sony money on every one. Same with Microsoft and the 360. Any games developed in-house by Sony or Microsoft is just more money on the bottom line.

Games Workshop does not function in this manner. For the core game of Warhammer 40,000 table-top, GW is the sole producer of content. The Codices are all theirs. Citadel and ForgeWorld is all theirs. There's no external company with a license to produce content for table-top, because that makes them a direct competitor with GW. Other venues, like video games, RPGs, etc are licensed products that people pay GW for use of the 40K setting for. That's just a revenue stream.

Also... the table-top gaming market is a very niche gaming market. In order to justify the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars (pounds, eurodollars, whatever) a year... there has to be a nearly guaranteed Return on Investment (ROI) that makes that expenditure worthwhile.

If GW hired a whole bunch of new artists, writers, modelers, etc etc etc and spent, say, 5 million pounds over 5 years in paying these people, producing product, etc etc but only made an extra 3 million pounds over that same period... and continued spending an extra 1 million pounds a year, and saw only an extra 750K pounds in income a year.... that's money wasted. It has a negative ROI.

**djphranq**

wufai wrote:
Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

I kind of like it. It keeps you on your toes... s'like trying out new 'positions'.

**Peregrine**

rbacus wrote:
I'll agree that GW isn't just in it for the sake of making great models. But again, they aren't in it for the people who need every little nuance of the game spelled out in black and white either. They (IMO) make a (great) game for the people who can say, "ok, on a 4+ my two units disengage and continue the game normally, and on a 1-3 they get so caught up in fighting that they dont even remember any alliance and continue swinging" or "ok, so on a 1-2 i get to use the quad gun, a 3-4 you do, and on a 5-6 it blows up and every unit within d6" takes blah, blah, blah..."

Sorry, but that's just lazy unprofessional game design. Letting the players agree to roll off to see what the rule is should not be used as a substitute for writing rules that make sense in the first place.

**kb305**

Peregrine wrote:
rbacus wrote:
I'll agree that GW isn't just in it for the sake of making great models. But again, they aren't in it for the people who need every little nuance of the game spelled out in black and white either. They (IMO) make a (great) game for the people who can say, "ok, on a 4+ my two units disengage and continue the game normally, and on a 1-3 they get so caught up in fighting that they dont even remember any alliance and continue swinging" or "ok, so on a 1-2 i get to use the quad gun, a 3-4 you do, and on a 5-6 it blows up and every unit within d6" takes blah, blah, blah..."

Sorry, but that's just lazy unprofessional game design. Letting the players agree to roll off to see what the rule is should not be used as a substitute for writing rules that make sense in the first place.

I agree, very lazy and crapy. Why not just roll a dice 1-3 i win, 4-6, you win. It reminds me for example of when a RPG video game is way too easy even on the hardest difficulty so people complain saying it's too easy, then other people come and defend the game and say "oh maybe if you didnt craft such a good weapon, dont craft so much and the game will be harder" or "you shouldnt drink potions, that will make it harder".

OR

how about i DONT do the game developers job for them? As a player i want to play, not fix their crap game for them.

As a kid i would happily turn a blind eye but now as an adult my mind goes NOPE.

My theory is that GW's target market is kids with the hope to get you back later in life where you return to try and master the painting/modeling aspect of the hobby which is really where the challenge is.

**Fifty**

Why does everyone always assume in these discussion that GW target kids or single twenty-somethings? Surely GW don't care whose money they take? Whilst certain sales strategies might seem to target one or the other (more taster sessions, fewer veteran nights seems to target kids, for example) I doubt GW have decided they do not want my money...

**H.B.M.C.**

BryllCream wrote:
They go after the 20 and 30 somethings who aren't tied down to a family and still have a bit of money to spare.

No they don't. It's all about the churn. Their sales target models are built around selling starter sets. Their aim is:

1. Starter set.
2. One Birthday.
3. One Christmas.

That's when they'll get the most out of you (in the short term) and they'll take 30 of those a month than they will 5 vets updating 3-4 armies every 18 months.

**nosferatu1001**

HBMC - not true in the UK. Direct knowledge of them