GW Doesn't Play Their Own Game

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.

**Galef**

Karol wrote:
Galef wrote:
Yeah, "viability" is completely subjective. There "competitive viability", which is probably the most commonly assumed on Dakka, even though that's still debatable. And then you have "can my models function/roll dice with the system viability and be fun" which has always seemed to be GW concern (even if they haven't succeeded in some cases)

Also remember that while online forums and tourneys are a large part of the demographic, there is a possibility that most sales GW sees have nothing to do with rule and more to do with collectors/painters. If the models look good, they will sell. Rules don't make a dent in the bottomline in most cases (with some very select exceptions)

-

The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.

Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.

Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"

People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better

-

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

I think that list would do fine in on a very dense urban table with streets no wider than the longest bit of a Lemon Russ with several areas that are completely unpassable areas to non-flyer, skimmer vehicles where the mission is to get as many infantry units off your opponent's table edge.

Which seems exactly what a stealthy, infiltrator force might try to do. I guess all Warhammer 40k games have to be pitched battles of trying to grab objectives though...

**Grimtuff**

JamesY wrote:
I regularly visit Warhammer world, and I know many of the faces that work at HQ. They are often in the gaming hall at the end of the working day.

Was there yesterday, as our game was winding down I'd say about half the people playing at the tables were GW staff.

**beir**

Galef wrote:
Karol wrote:
Galef wrote:
Yeah, "viability" is completely subjective. There "competitive viability", which is probably the most commonly assumed on Dakka, even though that's still debatable. And then you have "can my models function/roll dice with the system viability and be fun" which has always seemed to be GW concern (even if they haven't succeeded in some cases)

Also remember that while online forums and tourneys are a large part of the demographic, there is a possibility that most sales GW sees have nothing to do with rule and more to do with collectors/painters. If the models look good, they will sell. Rules don't make a dent in the bottomline in most cases (with some very select exceptions)

-

The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.
Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.

Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"

People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better

-

Why does a fluffy list like this have to be so terrible rules-wise? 40k is actually a game, not just a model showcase. At the end of the day, people want to play games on the table with these models, not just create a fluffy division to sit in a glass case at their house.

I have a very fluffy imperial knight house list as well. How much fun do you think a game between that list and this one would be?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think that list would do fine in on a very dense urban table with streets no wider than the longest bit of a Lemon Russ with several areas that are completely unpassable areas to non-flyer, skimmer vehicles where the mission is to get as many infantry units off your opponent's table edge.

Which seems exactly what a stealthy, infiltrator force might try to do. I guess all Warhammer 40k games have to be pitched battles of trying to grab objectives though...

When have you ever seen a 40k table in real life that looks like this? That much terrain is expensive as hell.

**Grimtuff**

beir wrote:
Galef wrote:
Karol wrote:
Galef wrote:
Yeah, "viability" is completely subjective. There "competitive viability", which is probably the most commonly assumed on Dakka, even though that's still debatable. And then you have "can my models function/roll dice with the system viability and be fun" which has always seemed to be GW concern (even if they haven't succeeded in some cases)

Also remember that while online forums and tourneys are a large part of the demographic, there is a possibility that most sales GW sees have nothing to do with rule and more to do with collectors/painters. If the models look good, they will sell. Rules don't make a dent in the bottomline in most cases (with some very select exceptions)

-

The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.
Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.

Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"

People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better

-

Why does a fluffy list like this have to be so terrible rules-wise? 40k is actually a game, not just a model showcase. At the end of the day, people want to play games on the table with these models, not just create a fluffy division to sit in a glass case at their house.

I have a very fluffy imperial knight house list as well. How much fun do you think a game between that list and this one would be?

In a terrain-heavy city board (which this list is probably themed around, you know- what a Vanguard recon force would operate in) quite fun.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

beir wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think that list would do fine in on a very dense urban table with streets no wider than the longest bit of a Lemon Russ with several areas that are completely unpassable areas to non-flyer, skimmer vehicles where the mission is to get as many infantry units off your opponent's table edge.

Which seems exactly what a stealthy, infiltrator force might try to do. I guess all Warhammer 40k games have to be pitched battles of trying to grab objectives though...

When have you ever seen a 40k table in real life that looks like this? That much terrain is expensive as hell.

Yes I have. In the GW store I got into 40k in. It was a board full of city ruins with modular terrain.

What do I win?

**Karol**

Galef wrote:

The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.

Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.

Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"

People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better

-

**Sgt. Cortez**

It's a thematic list obviousely. Made for a scenario. You can play matched with scenarios as well.

