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.

fellblade wrote:FAQs are not so much a waste of time as an embarrassing acknowledgement that the developers didn't do their job right the first time.

I don't know you, nor what you do for a living. I will, however, make the bold claim that I doubt you've gone a week in your life without making a mistake at your job. I know I regularly make mistakes, both at work, and at home. Maybe something as simple as a typo - but it's still a mistake.

Mistakes happen. We're all human. Acknowledging and fixing mistakes is not embarrassing, it's being accountable. What's embarrasing is when the mistakes aren't addressed for over a year. Software companies have learned this - they release patches. Most gaming companies have learned this too. WotC gets Errata out on a very regular basis. It's not hard to acknowledge that you made a mistake and correct it, and doing such breeds goodwill from your customers.

covenant84 wrote:While I'm having a moan I also really don't like the attitude of Junes WD. It's rediculous. comments like 'unless you've had your head in the sand you now a new 40ks coming'. I only know because its on the forums that I havn't been a member of for years, these are NEW to me, an experienced hobbyist, and the only other clues I've seen is that one picture in Mays which frankly could be hinting at all sorts of things. Maybe I've missed something, maybe if WD was better I'd read the thing like I used to.

Yeah, that comment made me laugh too. It was only a few weeks back that the blueshirts in my local store were flat out denying 5th edition was coming out. There's certainly been nothing in WD about it.

Maybe they are tacitly acknowledging that the majority of 40k gamers are net-savvy? It was something GW used to deny (as an excuse for ignoring "internet whinging"), but started to doubt a couple of years back when the UK Lotr GT errata was exclusively circulated by email... something they wouldn't have done if they weren't pretty certain most attending would get hold of it...

If anyone's got their heads in the sand, it isn't the fans, its the GW design staff in their ivory tower!

It's a little irresponsible of me to comment given that I haven't read the article. However, a couple posts in this thread resonated in a general way...

fellblade wrote:GW has also been promoting the tournament scene as a marketing ploy- but nowhere is the need for clear and unambiguous rules greater than in a national (or indeed, international) tournament.

There have been cries for timely FAQs; cries which go unanswered for years. When FAQs are published, what does GW do but appropriate the hard work of gamers? It is very ironic to me that so many people will argue that the Direwolf rulings aren't official, then GW goes and lifts many Direwolf rulings verbatim, and credits them directly in the official GW FAQ. (JohnWangDD asks why should GW spend money doing what others will do for free- it's because GW wants to control what is "official" and what is not. If you want to control something, you have to take responsibility for it, too.)

I think you nailed it with this post. I'll defend GW for a lot of things. But their lack of responsibility for their actions just drives me *crazy.* THEY created the tournament scene. THEY created and spread the notions of official, universal rules and official models -- a definite departure from the historicals scene. And yet for years, the designers have decried the "tournament players" that their own tournaments created.

Polonius wrote:2) The casual dismissal of the notion that 40k could be played seriously

Again, for years GW has tried to tell players HOW to play 40K, and it's never worked. So they swing the pendulum from edition to edition, trying to force players to play the "correct" way. And we end up with a game that hasn't truly found its way despite 20 YEARS of development.

Let me be clear -- I think the designers take too much abuse and get too little credit for the things they do well. But this constant philosophizing over "how" just leads to a dead end. *Players* decide how the game will be played. The designers' role should be to enable these sometimes very different groups to play their way, not to force them to play the way the designers envision. Maybe they're on that path now with Apoc and their current approach to codices, I dunno. But Jervis has a talent for sounding dictatorial. Which leads me to...

dienekes96 wrote:3) PR: JJ sucks at getting his point across. I like the guy. Unlike many posters here, I do not believe he is trying to screw me or look down on me or any number of other personal issues. He's trying to be genial and explain some philosophical outlooks. But he chooses poor words, and makes it easy to misconstrue what he is saying. If you want a PR flack...hire one. It's not a collateral duty for a designer.

Yeah, he's a lot different in person and when corresponding. Maybe GW sees that column as the equivalent of a newspaper's editorial page, which is basically only there to stir the pot and get people reading and responding. I dunno.

@Redbeard: You are correct, and I expressed myself poorly. What I meant to say is more along the lines of

"JohnHwangDD says that GW does not want to waste time on FAQs, since that is time the games developers could be using to work on something new they can sell.
This may be true.
But the feeling I get is that GW does not want to do any FAQ at all, as the company perceives them to be an embarrassing acknowledgement that the game developers didn't do their job right the first time."

dogma wrote:

Neither 40k, nor fantasy have ever been intended as competitive games; at least not in the context of a tournament system.

