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.

 Orock wrote:

 buddha wrote:
GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.

That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.

And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!

Here's an option: Don't play in ITC events if you don't like their rules.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Other things perceived as OP have been put to votes and Tau are hardly destroyed because one piece of there formation was changed.

Put to vote? You mean you thought super friends had a hope in hell of being nerfed? You DO know how majority popular vote works right? Go ahead, put up the most non sensical IoM combinations, it won't matter. Not one Nerf will ever pass on mob popularity vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 buddha wrote:
GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.

That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.

And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!

Here's an option: Don't play in ITC events if you don't like their rules.

I won't. And I will also go around and let others know their system of voting is off popular bias, and NOT rule interprutation. If you need further proof look at LVO tournament thread. Reece even said it had nothing to do with raw, simply how you would like to see it played. Of course people playing against it would vote in their own personal interest.

Which is how every FLGS group on the planet works.

 buddha wrote:
GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.

That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.

Common sense and TO's work better than the ITC. The ITC is getting out of hand.

Notice how Kilkrazy had a typo in his\her post?

Also, read my signature for my view. ☺

I've even noticed the red shirts have started saying "and what do you do with your collection?" As if saying you play the games they make is a niche response...

 Bottle wrote:
I've even noticed the red shirts have started saying "and what do you do with your collection?" As if saying you play the games they make is a niche response...

Well supposedly that is only 20% of their customer base. Cos, you know, that's totally accurate. GW know these things even though they don't do market research.

Part of me thinks GW set the target of 20% and are now working in their earnest to make sure that only 20% of their customers play their games.

A lot of my figures spend a lot of time on the shelf, because I have a lot of armies accumulated over the decades and only limited time to use them for playing.

This is not to say they are a collection, though. I bought them to use, not to sit on a shelf.

It isn't all GW stuff by any means. In fact, GW must be well under 10% of the whole lot including boardgames and RPGs.

The weirdest part for me is that GW don't claim only 20% of models see the table, or that 20% of people are regular or competitive players, it is that only 20% of people play at all.

I don't play GW games these days, but I occasionally buy a model to paint. My roomate is even more of a painter who rarely games at all. But both of us have played GW games with our models, and so are part of that supposed 20%, not falling into the category of 'hobbyists' or anything.

I do find it odd that GW says they don't do market research but some how have numbers of who is playing and who isn't

 Jancoran wrote:
The ITC is getting out of hand.

Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
The ITC is getting out of hand.

Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.

 ionusx wrote:

in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me

Because people will pay for them.

Money talks. If everyone pirated or just deigned to not own 40K rules, GW would have to either make better rules or stop selling rules.

People shell out top-dollar for Games Workshop's rules- that is a financial incentive.

Quite simple actually and my wife is so much happier. No FAQs just means GW doesn't support what they make so my purchases have become ALOT less now.

If GW can't show any initiative to support the customer, I can't be bothered to support them. Why buy Age of Sigmar for example if it will not be supported? That is a big investment to start something that GW will not bother with, so no purchases for me.

*edit*

Who knows, maybe 8th edition is coming out next year so why bother with FAQs now anyways.

Davor wrote:
Quite simple actually and my wife is so much happier. No FAQs just means GW doesn't support what they make so my purchases have become ALOT less now.

If GW can't show any initiative to support the customer, I can't be bothered to support them. Why buy Age of Sigmar for example if it will not be supported? That is a big investment to start something that GW will not bother with, so no purchases for me.

*edit*

Who knows, maybe 8th edition is coming out next year so why bother with FAQs now anyways.

My wife is sadder. I've spent more this past year on gaming than I ever have. And none of it went to GW.

I have to admit that although I like 7th edition a lot, the lack of support other than "buy this new cool rulebook with OP formations" is making me seriously consider selling off all or most of my armies. I like 40K -- fluff, rules, and minis -- but Infinity, Frostgrave, and A Song of Blades and Heroes all seem to offer more bang for the buck right now.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me

Because people will pay for them.

Money talks. If everyone pirated or just deigned to not own 40K rules, GW would have to either make better rules or stop selling rules.

People shell out top-dollar for Games Workshop's rules- that is a financial incentive.

I have only bought 3 codices in my 7 years of gaming. SM 5th Ed, AM 6th Ed and SM 7th Ed. Its not worth paying for all of them when I can get them for free. I am not sure why anyone would want to shell out so much for them anyway, considering how much complaining happens when each new one comes out.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ionusx wrote:

in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me

Because people will pay for them.