In the WD article where they showed competitive lists they outright stated they had no idea how competitive players even approach the game or think.

On the other hand I admit GWs lists have usually been weak even for casual play. Even back in 2003 when I started Lotr I realized their lists had usually little thought put into them but were instead driven by what's actually in the Box.

**dreadblade**

The most interesting thing about that list, and a welcome development, is that GW are suggesting taking non-Primaris units too.

**G00fySmiley**

I feel on the list/strength list my current fav list to play consists of nothing but bikes, buggies, and some biker Hqs (warboss, big mek, wartrike etc. It won't take any tournaments but its fun.

**the_scotsman**

I'd take that list against like an ork horde army. That'd work pretty well - snipers are actually fairly valuable in picking off things like big meks/painboyz/etc and it might have juuuust enough punch with some buffed up reivers to take down a couple units of unbuffed ork boyz.

Maybe a big swarm of nids, or daemons, or a very casually built guard infantry list. That's about all I'd rate it for.

It follows the pattern of many very casual lists, which is next to no real anti-tank weaponry and a ton of antiinfantry stuff, because that's what the basic troops are equipped with.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

beir wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think that list would do fine in on a very dense urban table with streets no wider than the longest bit of a Lemon Russ with several areas that are completely unpassable areas to non-flyer, skimmer vehicles where the mission is to get as many infantry units off your opponent's table edge.

Which seems exactly what a stealthy, infiltrator force might try to do. I guess all Warhammer 40k games have to be pitched battles of trying to grab objectives though...

When have you ever seen a 40k table in real life that looks like this? That much terrain is expensive as hell.

Considering I built enough 28mm terrain to do some Stalingrad city fighting gaming at 28mm and Urban Conquest just came out, locally more often than you might think. I even suspect that the Shadowspear booklet might have a mission that above list would work quite for. Especially since the opposing list will probably heavily feature the Chaos side.

I seriously suggest you leave your competitive (read: highly restrictive model choices) list building games and try and find an opponent for some narrative gaming where you use the terrain and mission to balance out the units of each army and not the points and units themselves. If you are anything like me and do it correctly, you will find 2000 point pick up games of competitive armies bland. They can take quite a bit more work while still being very difficult games to win, but I think they are far more impressive if players can pull them off than winning any tournament as they take full knowledge of the factions in question, what they are good at and how to balence that with terrain and missions that make the games as equal as possible at Initiative.

**Elbows**

This just in, GW doesn't aim its game at the 10-15% of players who are solely Tournament/meta gaming. This may shock some people, but other folks play the game too.

**Grimtuff**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

I seriously suggest you leave your competitive (read: highly restrictive model choices) list building games and try and find an opponent for some narrative gaming where you use the terrain and mission to balance out the units of each army and not the points and units themselves. If you are anything like me and do it correctly, you will find 2000 point pick up games of competitive armies bland. They can take quite a bit more work while still being very difficult games to win, but I think they are far more impressive if players can pull them off than winning any tournament as they take full knowledge of the factions in question, what they are good at and how to balence that with terrain and missions that make the games as equal as possible at Initiative.

I always made it a point of mine in WMH to try and win with stuff the internet had deemed "trash". It was like you broke these players collective brains when they saw a unit they had written off performing not how the internet had told them. But this went in both directions- When one of the top players did the same the hivemind suddenly did a 180 and this unit was now "good".

Its hilarious. If I had loads of money I would specifically make this list just to prove people wrong, because I'm that petty.

**beir**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
beir wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I think that list would do fine in on a very dense urban table with streets no wider than the longest bit of a Lemon Russ with several areas that are completely unpassable areas to non-flyer, skimmer vehicles where the mission is to get as many infantry units off your opponent's table edge.

Which seems exactly what a stealthy, infiltrator force might try to do. I guess all Warhammer 40k games have to be pitched battles of trying to grab objectives though...

When have you ever seen a 40k table in real life that looks like this? That much terrain is expensive as hell.

Considering I built enough 28mm terrain to do some Stalingrad city fighting gaming at 28mm and Urban Conquest just came out, locally more often than you might think. I even suspect that the Shadowspear booklet might have a mission that above list would work quite for. Especially since the opposing list will probably heavily feature the Chaos side.

I seriously suggest you leave your competitive (read: highly restrictive model choices) list building games and try and find an opponent for some narrative gaming where you use the terrain and mission to balance out the units of each army and not the points and units themselves. If you are anything like me and do it correctly, you will find 2000 point pick up games of competitive armies bland. They can take quite a bit more work while still being very difficult games to win, but I think they are far more impressive if players can pull them off than winning any tournament as they take full knowledge of the factions in question, what they are good at and how to balence that with terrain and missions that make the games as equal as possible at Initiative.