Then they need to stop supporting and shut down the tournment scene, Games day and Grand tournments and any support for local tournment scene.

They cant have it both ways. They cant sponsor tournments, and then not support them rules wise, FAQ wise and other such. They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.

Thats BS. You cant have it both ways.

I’d like to read the article, but if that quote is representative, Jervis and the design team have come to sad and completely wrongheaded conclusions about what damage sloppy writing and poor design do to the hobby, and about who is affected.

P1: GW has written tight (or at least tighter) rules in the past. Battlefleet: Gothic, Blood Bowl, and Warhammer are all examples.

P2: Using standardized terminology and clear and consistent wording makes for a better game and a more enjoyable experience for casual gamers.

Again, Blood Bowl is a great example, as are Warmachine and Hordes. My more-casual former-GW gaming buddies (listen to The D6 Generation podcast to know exactly who I’m talking about) have switched over to PP’s games in large part because virtually every rules question they have can be solved with a quick glance at the rulebook or the model’s stat card. They almost never have to consult a FAQ (though there is a very detailed FAQ for hardcore players).

P3: Black Templars and Speed Freaks armies were omnipresent in 3rd edition tournaments virtually from the moment Codex: Armageddon was released until Codex: Black Templars came out (for the former) and 4th edition cane out (for the latter). Both of which were releases that toned down the army in question. For the last two years I have rarely seen either army at a tournament. But since Codex: Orks came out, I see Orks again.

C1: Rules can drive sales.

C2: Clearer rules make the game more appealing to casual gamers, not just to competitive gamers.

I still love 40k. It’s my second favorite wargame after Warhammer and just ahead of Warmachine.

But it is primarily because of the mistakes GW has made with the rules that I NO LONGER HAVE A LOCAL GROUP with whom to play GW games in my town. The core, enthusiastic ambassadors for the hobby; the guys who were always fun to play and who recruited and attracted others, have moved over to PP games. And they did so because those games let them have fun games with less confusion about the rules. Casual gamers want clear rules too. Clear rules (I’m not asking for perfectly balanced; and neither are my casual gamer buddies) make the game better for EVERYONE.

Hear, hear!

I keep thinking that one fundamental disconnect that's happened is that GW now views itself as a miniatures company. That's true in that miniatures are what they're manufacturing and profiting from. However, most customers (excluding those who strictly collect miniatures) *experience* GW as a games company.

Whether GW likes it or not, they're still on the hook for the quality of their rulesets.

A few thoughts of mine:

1. I don't really like the notion that tight rules somehow prohibit people or are somehow an obstacle to people casually playing the game and enjoying themselves. Case in point, Magic the Gathering. This games has some of the tighest rules out there and a huge portion of Wizards of the Coast's sales are from casual players (they've said so themselves).

2. As much as I complain about the Chaos book I am of the opinion that 40k really has improved over the past year. The Dark Angel book was pretty bland and uninspiring, the Chaos book was pretty good compared to the Dark Angel book but a pale shadow of its former self, then the Ork book is probably my favorite book currently out and would have been perect if it wasn't for some sloppy wording and editing, and then we have...

3. Codex: Chaos Demons. A lot of people have bemoaned that it can't hang with the big boys (Nidzilla, Mecheldar, etc.) and it probably can't. Still it is in my opinion a very well written book with a lot of cool/unique units and characters that plays completely differently than anything else out there. One thing I have noticed is a complete lack of discussion about major rules problems or ambiguities in the Codex (the Ork Codex had a huge rules debate before the book was even out). This makes me think that they are really cleaning up their rules writing and makes me very hopefull for the 5th ed book.

4. FAQs, yes, I thought they would never get around to releasing them but now that they are the FAQs actually look pretty good and they even bothered to use clarifications from Yakface and Direwolf. I am really quite pleased with the current crop of FAQs.

Mannahnin wrote:
I’d like to read the article, but if that quote is representative, Jervis and the design team have come to sad and completely wrongheaded conclusions about what damage sloppy writing and poor design do to the hobby, and about who is affected.

P1: GW has written tight (or at least tighter) rules in the past. Battlefleet: Gothic, Blood Bowl, and Warhammer are all examples.

P2: Using standardized terminology and clear and consistent wording makes for a better game and a more enjoyable experience for casual gamers.

