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.

Both true, but I think that the rules make it very clear that they are not 100%. You call that an excuse to right bad rules, I call it a genius move to let us change and play with them as we see fit.

I mean, all games have flaws. All games have problems. I just think people look at 40k and want something different, but still want 40k. How this is GW fault is beyond me. Why not use 40k models with another game. It seems more like what a lot of people want.

There are improvements that can be made, and everyone agrees. But 40k isnt going to get better for any one by simply complaining or making a ruckus, its only gonna get better if GW decides to listen. Which they wont. So why keep complaining? Instead work towards fixing it for yourselves out of love for the game (if thats why you stick around) or move on and grow from it.

Lingering and complaining only damages things more so than many already see it.

I do wonder what the exact demographics for your average wargamer are.

Every time a thread of this nature pops up, so, weekly on average I guess, you get largely the same arguments in favour or against.

As someone who would be very much in favour of tighter more "competitive" ruleset, as it benefits all and harms none, I guess I'm more focused on the arguments I'm used to dealing with, but seriously, how about some consistency from the "fluff" crowd. Is it

"The Internet is a vocal minority, most gamers aren't spending time in forums, they're happily gaming, ignorant of the perceived issues"

Or is it

"All this negativity on the Internet could be hurting the hobby by scaring away potential noobs"

Is it

"There's no point in raging on the net, it won't change anything"

Or

"Let's make a thread about how 40K is mostly ok"

Because that achieves what exactly?

Is it

"GW deliberately leave space in the ruleset so we can do our own thing"

Or

"GW can't be expected to produce a high quality ruleset, that would be hard"

All hope is not lost for the game, but right now too many stars need to align for a really good game to result, and many people aren't able to play in the circumstances to maximise those chances. Changes that allowed more players to genuinely have fun, consistently, while not excluding anyone already enjoying the game from continuing to do so, seem like a no brainer to me, yet, to my continued surprise, there always seems to be people railing against it.

Well if they did change it, no one will complain (except we all have to buy new books and rapidly change our armies and learn an entirely new game) unless it ruins the variety aspect.

But the main point that ruins your no brainer is this will not happen. It wont. So why go on about it?

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 azreal13 wrote:
I do wonder what the exact demographics for your average wargamer are.

Every time a thread of this nature pops up, so, weekly on average I guess, you get largely the same arguments in favour or against.

As someone who would be very much in favour of tighter more "competitive" ruleset, as it benefits all and harms none, I guess I'm more focused on the arguments I'm used to dealing with, but seriously, how about some consistency from the "fluff" crowd. Is it

"The Internet is a vocal minority, most gamers aren't spending time in forums, they're happily gaming, ignorant of the perceived issues"

Or is it

"All this negativity on the Internet could be hurting the hobby by scaring away potential noobs"

Is it

"There's no point in raging on the net, it won't change anything"

Or

"Let's make a thread about how 40K is mostly ok"

Because that achieves what exactly?

Is it

"GW deliberately leave space in the ruleset so we can do our own thing"

Or

"GW can't be expected to produce a high quality ruleset, that would be hard"

All hope is not lost for the game, but right now too many stars need to align for a really good game to result, and many people aren't able to play in the circumstances to maximise those chances. Changes that allowed more players to genuinely have fun, consistently, while not excluding anyone already enjoying the game from continuing to do so, seem like a no brainer to me, yet, to my continued surprise, there always seems to be people railing against it.

Well if they did change it, no one will complain (except we all have to buy new books and rapidly change our armies and learn an entirely new game) unless it ruins the variety aspect.

But the main point that ruins your no brainer is this will not happen. It wont. So why go on about it?

You won't remember the change from 2nd to 3rd, so will be unaware that there is precedent for the game to be utterly reinvented from one edition to another.

So, while the balance of probability is still in favour of it not happening soon to say "it won't happen," especially with rumours of 7th being imminent, isn't the safest absolute to be advocating right now.

If people discussing what they feel is wrong with the game on the Internet bothers you, why keep posting?

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 azreal13 wrote:
I do wonder what the exact demographics for your average wargamer are.

Every time a thread of this nature pops up, so, weekly on average I guess, you get largely the same arguments in favour or against.

