Final Nail in the Coffin for Dark Angels (THE RETURN)

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.

**whitedragon**

I'm gonna try to sig HBMC anyway. If I have to look at ridiculous sized banners of who knows what in people's sigs, they can read HBMC's treatise on Awesomeness.

**Deadshane1**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The difference is, of course I would like to win, and I certainly attempt to do so during the game, but if I lose, it just means there is more at stake in the next game.

For example, Gummers Game of Epic Fail.

2,000 points, Dark Elves (old book) v Orcs and Goblins (current book)

The only thing I lost was a single Cold One Chariot, which was my own fault as another one had fled from a charge (quite sensibly I though) and gone straight through it's mate, turning it into kindling in the process. Poor old Gummer, at the end, was left with just 8 Gobbos surrounded by two Chariots, a Dragon, a Manticore, and a unit of Dark Riders....

This was fun because of his ludicrously bad luck. If I gambled, it worked. If he gambled, it failed, and spectacularly so.

But most of my games are close run things. I don't feel the need to massacre my opponent to claim a win. I'll take a narrow victory, or even a draw. This means I am not well suited to Tournament play at all, as I am simply paying some money to come in the middle or lower echelons of ranking. I can stay at home and do that for free.

I like to make sure my opponent has as much fun as I do. Hence my Savage Orc army o'doom, which is very nearly there (just one more block to buy, and I can field them!). Clearly, this army is not going to win all that often. Of all the possible armies out there, it's pretty much the least reliable. Sure, I never really have to worry about Panic, Fear or Terror, but then, I have little to no say in what my lads go after, provided of course the stubborn little buggers decide fighting the enemy is preferable to fighting each other. But do I care? Nope. I haven't spent almost £250 on this force to get easy wins. It's as much a challenge for me as it is my opponent.

Sure, I could have gone for a Dwarven Gunline in an attempt to bore my opponent into submission, but I didn't. I went for an army they are unlikely to have faced off against before.

THIS is where I find my fun. Unique, interesting lists which would never stand up in a Tournament. And if I came up against an opponent who didn't like a rule I didn't like, I dare say, what with both of us not liking it, we'd ignore it.

I consider myself a Hobbyist first, and a player second. Yes, I tend to get pretty damned good with my armies eventually, knowing them inside out in a way, that thanks to the unique builds that attract me, my opponent is unlikely to find. I even go so far as to convert things appropriately (Savage Orc Warboss tied to the underside of his Wyvern, the reasoning being it stops him getting all over excited and jumping off) and then use them so. I have kitted this guy out to hurt the opponent as much as possible in a very direct, bloodyminded fashion. To this end, he has Shagga's Screamin' Sword, Collar of Zorga, and Iron Gnashas. I intend for this very special psycho to be squarely aimed at my opponents strongest character, and then let loose. Theoretically, I have more than enough attack to stomp even the most stubborn character into the dirt.

I don't get the Tournament mentality of wanting to place well and get a bit of paper to prove it. I'd rather just get some mates together an organise a weekend of geek debauchery. Seriously, once everything is together, I'm talking Warhammer, Magic, Dr Who (on VHS) and lots of beer.

Warhammer to me is a social game, just like Magic. And I know if I go to a Tournament, I risk coming up against someone who doesn't get my mind set, and I'm going to have a wasted game as his mathammered snoozefest stomps me into the dust. Sure, it means he's a better player than I, as he has used his list to the best of it's ability, but thats just not my bag, and never will be.

However, I will not inflict my style of gaming on the Tournament crowd. Each to their own. But sadly, that does not stop them coming into store demanding mind numbing 'practice' games against non-Tourny players.

This long winded explanation adds nothing to the discussion.

I suppose Ultra-Competetive players are ABSOLUTLY INCAPABLE of having the same gaming experience that you described above? What, they're too competetive to, right? Wrong.

