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.

 milkboy wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
And for the argument that we wanted faster rules but now complain that we got them, we wanted faster rules of a certain level of quality that didn't involve price increases and being nickle and dimed with additional content in many different forms. We just wanted codices faster and better rules support. We are getting one with the distinct lack of the other.

I agree with this point. Some decisions of GW, I cannot make sense of it. My experience would be the SoB codex. Why a half hearted update (which they charged for it through Black Library) when a rework could have been possible. Perhaps they didn't want to do anything new without new models? I wouldn't know. But they have released a new Edition in a short time, whereas allowing SoB to languish in a semi-reworked state.

Preachin' to the choir, brother. I hate our new codex. Not that it's particularly bad on the table, minus dedicated AA means, but it's just so bland and flat. And bad units stayed bad or got worse. And faith has gone from a really keen and rewarding system to back ally craps to a once per game mechanic that I've found almost entirely useless save Dominions or Seraphim.

Considering they redid the FAQ's without many of the old rules, and brought back many issues as a result I'm not exactly thrilled.

And I'm a CSM player, I probably won't be happy till we can finally get some of the older stuff back in without all the awful randomization tables.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development. Many people, therefore, have different ideas of what exactly balance truly means.

To me, it is less about releasing a perfect set of rules - that simply isn't possible. There are two main problems with GW rules and both are definitely possible to fix:

1.) Lack of playtesting: the rules either are not getting playtested at all or the playtesting is severely lacking. After every release, in an extremely short time window, gaping flaws are found in them. The latest example just being the CCB that causes a lot of problems. Those problems could have been found extremely easily if the rules had been playtested.

a) One huge reason for the poor rules quality is the rushed release. Releasing 7th so soon after 6th is a clear money-grab to boost sales and satisfy shareholders in order to cover up the consistenly lower overall sales. Fast releases aren't a problem, but they become one if the quality is lowered at the same time. Rushed content and quality simply do not go together well.

2) Consistently working on the rules: if there's a gaping flaw in the rules, it needs to be fixed asap. There is no space for discussing this. Rule problems need to be fixed IMMEDIATELY. Re-rollable 2++. CCB. etc. Both are two examples that can be fixed. GW actively decided to not fix the problems. That is, all things considered, shoddy working practice and every company who actually cares for their product would be ashamed of themselves. GW doesn't care.

To me, those two things bother me the most and it's the reason why we barely buy GW rules anymore. If we have to do the playtesting and if we have to fix the rules, why would we pay GW for their product?

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.


They do a ton of not needed stuff. I checked the chaos supplements the other day , they could all be in one book. The scion could be in the AM codex, which they technicly are, or in a WD. They update nids , force them to spam MC and FMC only to nerf MCs and FMCs a few months later , with no other option for nid players to play with. Why give nids a new codex at all then ? Other then forcing people to buy a codex , new models and then switching to another army .

They make escalation legal which is skewed in favor of few armies . Then everyone explains it as a counter to ++2 builds , and then shortly after they remove the counter ability . So now people that bough escalation have models that got nerfed and the problem of ++2 is not fixed.

It is as if they didn't want to make a good game and just hoped that people will buy what ever they make.

My fundamental issue with GW is based on their prices and their pricing model. I agree that imbalance and the like is an issue, but it's not the most severe issue. Everything comes back to the pricing structure, for me at least.

Let me make an analogy.

You are shopping at the supermarket. There's some nice corn you see in an aisle. Looking down at the written prices, you gasp... the corn costs $50/head of corn. Well, you like corn. Maybe corn is your favorite food. But no way in hell you're paying that much...

Other people start to bicker about it in the aisles. "I used to like corn, but now it's terrible!" "Look, the corn isn't even fresh. Some of it's expired!" "Those leaves look nasty! Why would they put corn out that's that nasty!"

While it looks like the people really care about the issues with the state of the corn, it should be obvious that everyone has eaten food that's expired or nasty or whatever and it hasn't been a big deal. No, what they're really doing is they just want to gripe about the ludicrous price of the corn but they don't want to seem like a cheap, one-issue johnny. I mean sure it sucks that the corn is past its expiration date, but that really would matter as much if the corn would just be piking cheaper, and those issues would be more likely to be forgiven.

Makumba wrote:

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.

Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.

I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.

My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?

Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.

If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.

I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.

And oddly enough I got third place in the last tournament that I went to and my list included trenchers in it...