Again, Blood Bowl is a great example, as are Warmachine and Hordes. My more-casual former-GW gaming buddies (listen to The D6 Generation podcast to know exactly who I’m talking about) have switched over to PP’s games in large part because virtually every rules question they have can be solved with a quick glance at the rulebook or the model’s stat card. They almost never have to consult a FAQ (though there is a very detailed FAQ for hardcore players).

P3: Black Templars and Speed Freaks armies were omnipresent in 3rd edition tournaments virtually from the moment Codex: Armageddon was released until Codex: Black Templars came out (for the former) and 4th edition cane out (for the latter). Both of which were releases that toned down the army in question. For the last two years I have rarely seen either army at a tournament. But since Codex: Orks came out, I see Orks again.

C1: Rules can drive sales.

C2: Clearer rules make the game more appealing to casual gamers, not just to competitive gamers.

I still love 40k. It’s my second favorite wargame after Warhammer and just ahead of Warmachine.

But it is primarily because of the mistakes GW has made with the rules that I NO LONGER HAVE A LOCAL GROUP with whom to play GW games in my town. The core, enthusiastic ambassadors for the hobby; the guys who were always fun to play and who recruited and attracted others, have moved over to PP games. And they did so because those games let them have fun games with less confusion about the rules. Casual gamers want clear rules too. Clear rules (I’m not asking for perfectly balanced; and neither are my casual gamer buddies) make the game better for EVERYONE.

Succinct, clear, and accurate Manny.

Mannahnin hit it on the head- casual gamers want clear rules too.

That being said, I just read the article in my FLGS (I wouldn't spend money on WD unless it was worth reading, and it usually isn't). It seems like a lot of people on this thread haven't read it yet, and I suggest they do. While I can see a few problems people mention here being valid, after reading it I wondered what all the fuss was about. The OP took a quote very our of context in my mind and here we are. The actual article was pretty innocuous and doesn't say a quarter of what people say it does.

JohnHwangDD wrote:However, GW isn't interested in competitive gaming. And from a business standpoint, if it costs 20% extra work to write better rules, that drive (maybe) 1% additional sales, that's a pretty poor decision from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Rubbish, besides how do you know that? I suspect you made this up, unless you're actually in GW marketing JHwangwhoever

JohnHwangDD wrote:FWIW, I spent over a decade as a Systems Programmer / Analyst.

So Naturally you know about all the business stuff too, of course. Not sanctimonious at all.... Thanks for the education.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So looking at costs and effort vs benefits, there is a clear tradeoff point at which further effort at clarifying rules has diminishing returns and should be halted from a business standpoint. After all, it's not like lives or money are on the line...

As opposed to making them into things that do sell, like say, rules in white dwarf or annuals. Your dismissal of FAQs may be merrited but it is no reason not to adress the problems.

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW knows that FAQs are a waste of time for their developers because FAQs don't generate revenue.

Well if thats true then the only conlcusion I can make is they make bad decisions, because they COULD make the answers AND SELL THEM to generate revenue by basically putting FAQ contents into an annual, just like they use to. In fact they could put in inconsistencies on purpose with a plan to sell the solution later in the year...

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you are going to call me out by name, please spell my name properly "JohnHwangDD".

Lighten up.

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.

Also Balderdash, GW writes core rules and then spends the next X years writing rules exceptions, to intentionally make the core game obsolete for the innevitable rerelease one day. They always break the USRs in the first few codices that get published... As to fewer things that can go wrong why don't you explain the 3 stealth releases of thethe old chaos codex, or how the Tau drones worked, or wether or not a Drop Pod Deepstrikes, or more recently why the Ork Boss in Mega Armor gets extra attacks but can't get any because of his armor or a whole host of other sillyness caused by new codexes

JohnHwangDD wrote:You seem to think that opportunity cost is free. It is not. Every extra day that a developer spends on existing rules is a day that cannot be spent creating something that can be sold.

Your whole argument revolves around GW not getting cost gain, which is easily answered or countered by the fact that they should just sell them in books and annuals (like they use to) instead of giving them away for free. Besides they HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE with FAQs right? SHouldnt they just stop that and sell those in annuals to make money? (YES)

Your claim that they should just do nothing is like saying a disease shouldn't be treated. Its ludicrous and it makes you sound like a fanboy defending the system for no other reason. Besides couldn't they make more money by selling annuals? and WD with rules in them? Right JhnHwGwangjgh?

Just a random thought...