Sure there may be the WAAC players out there, I suppose they're about as common as the TOTAL Dork-Ork "Hurhurhur, my Goblin Doom divers just exploded into my black orks while my whole regimental line is infighting because I dont do anything to attempt any control. I've just given you the game but isnt my armies unpredictability FUN?"

I suspect players are all pretty much the same, perhaps some gravitating a little toward one end of the spectrum more than others.

H.M.B.C. has this whole subject spot on. It's just easy for others to claim rightiousness through what they claim is "more fun" play. Like he points out, this instantly cements one as being the "good guy" which is crap. I wanna meet this guy that strictly plays "for fun" every game and doesnt care about winning....no, on second thought I dont. It's a pretty boring game when the other guy...doesnt even try, and when there's NOTHING at stake.

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

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:THIS is where I find my fun. Unique, interesting lists which would never stand up in a Tournament. And if I came up against an opponent who didn't like a rule I didn't like, I dare say, what with both of us not liking it, we'd ignore it.

And that's cool. But it doesn't make the others 'less than' or less important, or mutually exclusive to your point of play.

Where I find my fun is in writing scenarios and background. We did a series of three Apoc games at the start of the year that I wrote thousands and thousands of words of background material for. We did a BattleTech mini-campaign a month or so back, and I wrote up a document with histories and backgrounds for all the pilots, even though it played no part in the games we played. A friend of mine asked me today what my plans for a Crusading Marine army might be, and I explained the lengthy background for a Crusading Marine force comprise of three Chapters, background material I came up with a decade ago inspire by an article written by - of all people - Jervis Johnson.

For me this game is all about telling stories. All the tournaments I've run have actually had running narratives, making them more into competative open-ended campaings. Hell, we even played two Apoc games before the other bigger three Apoc games just to act out some of the back story!!!!

All I want to do is tell stories, but I'm not about to tell another person who just wants to play games/paint minatures/juggle dice that my way is somehow better or superior to their own because it's simply not true.

BYE

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Yes, it is rather long winded, and nice you to have actually bothered reading the whole thing, which I suspect you did not.

The crux of the matter is that Tournament Players really need to accept and understand that they are a minority, and as such, do not have the final say on anything. Not that Friendly players do either. GW has that privelege.

And thanks for the flame there regarding my Orc army. Just shows how little you have bothered to comprehend my way of thinking. The greater the challenge, the sweeter the victory, and the more I can challenge myself....

But of course, you are right. For not enjoying Tournaments, and getting highly annoyed when the mindset for such is inflicted on me under the guise of a 'practice' game, I am clearly a wrong'un and should really be taken out back and shot.

**Voodoo Boyz**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes, it is rather long winded, and nice you to have actually bothered reading the whole thing, which I suspect you did not.

The crux of the matter is that Tournament Players really need to accept and understand that they are a minority, and as such, do not have the final say on anything. Not that Friendly players do either. GW has that privelege.

And thanks for the flame there regarding my Orc army. Just shows how little you have bothered to comprehend my way of thinking. The greater the challenge, the sweeter the victory, and the more I can challenge myself....

But of course, you are right. For not enjoying Tournaments, and getting highly annoyed when the mindset for such is inflicted on me under the guise of a 'practice' game, I am clearly a wrong'un and should really be taken out back and shot.

People who come into your shop and say they want "Practice Games" with hard lists, should either not play you (since you're obviously not interested in that kind of game), or they are dicks if they're just looking for an easy win.

What I don't get is why you're so adamant about GW being able to write terribly unclear, unbalanced rules. And that us "tournament players" are so wrong when we demand that they change or support the game properly.

As far as being a "minority" I'm not so sure about that. If you add up the threads complaining about other armies, or imbalances in the game making things unfun - then it's a pretty sizable amount of people. If we as a group of people can formulate our view and communicate it to the Dev team, and hold them accountable when we see them at events (like Deadshane is proposing to do), then perhaps they will change.

They did it before in 40k when they made a really dumb ass ruling in a FAQ about Tyranid Synapse Creatures and instant death, we can make them move again by demanding better support of our armies and the game as a whole.