As someone who would be very much in favour of tighter more "competitive" ruleset, as it benefits all and harms none, I guess I'm more focused on the arguments I'm used to dealing with, but seriously, how about some consistency from the "fluff" crowd. Is it

"The Internet is a vocal minority, most gamers aren't spending time in forums, they're happily gaming, ignorant of the perceived issues"

Or is it

"All this negativity on the Internet could be hurting the hobby by scaring away potential noobs"

Is it

"There's no point in raging on the net, it won't change anything"

Or

"Let's make a thread about how 40K is mostly ok"

Because that achieves what exactly?

Is it

"GW deliberately leave space in the ruleset so we can do our own thing"

Or

"GW can't be expected to produce a high quality ruleset, that would be hard"

All hope is not lost for the game, but right now too many stars need to align for a really good game to result, and many people aren't able to play in the circumstances to maximise those chances. Changes that allowed more players to genuinely have fun, consistently, while not excluding anyone already enjoying the game from continuing to do so, seem like a no brainer to me, yet, to my continued surprise, there always seems to be people railing against it.

Well if they did change it, no one will complain (except we all have to buy new books and rapidly change our armies and learn an entirely new game) unless it ruins the variety aspect.

But the main point that ruins your no brainer is this will not happen. It wont. So why go on about it?

I think part of the reason we see continual griping on issues (which I will argue is at least consistent griping) is that a lot of us are eternal optimists that some good will come of our complaints.

It's kinda like rallying against about government policies- sure, most of the time the government will completely ignore you and people will look at you and ask "why even bother?" But what else can you do? At least as a part of the community you can let your voice be heard, and maybe if enough people have the same opinion then together you can push for change. And maybe in the end GW will ignore every single complaint, request, or whatnot. But at least you can say you tried to affect a change.

EDIT: I don't take anything Peregrine says personally. I see his issues to be from a strong strong frustration with the state of 40k, but I don't even feel like he is personally attacking anyone. That's just me of course

 Swastakowey wrote:
Both true, but I think that the rules make it very clear that they are not 100%.

Yes, but that's not a good thing, it's a case of GW saying "we don't bother to playtest sufficiently, please just 4+ our mistakes and keep buying stuff". It's a failure to create a good game, not a deliberate design choice that makes a game that is better for some people at the expense of others. A better game wouldn't need its players to make solutions because the game would function just fine as-written.

I mean, all games have flaws. All games have problems.

Not like 40k does. For example, MTG has no problems at all with rule clarity. There is no possible rule question that can't be answered by looking up the answer in the rules, and even if you somehow find one it will be fixed.

How this is GW fault is beyond me.

Because our expectations are about quality, not styles of games. The things I hate about 40k don't make it a better game for other people, they just save GW the expense of hiring game designers and playtesters that aren't incompetent failures.

Why not use 40k models with another game.

Because of the "critical mass" effect where everyone plays 40k and no competing system can get enough players to function. For a lot of people it's easier to just deal with 40k's problems instead of having to work to build a community from scratch around an entirely new game.

If you can't see how prepping for a tourney and thinking "gotta beat TauDar/Jetseer" doesn't pigeon hole your list and ruin your variety. I can't make you see it

Yes, and this problem only exists because 40k's rules are utterly broken. A game that didn't suck wouldn't have the "Taudar/Jetseer" problem in the first place because there wouldn't be obvious overpowered units/lists like that. This statement is an undeniable concession that 40k is a bad game, whether you realize it or not.

Now with dataslates/ escalation you have to account for flying tyranids, crazy broadsides units, d weapons and void shields... maybe!! You've got to build better lists and PLAY better.

Seriously? This is awful game design. It's the equivalent of having a fire in your kitchen and deciding to "fix" it by setting the rest of the house on fire. You fix balance issues by modifying the rules involved, not by deciding to publish such an overwhelming flood of minimum-effort garbage that everyone is too busy trying to keep up with everything to remember about the original problem.

It rocks I'm sorry your having a bad time. If I had to guess though its YOU not anything else.