I'm not talking about winning tournaments. I'm talking about buying my new $60 box of models, spending all week assembling and painting them, and then walking into my FLGS on a Saturday looking for a game. I put my shiny new models on the table and discover that they are absolute trash because GW can't write rules.

But I forgot, on Dakka you're either a super fluff bunny or a WAAC TFG tournament hardcore dickstomper.

**judgedoug**

I for one am glad that GW recognizes that the overwhelming majority of their playerbase plays with either no points or with power levels as a rough guide, and to stop catering to people who play ListBuilding Online.

**EnTyme**

Grimtuff wrote:
Scotsman- I think you need to repost your Cabin in the Woods analogy again. Seems apt here.

Guess I missed this one. Please share!

**Crimson**

I am all for fluffy thematic lists. But maybe the rules should be written so that fluffy thematic lists weren't actually terrible? Like the rules could be written so that what is thematic is also actually good?

**Tibs Ironblood**

judgedoug wrote:
I for one am glad that GW recognizes that the overwhelming majority of their playerbase plays with either no points or with power levels as a rough guide, and to stop catering to people who play ListBuilding Online.

Do you have any hard data to support that claim? In my experience both online and off power level is borderline reviled by the majority of players and never used.

**Horst**

beir wrote:

But I forgot, on Dakka you're either a super fluff bunny or a WAAC TFG tournament hardcore dickstomper.

Apparently. If you are even slightly concerned with winning a single game of 40k, you are TFG.

This list is trash by literally any standards, unless you and your opponent tailor lists to fight against each other evenly. Which is fine, but thats way more Narrative or Open play.... and this list was introduced as a way to expand into matched play. LITERALLY ANY matched play list will destroy this.

They could have made it better while still keeping it in theme. The existing Primaris line has plenty of models that could help supplement this. Maybe some Plasma Interceptors, some Plasma Assault Hellblasters. Not great choices for matched play, but they keep up with the theme of rapid attack Primaris models, and they at least offer you a hope of killing tanks or heavier infantry.

**Marmatag**

Crimson wrote:
I am all for fluffy thematic lists. But maybe the rules should be written so that fluffy thematic lists weren't actually terrible? Like the rules could be written so that what is thematic is also actually good?

This.

Fluffy lists trounce the absolute juice out of this nonsense list they put together. I could run my fluffy space wolves list against it - and it's not even good - and hammer this gak into oblivion.

**Grimtuff**

EnTyme wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Scotsman- I think you need to repost your Cabin in the Woods analogy again. Seems apt here.

Guess I missed this one. Please share!

From the customisation thread-

the_scotsman wrote:

Dakka actually follows the universe rules of Cabin in the Woods. If any of the following roles are not fulfiled at any given time, the mods pump drugs through the keyboard of a randomly selected poster to alter their personality and make sure the role stays fulfilled:

1) The Positivity Policeman. He must attack any and all posts that strike any kind of critical tone.

2) The One-Army Warrior. All threads on the front page must be twisted into threads about The OAW's chosen faction.

3) The Low Effort Troll. Required to make 14 posts a day with less than 10 words in each. Each reply sustains his unsatiable hunger.

4) The Impossible Meta Victim. All posts must be filtered through the lens of his increasingly improbable-sounding local meta, where every list he faces is a tournament-topping meta netlist, and gangs of thugs beat him up every time he loses.

5) The Rules Complainer. Each and every detail of Games Workshop's rules writing arouses his impossible rage, and he must stalk the YMDC forum as a mighty jungle cat, his nostrils flared for the scent of fresh FAQs to complain about.

Don't be too harsh on poor Karol. He is new in his role as avatar of the impossible meta victim. Martel carried that mantle for so long his spirit grew weary and now he can scarcely stir from his slumber long enough to type a single sentence about how his all jump pack blood angel list got tabled during the deployment phase by his opponents' imperial ynnari soup combo list. Soon, he shall crumble to dust at his keyboard and the spirit of the IMV will be transferred fully to Karol's shoulders.

We're currently experiencing type 5. Guess it's BCB's day off.

**Delvarus Centurion**

beir wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's called "Shadowspear Focus"...wtf did you expect? A soup list?

I expected them to make the new Shadowspear units actually viable. Maybe have them fill some weaknesses of the existing SM line.

Instead we just got more guys with STR4 AP0 gak bolters. Yay.