**Deadshane1**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The crux of the matter is that Tournament Players really need to accept and understand that they are a minority, and as such, do not have the final say on anything. Not that Friendly players do either. GW has that privelege.

Tournement players are in the minority, tell that to the 250-300 or so gamers that spend $125 apeice to play at Baltimore, the 3rd such tournement this year where GW will also be selling even MORE product and having a way to drum up more excitement about future product. Yes, you're correct, we're unimportant, simply because we're competetive. Its the stay at home and have fun gamers that can use Green Army Men instead of actual orks and Lego's for space marines that get together every night but arent furiously competetive enough to go out and buy those new awesome space marines so they can compete with the tournement crowd.

I've heard this "tournement players are in the minority" crap for some time now. If tournement players are so unimportant, why do you think GW holds the GT's? I'll tell you why, THEY MAKE TONS OF MONEY OFF OF THEM. Any tournement organiser who is truthful will tell you, the first tournement they hold every year pays for all of the rest of them....any more they hold are pure profit.

Don't belittle the tournement player. They support the hobby every bit as much as your friendly "stay at home" player, they have JUST AS MUCH right to have an opinion in matters GW.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And thanks for the flame there regarding my Orc army. Just shows how little you have bothered to comprehend my way of thinking. The greater the challenge, the sweeter the victory, and the more I can challenge myself....

...and I wasnt specifically flaming your army...just an example. I guess challenging yourself with an army that self destructs is your right, I feel sorry for your opponent that spent time coming up with a serious army list looking for a challenge for HIMSELF however. But I guess "friendly" players dont have to think about thier opponents fun do they...after all, those d@mn players that like a challenging game deserve what they get.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But of course, you are right. For not enjoying Tournaments, and getting highly annoyed when the mindset for such is inflicted on me under the guise of a 'practice' game, I am clearly a wrong'un and should really be taken out back and shot.

No.
Not every competetive or Tournement gamer out there is a chore to play a game against. You can have just as much fun playing someone who is playing to win as you can someone who doesnt care the outcome. It solely depends on the personality of your opponent, not whether he's out to win or not.

You say you like to challenge yourself, what if you challenge yourself with playing a REALLY hard army, run by a GENIUS of a general, get blasted off the table, and wind up having the time of your life during it just because the personality of your opponent is so amiable you cannot HELP but have a great game? That guys twin brother is the polar opposite of him personality-wise and he's the one that acts like an a$$ caring only about winning and nitpicking every little thing you do wrong during a game while not even caring about you as a person.

Its the personalities you have a problem with, not a particular type of gamer. Ever seen a "friendly" gamer get pissed off at a dice roll? I have, and they can be every bit the jerk that your WAAC gamer can be and then some. Dont sit there and act like you have some "vision" that allows you to be a better gamer just because you play for fun. You might be a great guy to have a game against, its not because you play for fun, its because you're a nice person to begin with.

This is why your post is silly....

....this is why you should be shot.

**mikeguth**

None of this matters, because the Ork codex has bankrupted the game....

(Just had to throw that in).

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Never seen someone get 'pissed off' at a dice roll. Seen plenty of frustration and gnashing of teeth....

And please be wary of false impressions...Threads complaining about balance etc, x number of people attending a Tournament...GW putting on Tournaments. This is no evidence of a majority at all.

Complaint threads are ten a penny, and most consist of the same people spouting the same information ad infinitum. How many people post on Warseer, regularly? How many gamers are there, world wide? Start to look at it like that, and you get some perspective. I use Warseer because to my knowledge it's the largest community.

48,000 members, roughly a quarter of which are listed as active (though there is nothing to define what active qualifies as!). Now, of these, and from my own experience of that particular board, there are maybe 50 or 60 complainers that turn up in every. single. thread. And it's the same old arguments wheeled out time and again. And the same comments. From the same posters. With the same lack of will to see any other perspective.