Is it a coincidence that GW's past "tight rules" are for game systems that have essentially failed? Yes, I know people still play them... you get my point.

Not that I'm against tight rules - on the contrary, I include my desire for them in my nightly prayers and supplications. It was just a random thought.

By all accounts LOTR has a pretty tight rules system, and it's still going strong.

The aforementioned tight rules were for Specialist Games, which probably failed more for lack of content than for lack of rules writing. You didn't need to buy loads of miniatures to play any of them, and you could get multiple fleets/teams/gangs for the price of a single 40k army.

Just my 2cp

Cheers

I think GW really does miss the point of good rules.
I paint a far sight more than I play, but even when my best friends sneak off to get a game at the local store, we find rules issues we debate. That's just silly, not because we are debating the way things work, but because if there is anyone just out to have fun, it's us. However, we are playing a game and having fun by attempting to win within a set of rules thereby. As such, we both need to agree on what the rules are, but when they are written the way GW's are, it creates a problem. It isn't a super competitive streak causing the issue, after all, all my friends I game with regularly use either "weak" army lists or fluffy builds made for fun. It comes up when we come up with a clever plan, only to be stopped mid execution by the other player who thinks "it doesn't work like that." No rules lawyering to get an advantage, just making plans based on understandings of the rules, which can be equally valid but contradictory.

Also, I think GW and John really underestimate the value of both goodwill and service to a company. There are piles of literature written about value differentiation between similar products, none of which involve price or material value, but all of which serve to produce competive advantage.
In general terms, most people will go to a bar with a bartender they like or find attractive as opposed to one they are ambivalent about. It might cost the bar a little more money to retain that person, but it draws more business.
There are also products known as "loss leaders" that companies lose money selling, but then are related to and help sell other products they make money on. The classic example is "give the razor away free; make money on the blades."
There are thousands examples of these sorts of things, all of which show the value of good rules when applied to GW. Sure, the customer might not spend 10$ more for a well written rule book, but if you don't treat the rules as an entity in a void, you see that good rules encourage more people to play, which leads to more sales, and often more rule books sold as a result.

Nice explanation on the business concepts Wehrkind, that makes sense.

A few more points, based on the conversation here.

1) I am not surprised we are arguing a quote taken out of context. I look forweard to seeing the context. I still think it is an interesting debate about the game.

2) GW *IS* a mini company. But they are dependent upon the hobby to sell those minis. And the hobby is the game. The rules are an enabling sales point, and the most vital one. Take the game away, and GW dies. While I agree they should pay Jes Goodwin and Brian Nelson more than the rules writers, they should consider the importance of rules in the future of their product. They should aim for a solid ruleset, because that makes the game more approachable to the largest contingent of hobbyists, thereby increasing their customer base for models. It's not just about profit on the rulebook, but ancillary sales of customers pleased with the rules and buying more models to play them. It's not a direct relationship, but it absolutely is a relationship.

3) We're not going to agree on what the balance should be. No two of us would agree. So let's not pretend there is a finish line. There is a close enough and appeals to the greatest number of players. I think the designers are trying to get there (no one wants to work on a bad project). Either they should get more time or they should manipulate the mechanics of making the rules. They are not far off. There are a lot of great core mechanics. They need to work on the balancing aspect and the flexibility, in my unintelligent and mostly uninformed opinion.

I like your point 2 and 3 a lot.

What has always surprised me is a lack of creative direction. Not that they are not creative or that they don't have a direction, neat stuff still keeps coming out, it's just that they seem to really lack the guiding hand of an editor in the codex releases.

So many of the codexes seem to be written with a differnet set of creative directions. For example the DA codex was even handedly written to encourage an army style for that list and put a box around who the DA are. But the Ork Codex was not written with the same paradigm in mind, that codex is filled with myriad army configurations, is not "even handedly" written rules wise with obvious choices and looser options (tank busters vs lootas as 1 example). What happened to the idea of drawing a box around what an army should be composed of we saw in the DE dex?

The ork codex is still satisfying to see but what happened to the seeming editorial influence in the DA codex? It's like one is written at about a 7 and one is written at a 9 for effect. They also have totally different paradigms on limiting army structure...? They seemingly were written with a different aproach to making USR and Core MEchanic exceptions.