Money talks. If everyone pirated or just deigned to not own 40K rules, GW would have to either make better rules or stop selling rules.

People shell out top-dollar for Games Workshop's rules- that is a financial incentive.

I have only bought 3 codices in my 7 years of gaming. SM 5th Ed, AM 6th Ed and SM 7th Ed. Its not worth paying for all of them when I can get them for free. I am not sure why anyone would want to shell out so much for them anyway, considering how much complaining happens when each new one comes out.

I agree completely. I only buy the codices containing the fluff I want to read (Last codex bought was 6th ed Tau and 7th BA). That seems to be all the heck GW cares about anyways. As soon as they start caring about the rules, I'll start paying for them again.

During 5th, I gradually bought all the codices. Haven't bothered since they went hardcover -- I get the ones I might need for a tournament, and that's it.

I stopped buying codexes in 6th edition, and rules in 7th edition, so of course I stopped buying figures too.

Let's face it, I cannot be the only one, else why did GW's sales decline so much in the past three years?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I stopped buying codexes in 6th edition, and rules in 7th edition, so of course I stopped buying figures too.

Let's face it, I cannot be the only one, else why did GW's sales decline so much in the past three years?

since they don't do market research, I doubt GW knows either.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
The ITC is getting out of hand.

Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.

They started their own terrain line which is designed specifically for tournament organisers , so it's designed to look good but also to do things like have nesting parts so that it can be broken down and stored in a much smaller space. I think it's a cool concept and goes along with their playmats and the like.

 Orock wrote:

 buddha wrote:
GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.

That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.

And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!

Jesus dude, give it a rest. The community that plays by ITC rules voted on how they wanted it to be. Yes, it is obvious to you that your interpretation is the only way to read the rules, but others who play tau and who play against tau either read it a different way than you or think it is totally not fun to play against things like CFP, 2+ rerolls, Invisibility, or Ranged D weapons.

Its a game, play it how both you and your opponent agree to play.

EDIT: a word

 Bottle wrote:
Part of me thinks GW set the target of 20% and are now working in their earnest to make sure that only 20% of their customers play their games.

Its a game, play it how both you and your opponent agree to play.

And absolutly no one is going to accept the buffing of an opponents army, unless it is a mirror match, and even then it is only a maybe. So you may as well be saying GTFO to everyone who can't force someone else to play the way they want. Not that is not possible. If it is your store or your the head of gaming group you will be able to do everything. Including making fake votes you know will end in your favor, and if they somehow don't you just change the rules in the middle of voting.

I think GW just expects people to make up there own rules, and sees nothing wrong with this.

From Aaron dembski-bowden on another forum.

Rule X for Faction Y is no good? Well, the clear, perfect solution to their complete lack of playtesting is definitely this homebrew rule; forgetting of course that almost every group will come up with their own opinion of how to fix it, if it even needs fixing at all. People pine for the informal days of the "golden era" Studio, ignoring the fact that there have always been rules people disagreed with and GW has always encouraged people to generate their own scenarios, rules, and so on. It's just as informal now in a lot of ways as it always was, but now - with mass-communication - rules people disagree with aren't seen as "I'll change this one for my group", they're seen as "This is underpowered/wrong/GW are incompetent/Andy Chambers would never have done this".

I feel as though someone should go into the mountains with a rulebook for 40 days and then come down with the rules everyone must follow.

 obsidianaura wrote:
We're in December now and so by the end of the month we will have gone a year with out a single errata or answer to any questions on anything from Games Workshop.

Doesn't really give off a good impression does it?

Is it possible GW has stopped supporting the game in providing updates that way?

Maybe they think it would be better to release new rulebook with amendments and call it 7.1 edition?

That's slightly dishonest. GW is publishing new rules every month now for its two gaming system and that's not counting the board game they produce like Execution Force. Their gaming departement must be flooded with work and new schedules especially considering the cuts that were made in pretty much every single department in that company. This might also explain why some of the most recent release were rather mediocre in term of quality rule wise. That's the issue with their new sale strategy. Sure, they release an enormous amount of new material, but it doesn't give time to adjust their mistakes and clear out some of the rules. I would agree that they will move away from producing errata and FAQ in favor of campaign books, «Warscrolls» and codex updates like the recent Tau release. I wouldn't call it a good idea, but we are stuck with it.

The design studio has increased substantially in size in the past five years.