Rule #1 of games like Warmachine and Infinity, don't listen to the forums when it comes to list building, you have to discover what works for your play style and your particular meta. Everything in Warmachine can be used competitively, it is just a question of finding the right role for it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I wanted to play warmachine when I saw trenches randomly. Oddly enough I was told it was the worst unit and I never bothered to look further as it was the one set of models I liked. If the trenchers could be used then maybe id be playing it today but oh well. Got enough games as it is.

And oddly enough I got third place in the last tournament that I went to and my list included trenchers in it...

Rule #1 of games like Warmachine and Infinity, don't listen to the forums when it comes to list building, you have to discover what works for your play style and your particular meta. Everything in Warmachine can be used competitively, it is just a question of finding the right role for it.

So just like 40k, if I ignore the forums ill have a great time?

Yea I guessed as much, but such an intense game Id rather not be at a disadvantage. Since then I have got into many more games so its too late for me though.

 milkboy wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.

Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.

I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.

My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?

Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.

If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.

Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.

Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.

And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.

You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?

Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.

I could only glean my limited warmachine knowledge from the quick start rules and a few beginner Warmachine sites so thank you for correcting me.

This is an interesting question though but I think perhaps can be for another thread because discussing Warmachine vs 40k is pretty much off topic.

Let me get up to speed first.

PhantomViper wrote:

 milkboy wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too. So unless the human race is limited to people working for GW , I may have to disagree with you.

Maybe he meant that 40k is harder to balance. I feel it is so.

I have not played Warmachine but I have made an effort to find out the rules (there is a free quick start rules) as well as about the units available. The impetus was because I kept hearing that Warmachine was well balanced and I wanted to find out why that is more so and if the same balance can be achieved easily for 40k.

My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout. There are many factions and each faction have a variaty of Warlocks and Warjacks but each of the models have fixed rules, fixed equipment. Even on the Horde side, the Animus is fixed to the Beast? So to choose their spells (?), they must choose a specific beast?

Compared to the customisation available to 40k (unit wargear, character upgrades, IC joining and buffing unit, psykers joining units, choosing different psychic disciplines Allies, flyers, transports) there seems to be way more opportunity for loopholes to occur in 40k. I agree that they can be more active in seeking feedback and releasing timely FAQ. On release, I feel it is all right to have some loopholes which they might not have discovered as long as they fix it soon.

If I have misunderstood Warmachine, please correct me.

Someone made a count a few months ago, Warmahordes has something like 180 different and distinct spells alone and approximately as many Warcasters / Warlocks each with its distinctive and unique Feat (a kind of one use only super-spell), across its 12 different factions.

Each individual faction has, on average, 50+ distinct units, counting warcasters, warjacks, units, solos, battle engines and unit attachments. Since Warmahordes is a skirmish game, each of those entries will have a fair amount of special rules attached to them.

And to add to all the simplicity of balancing warmahordes, you have two distinct ways of actually playing the game but that still need to be balanced against each other in Warmachine and Hordes and the Focus mechanic versus the Fury mechanic.

You think that all of that is somehow easier to balance than 40k because you can't change a melta-gun for a plasma gun or add frag grenades to a unit?

Also, Warmahordes also has allies, flyers and vehicles.

Except at times many of the distinctions is less with stats and points as much as gear, some warjacks are nearly identical except with a different loadout, such as the Bonejacks.

And that makes warmahordes easier to balance then w40k , because ... ?

Makumba wrote:
And that makes warmahordes easier to balance then w40k , because ... ?

Because their rules are concise? Everything fits in using rules for the game, there's very little ambiguity about RAW vs. RAI in Warmahordes, because it was built from the ground up to foster competitive play. 40k on the other hand just kind of lays out all the ingredients and tells you to have fun cooking, without any indication of what you're going to make.

Also re: units, the main difference with Warmahordes is that while some units might be subpar, everything is viable with how you use it. There is basically zero situation where the answer to "I like the look of Unit X, how can I use it" is met with "Unit X sucks, take Unit Y instead" like in 40k; even maligned units such as the aforementioned Cygnar Trenchers or Khador Man o War troopers can be made to work in lists, and in the end it boils down to how you use them anyways, while 40k if you take subpar units you are actively and deliberately hurting your chances of winning simply by not taking the better unit.