It's just odd. Inconsistent creative direction hurts the game by creating unknowns. This is my fear for 5th with many years of codexes writen for other core mechanics.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I find amusing is that you own the models at all, rather than having sold them on eBay or traded them on Bartertown. What I also find amusing is how you claim the rules are boring. I'll bet that you've never bothered to play them, because if you did, I think you'd find that 2 or 3 squads of Possessed backed by a couple blocks of generic Daemons actually play pretty well, if you bother to learn how to use them effectively. The issue isn't that the rules are boring. It's that they're not the no-brainers that they were previously.

What can I say, I'm a pack rat. But my Fantasy Chaos army is for sale. It that goes I may follow it with those possessed as you suggest.

And I see the problem is my inability to grasp the subtley of possessed and demons. Actually, I think terminators are a far better Elites choice for about the same price. So why use my possessed over my 10 man termi squad? Why take units that don't even have guns when for a slightly more points I can take sqauds of marines with bolters and bolt pistols?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

GW has garnered tremendous ill will, and they still sell more than anybody else. Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.

*blinks*

Dont read the GW quarterly finacials, do you? GW doesnt sell NEARLY as much as they use to 7 years ago. The ill will has an impact, a solid impact. They just dont care.

They could sell more....

John oddly might have a unintended point about GW there Carmachu. It may well be that GW does in fact think that the mini-market is a zero sum game, and so long as they are selling more than anyone else, they will win. Lots of people both in and out of business look at a given market like that.
The trouble with that view though is that markets shrink and grow depending on whether people want to be in them. GW might be thinking "Well, we are still on top, so we are probably just seeing a decline in the general miniature game market due to video games etc. Nothing we can do about it, we just need to ride it out." However, if so, they could not be more wrong. Ill will drives people away from a company and sometimes out of a market all together. It can be difficult to see by the numbers whether a market shrinking is due to some external factor you can't control or not, but more often than not it is because an option is less appealing due to the companies providing a good's own actions.

So while GW might be thinking they rule the miniature realm (which may very well be true) they might also be seriously contributing to the desolation of said realm by not caring about their customers. As carmachu points out, ill will always comes back to haunt a company, particularly as consumers start deciding there is better value to be had elsewhere.

Augustus wrote:So many of the codexes seem to be written with a differnet set of creative directions. For example the DA codex was even handedly written to encourage an army style for that list and put a box around who the DA are. But the Ork Codex was not written with the same paradigm in mind, that codex is filled with myriad army configurations, is not "even handedly" written rules wise with obvious choices and looser options (tank busters vs lootas as 1 example). What happened to the idea of drawing a box around what an army should be composed of we saw in the DE dex?

That's been going on for ages, though. Designers have different philosophies, and it seems each designer gets the room to see their philosophy though. Look at Jervis's 3rd edition DA codex compared to Gav's BA codex. One designer built in significant disadvantages to go with their advantages, the other mostly piled on advantages and some fluffy(-ish) pre-game rolling and resolution, the latter of which would later become a running theme with his codices. Later, Jervis got the memo and wrote the strong (at the time) SW codex.

In the case of the DA and Ork codices, it wouldn't surprise me if the directions were the same. The difference was how well each designer worked within those directions.

Wehrkind wrote:John oddly might have a unintended point about GW there Carmachu. It may well be that GW does in fact think that the mini-market is a zero sum game, and so long as they are selling more than anyone else, they will win. Lots of people both in and out of business look at a given market like that.
The trouble with that view though is that markets shrink and grow depending on whether people want to be in them. GW might be thinking "Well, we are still on top, so we are probably just seeing a decline in the general miniature game market due to video games etc. Nothing we can do about it, we just need to ride it out." However, if so, they could not be more wrong. Ill will drives people away from a company and sometimes out of a market all together. It can be difficult to see by the numbers whether a market shrinking is due to some external factor you can't control or not, but more often than not it is because an option is less appealing due to the companies providing a good's own actions.

The problem is.....their on top for now. They arent on top as much as they use to be even 4 years ago. Their ill will and sloppiness have opened the doors to Privateer press, flames of war, and AT-43. A decade or so ago the competition couldnt get the traction those companies have.

GW isnt doing NEARLY as well as it has, or could.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx

2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?

Then what happens?

2005 sees 136.6 million

2006 sees 115.2 million

2007 sees 111.5 million


And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.

GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.

fellblade wrote:Mmm. Only the online gamers who are crying out? Not in my experience. There are lots of gamers at my FLGS that bemoan the sloppy rules. I don't know if they post online or not.

If GW has strongly de-emphasized competitive tournament gaming, will we see fewer Rogue Traders and no tournament at the Games Days? I will watch.