Hardly conclusive evidence of a community up in arms, is it?

**Deadshane1**

I feel I need to embellish that last part a bit more so that you understand Doc.

Concerning personalities, the reason you can have such a good time in your basement with beer and Dr.Who isnt because you are all 'for fun' gamers, its because you're all friends that have the same interests and can "geek out" as you put it.

I myself am a competetive gamer, I like to challenge myself with my standing in GT type events. I like to know how good I can stand up against those that score top battle points.

One of my favorite opponents in the store that I play at is COMPLETELY opposed to tournements. He doesnt play local RTT's OR travel to the GT's. He's concerned with gaming for fun and that's it. Couldnt care less about how "good" people think he is. He's a painter first, fluff lover second, and likes to play.

We have awesome games together. Most of the time I beat him as I'm more competetive, but we ALWAYS have satisfying games. I test out my tournement lists against him, and its a test run for me. For him he's spending a couple of hours playing a game with a friend of his. We dont argue, we laugh at things that happen during the game, awe at hero's doing heroic sh!t, and what have you.

A competetive gamer, and a friendly "basement" gamer gaming together...why? Personalities match up, we get along. I'm not an a$$ to play against (like you say competetive gamers are), and he's not irritated by getting a game in against someone who brings it to the table. Why? because our personalities mesh well.

Maybe at a tournement you have a larger chance to meet up with TFG than you do in your basement. However, the game we're playing at tournements is the exact same game you're playing in your basement.

...its just whether or not you know the guy.

**Deadshane1**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Complaint threads are ten a penny, and most consist of the same people spouting the same information ad infinitum. How many people post on Warseer, regularly? How many gamers are there, world wide? Start to look at it like that, and you get some perspective. I use Warseer because to my knowledge it's the largest community.

48,000 members, roughly a quarter of which are listed as active (though there is nothing to define what active qualifies as!). Now, of these, and from my own experience of that particular board, there are maybe 50 or 60 complainers that turn up in every. single. thread. And it's the same old arguments wheeled out time and again. And the same comments. From the same posters. With the same lack of will to see any other perspective.

Hardly conclusive evidence of a community up in arms, is it?

That may be true, but back to subject and concerning the DA codex once again.

I (personally) feel jilted as a ardent DA fan for years and years since 2nd edition. Thats me. Noone can convince me otherwise. Specially not those who havent played all DA codexes since 2nd edition.

I see many others online that feel the same. Regardless if its a small amount of fans of the game considering the whole of fans everywhere. There are many people.

Now, we DA fans have 2 choices.

1) Do nothing

2) Try to do something about it

If we choose option 1, nothing will happen, we will remain with a codex we're (some of us) are unhappy with and go on with what we feel is an inferior set of rules.

If we choose option 2, again, probably nothing will happen. Again, we'll have a codex we're unhappy with.

BUT

maybe someone will hear those of us that are unhappy enough to try and do something about it. Maybe GW will hear us....as much of a pipe dream as that is.

If we dont try, then FOR SURE, nothing is going to change however.

**Deadshane1**

mikeguth wrote:None of this matters, because the Ork codex has bankrupted the game....

(Just had to throw that in).

If you cant beat 'em....

in the year 2011 Warhammer 40k, all armies will be orks....and sternguard.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

You used a very interesting term there, and one I agree with....Satisfying Games.

I avoid Tournaments because, in my experience, TFG is so much more common. I played in one Tournament, and that put me off for life. Why?

2 TFG and 1 NooB. None of the games were remotely satisfying. First up was a Gnoblar Horde. Sure, nothing I can't handle really, but not only was the guy pretty obnoxious, but he also cheated. I lost the game (though seeing my Manticore bottled off by Gnoblars was somewhat amusing!). 2nd Game? Dwarven Gunline. Yeah. That about sums it up. Totally, typical Dwarven Gunline including requisite lack of charisma from the opponent. Third game was Dwarves again, against a NooB, who I assume had been dragged there by her Dad. Predictably, I flattened her.