The big problem why GW "can't win" is because everything they do has an ulterior motive. They release things faster, but test less and charge more, and add DLC (dataslates) to add what should have already been there, and supplements that cost the same for 2 pages of rules, not to mention removing entire units because god forbid a third-party company make a model for it and "steal" their sales for something they don't produce anyway. They add nonsense like objective cards to make the game more random, thinking that a wargame NEEDS to be random, and now supposedly there is going to be faction-specific objective decks (Orks are getting Ork specific objective cards), so 40k is now adding a CCG-type element to it as well, which will likely still be overpriced. And, of course, there's the underlying value for money where you pay a premium for everything because GW considers itself some designer brand, and get half of what you actually need so you need to pay double for every unit.

Makumba wrote:

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too.

No, they're not. They're more complex (in a good way) and, because of that, the interactions on the table have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw model cost/effectiveness, which are actually every bit as bad and obvious as in 40k. I've not met anyone in person who hasn't had this same realization (after a few years of hardcore PP or CB fandom, usually).

GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:

Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

7th Edition:
£50 for three rulebooks that you can't buy separately even though most veterans don't need the fluff and pics books. No other options available.

Fast Codex releases:
With no testing or balance for double the price of the previous version justified by sticking a sheet of cardboard into the cover. Invalidated after less than two years by the release of a new edition of rules.

If your hobby is buying new GW stuff then all the above things are wonderful.

 milkboy wrote:
My feel about it is that Warmachine seems to allow less freedom in the loadout.

To a certain extent that's true, although it's partly down to how you look at it. Where 40k might have a Dreadnought with 3 different weapon options, Warmachine just has three different Warjacks with fixed weapons... And you can change the function of those Warjacks by just changing your Warcaster.

Yes, 40k had a lot more fiddly little options... But many of those are useless or not worth the points to use them. Or essentially a no-brainer that everyone uses, so realistically not really an option...


On the balance issue, I see people constantly arguing that 40k couldn't possibly be made balanced because the rules are too complicated. To me, that seems like a really, really obvious sign that the game system that GW have chosen to create is fundamentally flawed, and needs fixing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Word.

A wargame is a mathematical system. Except in regard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem it should be provable.

I'm in a minority I suppose who think they are doing a good job, certainly models-wise, but IMO also rules-wise. 7th is a pretty decent improvement from 6th, and I enjoyed the gak out of 6th. They just charge too much, and are doing weird practices like DLC-only releases for a tabletop game with a large community of book nerds.

If GW were selling all their stuff for ~60-75% of what its going for now, I have a sneaking suspicion that the popular criticism against the game would diminish significantly.

It's hard to win a game when you don't realize what the rules are.

All GW has to do is

1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones

Then most people online would be happy for a while.

OgreChubbs wrote:
All GW has to do is

1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free

So what are they selling then? If Tex-Guns gun store sold Guns for 1/4 the price and Ammunition for free, I bet they'd go bankrupt.

OgreChubbs wrote:
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store

This is a bit dumb - and is one of the many things I think GW would do well to change.

OgreChubbs wrote:
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more

So update the rules without changing existing rules or adding any more rules - you mean the only way to update the rules is to remove them?

OgreChubbs wrote:
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones

They do this, as far as I can tell. The only removed models haven't been removed so much as relocated (the Medusa to IAv1:2E for example).

The quoted post is a perfect example of GW can't win.

mmm you know that was sarcasm right>??

I think GW is doing 99% right for us.

OgreChubbs wrote:
mmm you know that was sarcasm right>??

You know, I guessed that, but I've honestly seen posts like yours that were serious, and so I wasn't sure.

It's that bad - I literally cannot tell when someone is being sarcastic about GW's options or is being serious!!

And sorry. :(

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
mmm you know that was sarcasm right>??

You know, I guessed that, but I've honestly seen posts like yours that were serious, and so I wasn't sure.

It's that bad - I literally cannot tell when someone is being sarcastic about GW's options or is being serious!!

And sorry. :(

lol no problem my post was the recreation of everything people complain about.

GW not letting them use their tables for other games
The sell models to make a profit
Complain about exchange rates
Complain about the new ork model thats the exact same but is taller.
ect lol it bad man

OgreChubbs wrote:
All GW has to do is

1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones

Then most people online would be happy for a while.

The problem with 1, 2 and 3 are they have stores, and have to charge to keep them running.
4 can be made better by merging rules (shredding, rending, etc), and fewer complex situations (focussed fire, wound allocation).
5 is not usually a problem, until new models appear. If there is no model, it's not going to be a problem for long. Eldar Farseers on jetbikes, though?