FAQs are not so much a waste of time as an embarrassing acknowledgement that the developers didn't do their job right the first time.

Sorry about forgetting the H. It was late.

I haven't played 40K in over 12 years. I guess we'll see if 5th edition cleans up enough of the problems that I'll get back into it- but somehow I don't think it will. I've gotten spoiled after playing the better rules from other companies.

I don't think opportunity cost is free; I do think it is a cost of doing business that GW should reasonably be expected to pay. A programming company can release something that meets the written specifications, but then it's also expected to release patches to fix unforeseen problems. If it didn't, no one would buy their programs. To stretch the analogy a bit, since GW wrote the specifications, there should be very few unforeseen situations that arise, and they should address those problems quickly. GW seems to feel that they are adequately addressing the problems by telling us to d6 it, or to let our opponent have his way, or- (most insulting) to tell us that we just aren't playing the game in the right way.

I disagree.

Isn't the point of the board for people to disagree?

And WRT rules sloppiness, while I acknowledge that it does exist, I just don't see it as such a big deal in normal gaming situations.

You do realise there's a difference between "empahsis" (featuring, highlighting) vs "existence" (having at all), right? GW can still have GTs and RTTs without emphasizing them as the primary or featured way to play. So I'd simply direct you to go through your WDs to see the competitive gaming emphasis (or lack thereof). Back in the 40k3 years, GW had more pages pushing their GTs, highlighting GT winners. They even invited a a hardcore "beardy" player (David something?) to play a WAAC game of WFB (Welves vs LM), and did a whole featured batrep on it. Back then, GW had more GTs along with a larger, GW-sposored RTT circuit to push things. And GT scoring was very different as well, with less emphasis on Sports and Comp. Nowadays, WD has these huge picture spreads on Golden Daemon and new models that are basically all pretty pictures of stuff to buy. Personally, I think GW got caught up in the novelty of GTs and WAAC gaming.

BTW, thanks on the name - I know it's not a common spelling among most native English speakers.

And FWIW, I haven't played so much 40k lately, either, mostly due to pressures from this thing we call "life". That said, I like the direction the game is headed, and I sure hope to play more once 5th hits the ground. As far as other rules being objectively "better", I think a lot of what you're seeing ties to the rulesets being more concise. Small rules are a lot easier to get correct.

What I think is funny, is when we talk about softwrare companies. From what I see, Microsoft can't code to spec to save their lives. Which is parlty what causes them to write a lot of patches and make wierd declarations. From a GW standpoint, most likely, they never thought players would do the things that they do. Fzorgle is a perfect example. As gentlemen, they assumed that players would understand that Lash movement as a result of a shooting attack has all of the standard restrictions from Shooting / targets, and movement... They NEVER expected Fzorgle to fall into the hands of unscrupulous cads and rogues!

But I get the point. For each company or project, someone needs to make a business decision on how much effort to spend on the details and cleanup. Given that an edition of 40k or Fantasy has a usable lifespan of about 5 years, as long as each edition is "a little bit better", it's probably "good enough".

Mario wrote:John's business analysis seems to be optimized for short term growth. Not investing some more time in designing better rules seems to have caused a lot of new editions, FAQ's, confused, and unsatisfied gamers of all levels (casual and competitive).

And as a system programmer you should know that good up front design help to avoid many problems in the end even when you are aiming at a "good enough" system and not a perfect one.

GW lives quarter to quarter, so short-term growth makes sense. Plus, editions have built-in obsolescence, so they actually know they *aren't* building something for the ages.

When you look at 40k4's initial move to USRs, that's an example of good up-front design. Same with paring back the Armoury to make the options clear(er). The problem is that one man's "good enough" isn't the same as another's. And usually, "good enough" is defined by whomever is paying the bills. In this case, it's the GW suits calling the shots.

carmachu wrote:They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.

Who said that tournaments need to be entirely about competition ("winning")? If GW wants their "tournaments" to be about cameraderie ("fun"), that is their perogative.

tomguycot wrote:Magic the Gathering. This games has some of the tighest rules out there and a huge portion of Wizards of the Coast's sales are from casual players.

You realise, of course, that Magic development is pretty much entirely rules development, and that Magic cards are basically rules snippets? So in the case of WotC's MtG, the customers are actually paying for the rules development.

In the case of 40k, even the most casual analysis of revenue and profit will quickly conclude that GW makes the overwhelming majority of revenue and profit from miniatures, while rules are incidental.

If you step into the way-back machine, do you recall what happened to the MtG miniatures line?