None of these guys left me satisfied. I was either rule lawyered and cheated, faced with a predictable race across the board, or not presented with any kind of a challenge. Now I am not saying this is typical of Tournaments, but polarised as it may be, it put me right off them.

With home play, I am able to pick and choose my opponents. This means I go for people with roughly the same skill and competence level as myself, if not outlook on the game.

But the biggest difference is that the players I know put the onus on their skills rather than the rules, where the impression I get is the opposite of Tournament players.

Ultimately, a game with the variety and scope of 40k can never be balanced. It's simply not possible with the freedom of choice presented in a Codex. Something is always going to be out of synch, this cannot be helped. The Dark Angels will get a new Codex soon enough, until then, either switch to the Marine Codex or get on with things.

**whatwhat**

If you want to complain about the way GW do things, which I agree is a bit heartless in many cases, the best thing to do is try out another company. Since the only reason GW get away with it is because they have no major rivals to compete with.

Any complaints you send to them, not accompanied by a big cheque, wont mean anything to them and probably wont get the time of day.

in my opinion.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Funnily enough, you'd be wrong.

*Constructive* Criticism has been proven to work in the past. Dark Elves got a nice little errata and that in their last book because druchii.net put together a sane, rational set of requests, and Gav listened.

However, what does get you nowhere is anonymous, aimless whinging online. Instead, talking to the community, ascertaining common requests, putting them together into something neatly presented...that might just get you somewhere.

As others have said, we are GW's sole source of income. It is in their interests to please us. But this is not the place to change things. They don't have proxies sitting online watching, reading, and ignoring.

Chances are they might be working on a full Errata for the Dark Angels book right now. Anyone bothered to ask? Somehow I doubt anyone has. After all, thats proactive, and that might achieve something. Better to sit anonymously and feel vindicated that having made no attempt to approach GW with your concerns/complaints that they are clearly not listening.

However, this is not a case, as oft quoted on Warseer of 'squeaky wheel gets the oil'. What is needed, as I said is a rational and sane list of things people would like to see changed, and of course, why they feel this is necessary.

Will it work? Dunno. But I can guarantee you it has a far, far better chance of doing so than online whinging. And the same goes for returning your Codecies. That won't achieve anything. All that does is flag up that you are changing armies, but nothing to do with the whys and wherefores of said decision.

**whatwhat**

Yeh i probably exagurated a bit they do have some good guys working there but remember there are people above them who dont even play the games and wont do anything if it puts gw out of pocket.

If GW had a major rival it would be far better, in an effort to compete the customer would always be right and this sort of thing woulndt even be needed. As it happens GW taps up the market by only letting kids play their armies, models and games in gw, which in many places (where i live for example) is the only obvious place you can find others to play with.

These sort of issues will cary on forever until GW lose market share. I can't see an argument against that really.

Anyways Im venting my frustrations here but it comes from somewhere else. basicly this is nothing compared to what they did to inquisitor players, nothing. Edit: granted, that doesn't make it accepatable

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Thing is, GW won't lose it's Market Share, not unless another company goes down their high risk route of their own shop chain.

This is why GW, for a Wargames Company, is surprisingly staple. They took a gamble when the company was young and it paid off handsomely. Indeed, without this working, we wouldn't have the competition we see nowadays, as nobody would have reinvented what was a largely Historical scene into what we know and play now.

In it's way, GW was like Star Wars. Until they came along, their repsective Genre's didn't believe their style could be successful. Both were Gambles, both paid off (one better than the other, guess which!).

**whatwhat**

Your dead right. I can't see it happening either. I met someone a while back who thought the idea of me buying valejo paints instead of gw ones was a sin, I don't buy into that, I don't like being taken for a mug. With that kind of attitude nothing will happen and issues like this will last forever.

But yeh by all means you can voice your concerns to them, I'm actually taking the issue a bit off topic now I think about it.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Well, not that far. It's still a criticism of GW Product.