They are a business, they are not a tournament company. GW is supposed to be for fun, tournaments exist in their own world independent of GW. They want to show off their models and they want to make it look like an actual army rather than a soup list as previously stated.

**Peregrine**

Galef wrote:
Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.

...

GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better

What tier it is matters because it's advertised as a matched play list, NOT a narrative list, and the article is purely about how its units and strategies can win games. Nothing at all suggests that this is anything but a straightforward matched play list intended to be used in a pickup game with the standard matched play missions and a goal of wining the game. And it's pretty dishonest to present this as a viable list in that context when anyone who tries to use it will get wiped off the table and feel betrayed that they threw away money on a trash list.

And if GW only plays narrative games then they're incompetent idiots who should be fired. Matched play is part of the game and how many of their customers use their products, ignoring that entire market and stubbornly insisting that it's somehow the wrong way to play is directly hurting the company's profits. As is claiming to support matched play but not spending any playtesting time on it because their rule authors find narrative games more enjoyable.

**Tibs Ironblood**

I think it's clear to everyone the list in question is absolutely awful gameplay wise. We know it and probably everyone knows it but most of GW. I think the only real issue is that they advertised it as a matched play list. If it was said be a narrative army then boom no problem because that is exactly what it is. I think it is a bit of false advertising on their to pretend this list is worthy of a matched play game.

**Peregrine**

Delvarus Centurion wrote:
They are a business, they are not a tournament company.

You contradict yourself here. GW is a business, and doing your job as an employee of a game business means selling the product successfully regardless of how you personally enjoy playing the game. Tournament players are customers and a source of revenue, so tournament play matters. Any GW rule author who fails to support tournament play because they don't find it "fun" should be fired for incompetence.

**Asmodios**

>GW made what they felt is a fun themed list featuring new units
"omg this list would never win anything obviously they have never played 40k"

:Meanwhile a month or 2 ago:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/770587.page tons of posters crying about them playing typical soup tournament lists in a white dwarf.

**Tibs Ironblood**

Asmodios wrote:
>GW made what they felt is a fun themed list featuring new units
"omg this list would never win anything obviously they have never played 40k"

:Meanwhile a month or 2 ago:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/770587.page tons of posters crying about them playing typical soup tournament lists in a white dwarf.

Well sure because different people complain about different things. It is a well known fact you can't please everyone.

**Grimtuff**

Asmodios wrote:
>GW made what they felt is a fun themed list featuring new units
"omg this list would never win anything obviously they have never played 40k"

:Meanwhile a month or 2 ago:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/770587.page tons of posters crying about them playing typical soup tournament lists in a white dwarf.

Meh, I still stand by what I said there.

You can make competitive armies in 40k without it being a incoherent mess of seemingly random units. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

This list is used as a thematic example of a scouting force, something I've seen SM players making for decades before this. You know why? Because an all scout recon force is cool and doesn't play like a normal SM force does. Same goes for the CSM one (which I've still seen literally no-one moaning about). It's a themed Daemonkin list that looks cool. It's an example of how to use the Shadowspear units in a themed list.

Or should these SM go alongside Knights? Because nothing says stealth like big stompy robots.

**insaniak**

beir wrote:
Why does a fluffy list like this have to be so terrible rules-wise?

Nobody said it has to be terrible. The point is simply that GW, and most of their customer base, care far less about balanced rules than you appear to.

Which isn't saying that your point of view is 'wrong'... everyone is entitled to play the game how they prefer. But expecting GW to suddenly start caring about balanced rules, despite 30 years of evidence that they have absolutely no interest in doing so, is nailing jelly to a tree.

When have you ever seen a 40k table in real life that looks like this? That much terrain is expensive as hell.

Just about every time I set up an urban table... If there's room on the table for more terrain, you're not finished yet!

40K has always worked best with as much terrain on the table as possible.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:

You contradict yourself here. GW is a business, and doing your job as an employee of a game business means selling the product successfully regardless of how you personally enjoy playing the game. Tournament players are customers and a source of revenue, so tournament play matters. Any GW rule author who fails to support tournament play because they don't find it "fun" should be fired for incompetence.

The designer of a spoon isn't incompetent for not designing their spoon to function properly as a knife just because you choose to use it that way.

**Peregrine**

insaniak wrote:
The designer of a spoon isn't incompetent for not designing their spoon to function properly as a knife just because you choose to use it that way.

A terrible analogy, which ignores the fact that knives and spoons have conflicting design requirements while competitive play and casual/narrative play do not. There is nothing stopping GW from making a better competitive game without sacrificing anything about narrative play, the issue is purely GW's incompetence at doing the job.