GW face a comunity of rather nice polite and educated young adults. But are collective self can, on many occasion, be describe has «The Comic Book Guy»: a complete nit-picking nerd with an abyssimal sense of self-estime and to much time on its hands. It's not only GW, no multinational companie can pride itself of having a majority of «happy customers». Their customer base is so large and varied that you cannot please one without generating complain from an other.

I personnaly think GW price are quite reasonnable even though a massive quantity of you will think otherwise and all of us buy GW products. GW is victim of its one success. All those other wargame system comparable to Warhammer (Lord of the Ring, Hordes, Warmachine, Final Frontier, etc.) will one day face the same issues with similar results.

Has for the rule problem it need to exist (why changing a perfect set of rules if its perfect). That would spell the end of 40K. The market for wargaming miniature is already saturated. To survive, you need to sell to your regular customer and fans. Its for same reason they didn't updated SoB. Who would pay 45$ or more for 10 sisters in plastic when you already own 40 sisters well painted in metal? Making an entire new cast is risky and SoB have a small fan base outside of the players who already own one (I would like to start one some day, but I don't know many people sharing my point of view).

We can hope for some minor changes that will improve GW products. For exemple, more and more plastic kit of great quality but rather high price to replace old metal or resin miniatures; Tweek in the game system that will modified top and low tier build but not the middle tier really; More and more supplements and expentions to codex; New specialised game style like kill team, apocalypse, city fight, etc.

If you are not happy with this, don't hold your breath and whine and don't hope for other company to save you. The more they will grow the more they will act like GW. It's the fate of all big business. That's why its better to have many hobbies and focus on the good stuff rather than the bad stuff (God knows there is a lot of both when it comes to GW).

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Do you actually realize why people don't complain about the gargantuan but complain about the Knight? The gargantuan is what, 18 points? 19 points? It's a BIG chunk of your army; when you field one you generally only field one. A Knight is what, 300 points? You end up fielding a lot more if you want them, and they are more broken than the gargantuan due to 40k's gakky rules.

Someone who fields a bunch of Knights in 40k will steamroll anyone who doesn't build a list to beat it; on the flipside taking a Stormwall (Cygnar Colossal) in Warmachine doesn't guarantee you'll win a game. That's the difference. While Warmahordes' rules aren't "balanced" per se they are a lot more balanced than 40k, because there is no choices that boil down to "always take this if you want to win" and "never take this unless you want to lose". Even crappy Warmachine units (the aforementioned Shocktroopers) have a place and can be used without compromising your army; try taking Warp Talons or Khorne Berzerkers or any unit in 40k that just had bad rules or is too expensive, and you're more likely to lose any game just because you picked a weak unit. That doesn't happen nearly as much in Warmachine. I could take an army of Shocktroopers and win if I used superior tactics and played to their strengths.

So we went and say Edge of Tomorrow. My wife said, "Why can't GW make a cool figure like Emily Blunts character? That would make me want to play." I said that there was SoB, she said they need the girls everywhere and SoB are no good anyway.

So, if you want to complain about GW, then there is LOTS to complain about and LOTS of things that are wrong. The real kicker is that people don't know what it is like to run a huge company like GW and listening to fans is not the wisest business model. Also, I went around and read some forums about non-gamer products and they all sounded exactly like Dakka hate. I think we all get into a buttoned up tank vision of our hobby. I would really like it if more women would play, but GW has no icons for women to make them want to play? I see lots of women playing Pathfinder. When I see their character that they are playing I always say, GW could make a unit like that?

Lots of things wrong, lots of valid complaints, lots of lost opportunities, but not really that impressive when you step back and see the big picture.

I see the prices as going up, but plastic kit prices are going up from every manufacturer. I see stores closing, like I see Burger Kings closing. The list goes on. The bottom line is the people that complain about it are really not the people that are going to make GW more solid or more successful financially. Anyone in business knows that you want to reach more people, not cater to the fans!

I am wanting a lot from GW. I call them and write them and tell them. I buy what I like and I pass on what I don't like. I am impressed that they release product faster than anyone else in this hobby. I have never run a company, but I have worked in a fortune 500 company at HQ, eye opener, things more slow and there are a lot of problems that you never expected. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to make a product that will please everyone.