Thing is with paints, it's an artistic material. Whilst Vallejo paints are good (used them in the past, and my mate swears by them) they are hampered against GW by sheer availability. If you like, Citadel Colour are the Industry Standard. Easily accessible, and good enough for the job at hand. Vallejo might be preferable for some, but getting hold of them (in the UK at least) can be a pain.

GW's hobby equipment....I shy from calling it entry level, as it's better than that, but it's certainly not what I'd call 'professional' level. They do their job, and then some, but aren't a polished as others. Certainly, I find Vallejo paints to stay wet on the palette longer, and their little spout thingy is great. But for a middling painter, GW paints are just fine!

**torgoch**

syr8766 wrote:

So why the perception? Or was there something different about the UK heats (this is UK we're talking about? Or am I really screwed up here) that was different from how we play in the colonies?

I have views on the codex, but let's not cloud the issue here. The assertion was that the codex cannot compete. Clearly in a field of Ork Hordes, Holofalcons, Lash Princes, Farsight Councils, Nidzilla and Seerspam it can, as it has placed highly. Unless these armies also non-competitive, this suggests the assertion is false.

**whatwhat**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, not that far. It's still a criticism of GW Product.

Thing is with paints, it's an artistic material. Whilst Vallejo paints are good (used them in the past, and my mate swears by them) they are hampered against GW by sheer availability. If you like, Citadel Colour are the Industry Standard. Easily accessible, and good enough for the job at hand. Vallejo might be preferable for some, but getting hold of them (in the UK at least) can be a pain.

GW's hobby equipment....I shy from calling it entry level, as it's better than that, but it's certainly not what I'd call 'professional' level. They do their job, and then some, but aren't a polished as others. Certainly, I find Vallejo paints to stay wet on the palette longer, and their little spout thingy is great. But for a middling painter, GW paints are just fine!

My issue with GW paint is I don't paint much due to time I have, therefore finding that when I do want to paint its all dried out, was a pain in the neck. Valejo don't do that, + they have all the citadel colour's, suits me.

The accessibility thing is true and its why we will stay in this hole. It's like microsoft shiping all its own software with its pcs, gw will only ever stock citadel. I don't blame someone for thinking the only paints he can use are the ones in the same store as he got the models. That's how they keep their market share. It's the same idea as the 'you can only use GW models in the shop' rule.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Is different to Microsoft.

They abuse their Market Dominance quite heavily, hence why they keep getting into poop for it. They don't sell hardware, only software, but ensure their market dominance by supplying to the Hardware Manufacturer at a unit price the opposition cannot compete with. This is abuse of monopoly.

GW however, aren't. They have their own stores to sell their own product. This would only be a naughty if GW forced third party vendors (FLGS) to drop all other lines in order to sell theirs. Which they don't, never have and most likely never will.

As for using their models in their stores....go to a Burger King, by a Whopper Meal, then go try to eat it in a McDonalds. Nobody likes their competitors advertised on their turf. Is a perfectly reasonable demand.

**Redbeard**

torgoch wrote:
I have views on the codex, but let's not cloud the issue here. The assertion was that the codex cannot compete. Clearly in a field of Ork Hordes, Holofalcons, Lash Princes, Farsight Councils, Nidzilla and Seerspam it can, as it has placed highly. Unless these armies also non-competitive, this suggests the assertion is false.

Those games were not played since the new Marine Codex came out. The metagame changes. Assuming that marines are as good as they look, other lists have to adjust to face them. Any list that is adjusted to fight new-marines will also hurt Dark Angels, and probably more, as the Dark Angel player will be down a squad in comparison.

Granted, a good player with mediocre tools will beat a mediocre player with good tools often enough.

However, how is a Dark Angel player supposed to win when a Marine player of equal skill can play the exact same army, plus extra special rules, plus one extra squad.