Augustus wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:...

Rubbish, besides how do you know that? I suspect you made this up, unless you're actually in GW marketing JHwangwhoever

So Naturally you know about all the business stuff too, of course. Not sanctimonious at all.... Thanks for the education.

As opposed to making them into things that do sell, like say, rules in white dwarf or annuals. Your dismissal of FAQs may be merrited but it is no reason not to adress the problems.

Well if thats true then the only conlcusion I can make is they make bad decisions, because they COULD make the answers AND SELL THEM to generate revenue by basically putting FAQ contents into an annual, just like they use to. In fact they could put in inconsistencies on purpose with a plan to sell the solution later in the year...

Lighten up.

Also Balderdash, ...

Your whole argument revolves around GW not getting cost gain, which is easily answered or countered by the fact that they should just sell them in books and annuals (like they use to) instead of giving them away for free. Besides they HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE with FAQs right? SHouldnt they just stop that and sell those in annuals to make money? (YES)

Your claim that they should just do nothing is like saying a disease shouldn't be treated. Its ludicrous and it makes you sound like a fanboy defending the system for no other reason. Besides couldn't they make more money by selling annuals? and WD with rules in them? Right JhnHwGwangjgh?

I only quote you for posterity. I find you impolite, rude and offensive, and will not be responding to you. Ever. Have a nice life.

Wehrkind wrote:I think GW and John really underestimate the value of both goodwill and service to a company.

There are also products known as "loss leaders" that companies lose money selling, but then are related to and help sell other products they make money on. The classic example is "give the razor away free; make money on the blades."

I think you misunderstand how I'm making the point. Please note that I am playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of GW to better illuminate the points of discussion. I personally happen to believe that corporate goodwill has real tangible value. However, I don't think anybody really believes GW has any goodwill remaning, and I don't think that GW does much of anything about it, because they believe it would cost too much to fix.

WRT "loss leaders", what makes you think that GW doesn't treat BfM, BfSP, and rules as loss leaders so they can make money on the miniatures?

Noisy_Marine wrote:What can I say, I'm a pack rat. But my Fantasy Chaos army is for sale. It that goes I may follow it with those possessed as you suggest.

And I see the problem is my inability to grasp the subtley of possessed and demons. Actually, I think terminators are a far better Elites choice for about the same price.

Hey, it's OK. I'm probably just as much of a pack rat as you are. When I retire, I'll lots of cool stuff to work on and play with!

I agree Termies are a great choice, but also believe that Possessed and Daemons are quite playable. If I had more time to play, I'd be able to put this to the test.

BTW, if 5th Edition only Troops are Scoring, Daemons being (relatively) inexpensive Troops could make them better than Termies.

carmachu wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW has garnered tremendous ill will, and they still sell more than anybody else. Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.

Dont read the GW quarterly finacials, do you?

Oh, I do. Even though I'm well aware GW could do better, I just don't think there's anybody else who moves a greater amount of stuff than GW.

carmachu wrote:A decade or so ago the competition couldnt get the traction those companies have.

2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?
2005 sees 136.6 million
2006 sees 115.2 million
2007 sees 111.5 million

Totally agreed that GW was the only game a decade ago. GW prices were relatively lower, and they were in "expansion mode" with the new 40k3 / WFB6 full system releases. GW's subsequently higher prices allowed competition to charge a lot more, and the shift to maintenance mode along with the distraction of LotR really dissipated a lot of the momentum they built up.

If you ask a GW suit, they'll probably tell you that the 2007 shows that things have "bottomed", and that good times are ahead...

“Jervis is talking about focusing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness.”

Help me understand how having a tight set of rules that “work for tourney players” doesn’t benefit the “casual” gamer as well? Honestly I hate both of those terms... we are all gamers .. I started off with store/basement gaming, skipping school and class, burning the late nights ...

For the most part a good chunk of “Tourney” players are just guys that have grown up, have family and work responsibilities. They don’t have as much spare time, but have a decent income stream and like the idea of getting in 3-4 games over a day against some new players with nice looking armies. They can afford 1 weekend every couple months.. a ton easier than they can afford 1 or 2 nights a week at the local gaming store.

Additionally I don’t understand how they think the only “competitive games” happen at tourney settings.

I have seen plenty of “club” games or “fun” games that have far more heated rule arguments. Honestly I think people are more willing to "argue" with a friend than a complete stranger because they feel more comfortable. Heck I’ve seen guys asked if they want to take it outside during a “friendly” game between friends.