Perhaps the tools that the Marine player is getting at a discount (tac squads, assault squads, razorbacks, predators, vindicators, bikes, etc etc) aren't the best tools in the codex? Perhaps the tools that the Marine player gets that are just better (3+inv shields, increased transport space etc) aren't either? But, I think that you're hard pressed to find what the Dark Angels can do, that the marines cannot also do, just cheaper.

Doesn't that means that if the Dark Angel list is competitive, the Marine list is simply more competitive. If the Marine archetype is strong enough to do well in GTs, and a Marine meets a Dark Angel in the last round, I'm putting my money on the guy who gets the extra squad.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Fearless Terminators?

Cheaper Land Raider Crusaders?

No limit on the number of Terminator Squads that can have a Dedicated Transport?

Just throwing a few thing out there. Dunno if they've been mentioned before.

Oh, and BS4 Scouts. Can't forget them.

**whatwhat**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is different to Microsoft.

They abuse their Market Dominance quite heavily, hence why they keep getting into poop for it. They don't sell hardware, only software, but ensure their market dominance by supplying to the Hardware Manufacturer at a unit price the opposition cannot compete with. This is abuse of monopoly.

GW however, aren't. They have their own stores to sell their own product. This would only be a naughty if GW forced third party vendors (FLGS) to drop all other lines in order to sell theirs. Which they don't, never have and most likely never will.

As for using their models in their stores....go to a Burger King, by a Whopper Meal, then go try to eat it in a McDonalds. Nobody likes their competitors advertised on their turf. Is a perfectly reasonable demand.

No your right, they have every right to do what they do to keep their share in the market, I'm not calling them ilegitimate or a monopoly. I'm just backing up your point that GW wont ever lose its share in the market, and issues like this with the da codex will keep cropping up because its customers are so loyal to them and they abuse this.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I don't think it's an abuse.

GW are in the business to make as much money as possible. Sometimes, they listen to their customers, sometimes they don't. Lets look at two customer things they took on board they got nothing but spite from...

'We want cheaper Codecies. Stuff the fluff, just give us the rules'

Hence cheap 3rd Ed Codecies. Suddenly another sector piped up 'where is the fluff?'

Then they went down the route of mini-dexes, like the old Marine ones, where there was a central Parent Codex, and then little one to tailor it to a specific chapter.

This stopped following requests to just do a full Codex for each one. Which they did.

Net result? More bloody whinging from a different sector of gamers.

They cannot win!

**whatwhat**

Well I do think they can be a bit more heartless than that and could give you some examples but that's a whole other issue n I'm already worried I've just completely jacked this one with my rant.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Thing is, the ranting so far has been fairly inane.

It's people simply *assuming* They are going to lose.

**whatwhat**

Yeh, from a spectators point of view, and a person who hasn't played 40k since 3rd ed bear in mind. Perhaps you need to give the codex a few more tries and maybe adapt your army to it's strengths/weaknesses b4 you get too annoyed with it.

**Shotgun**

They could have won if they would have made the simple, underlying decision that, for example, a storm shield is a storm shield, is a storm shield.

That would have gone a long way with both the tourney crowd and the casual crowd and simplified the confusion out there.

VArying points costs, while confusing as all hell, could have been "accepted" as army variation and what have you, or could simply have been fixed somewhat similarly to the way the old Dark Elf fix was with a WD publication of "copy this page, past it into your DA/BA/SW dex."

GW apparently doesn't do that anymore. This FAQ, from both a competative and casual gamer standpoint, says in big screaming neon, "We, the designers at GW, look at each book in a vacuum of one, without any insight of existing or future books, and design the book to be competative with itself."

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

What confusion? A Storm Shield is a Storm Shield, A Dark Angel Storm Shield is not.

The books are self contained. If people concentrated less on what they feel *should* be in the book, and concerned themselves with what *is* in the book, the world would be a less stressful place for all of us.

And how do you know that GW aren't planning an Errata for the book? Like I said earlier, anyone bothered to ask, or is that too much like pro active thought?