That is what they don’t get. A good set of rules benefits everyone. From the guy that just wants to field the models he thinks look cool to the most mini-max cut throat veteran player. Good rules are just that good rules.

The whole idea that “We don’t design rules for tourney play” is a crutch. That has been communicated but we evidently have a difference of opinion.

They have not figured out that the "kids" they marketed to 20+ years ago have grown up and have to find other ways to still enjoy this hobby...

muwhe wrote:“Jervis is talking about focusing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness.”

Help me understand how having a tight set of rules that “work for tourney players” doesn’t benefit the “casual” gamer as well? Honestly I hate both of those terms... we are all gamers .. I started off with store/basement gaming, skipping school and class, burning the late nights ...

Well it's mostly a matter of limited resources, time and profit conflict. On one hand, you could add a great deal of individuality to each unit/char/vehicle and say to hell with balance, it's all about fun. Blizzard would be a good example (Although they have refined the process and patch frequently) but I think the analogy is still solid. Fun over everything else and people will play.

On the other hand, if one unit is obviously sub-par compared to others, over thousands of games...people will gravitate towards building armies around it. This happens in computer RTS simulations, FPS simulations and board games. Now, game designers could obviously focus on balance and realism (Somewhat tossing out fun in the making) and have a perfectly balanced game. Perhaps 15mm Ancient rule sets would be a good example. However, in a Sci-Fi market, unique is fun. So they strive to strike a balance. Ironically enough, if they strive to achieve more balance and less unique (As they have started to do with Codex vs Apoc armies), they are accused of ripping away the "Id" of an army (See CSM). So it's a tough line to walk.

If anything, you may fault the designers for holding too high an opinion of their market. Quite often, their replies of "Well make your own adjustments!" comes across as aloof when it's simply sincere. I'm sure in their spare time they play unbalanced scenarios for their personal games and adjust accordingly just as we do.

Anyways, that would be my two slightly inebriated cents.

whitedragon wrote:
Why oh why can't we have fun when playing competitively? Who are you to tell me how I can enjoy my hobby? If I don't recall, I spent the same good money on my books and mini's as you did, so now I can enjoy them however I want. Why is it so hard to give us an FAQ, or an official article in WD or something so I don't have to wonder what the Lash really does or whether the Ork Nob can have a power klaw? I don't want to get hung up on trivial things like this that require a D6 and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, I just want to play the game.

I'm not telling you how, GW is. Its your own fault if you bought into a game system which does not actually reflect what you personally value. Its not that playing competitively isn't fun. I, personally, am a very competetive person in much of what I do. Its just that 40k was never designed to cater to people who win-at-all-costs. You can complain all you want, but so long as the designers want a game which is designed around nothing more than making noises and rolling dice your complaints will fall on deaf ears. I rarely argue for love-it-or-leave-it ideology, but this is a case where it certainly applies.

carmachu wrote:

Then they need to stop supporting and shut down the tournment scene, Games day and Grand tournments and any support for local tournment scene.

They cant have it both ways. They cant sponsor tournments, and then not support them rules wise, FAQ wise and other such. They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.

Thats BS. You cant have it both ways.

Tournament in which the highest award is a non-competetive honor are not tournaments at all. Certainly, they might be called Grand Tournaments, but in reality they are simply celebrations of the hobby as a whole. The tournament scene which GW supports is perfectly appropraite for what it wants it product to be. What is out of whack is the way much of the customer base views the competetive side of the hobby.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Who said that tournaments need to be entirely about competition ("winning")? If GW wants their "tournaments" to be about cameraderie ("fun"), that is their perogative.

The stop handing out trophies and prizes for playing or painting. Stop scoring for points.

IF its about fun, then make it so. Stop trying to say tournment with every actions.

Totally agreed that GW was the only game a decade ago. GW prices were relatively lower, and they were in "expansion mode" with the new 40k3 / WFB6 full system releases. GW's subsequently higher prices allowed competition to charge a lot more, and the shift to maintenance mode along with the distraction of LotR really dissipated a lot of the momentum they built up.

If you ask a GW suit, they'll probably tell you that the 2007 shows that things have "bottomed", and that good times are ahead...

I dont know if they bounced back...they've spent the last year, or year and a half in cost cutting measures.

Higher prices allowed the competetion in. Their prices became higher later.

VermGho5t wrote:John sometimes I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.

Are you a major shareholder?

Major sycophant more like it. And a tireless debater for that matter.

BYE