No, actually I'm having a great time. My models are still just as much fun to paint, and I have X-Wing to satisfy my need for a playable miniatures game. I've identified the problems with 40k and moved on, and no amount of "be happier" nonsense will change the fact that 40k is a terrible game.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

 azreal13 wrote:
I do wonder what the exact demographics for your average wargamer are.

Every time a thread of this nature pops up, so, weekly on average I guess, you get largely the same arguments in favour or against.

As someone who would be very much in favour of tighter more "competitive" ruleset, as it benefits all and harms none, I guess I'm more focused on the arguments I'm used to dealing with, but seriously, how about some consistency from the "fluff" crowd. Is it

"The Internet is a vocal minority, most gamers aren't spending time in forums, they're happily gaming, ignorant of the perceived issues"

Or is it

"All this negativity on the Internet could be hurting the hobby by scaring away potential noobs"

Is it

"There's no point in raging on the net, it won't change anything"

Or

"Let's make a thread about how 40K is mostly ok"

Because that achieves what exactly?

Is it

"GW deliberately leave space in the ruleset so we can do our own thing"

Or

"GW can't be expected to produce a high quality ruleset, that would be hard"

All hope is not lost for the game, but right now too many stars need to align for a really good game to result, and many people aren't able to play in the circumstances to maximise those chances. Changes that allowed more players to genuinely have fun, consistently, while not excluding anyone already enjoying the game from continuing to do so, seem like a no brainer to me, yet, to my continued surprise, there always seems to be people railing against it.

Well if they did change it, no one will complain (except we all have to buy new books and rapidly change our armies and learn an entirely new game) unless it ruins the variety aspect.

But the main point that ruins your no brainer is this will not happen. It wont. So why go on about it?

You won't remember the change from 2nd to 3rd, so will be unaware that there is precedent for the game to be utterly reinvented from one edition to another.

So, while the balance of probability is still in favour of it not happening soon to say "it won't happen," especially with rumours of 7th being imminent, isn't the safest absolute to be advocating right now.

If people discussing what they feel is wrong with the game on the Internet bothers you, why keep posting?

To be very blunt, Over the last year my job has been getting easier. I climbed the ranks and I have plenty of spare time to waste. So thats why im here. I have the time and cant do much else with that time. Outside of work I almost never am on here.

I also am on the internet discussing what i dont like. If you dont like 40K as it currently stands, why do you bother sticking around?

It can go in circles.

It can, but, as I and others have explained to you before, it is possible to like aspects of the game and dislike others.

I like painting and modelling, hanging out with some friends for the hour or two to play a game and the general idea of tabletop wargaming (of which, 40K is the most accessible game I have models ready for, alongside X Wing, which I also play often and have very little to criticise about it)

I dislike the neglect of the ruleset, the blatant attempts to corral the customer base into spending more money, and, on some level I find the way GW appear to be run slightly offensive, as, on a professional level, I've seen plenty of examples of good and bad management at all levels, and GW seem to stink.

I think part of the reason we see continual griping on issues (which I will argue is at least consistent griping) is that a lot of us are eternal optimists that some good will come of our complaints.

It's kinda like rallying against about government policies- sure, most of the time the government will completely ignore you and people will look at you and ask "why even bother?" But what else can you do? At least as a part of the community you can let your voice be heard, and maybe if enough people have the same opinion then together you can push for change. And maybe in the end GW will ignore every single complaint, request, or whatnot. But at least you can say you tried to affect a change.

EDIT: I don't take anything Peregrine says personally. I see his issues to be from a strong strong frustration with the state of 40k, but I don't even feel like he is personally attacking anyone. That's just me of course

thats very reasonable, but at what point do you go "this is not working, so lets try something else?" In my opinion your wallet says a lot more than posting. So I personally think the best route is boycott. If you cant boycott it then you are showing support for it. Because im sure if everyone came together to try advocate change then they would certainly stop sending their money at GW.

Thats why i think complaining is wasteful unless you are trying to get people to stop spending at GW. In my opinion, if you buy from GW but claim to hate it, then you are doing nothing for your cause. Of course if you stop spending at GW and move on (until they change) then there shouldn't be much of a problem.

But yes I see your point, but if something is futile its always better to try something different. Or you will get the same result. Which is exactly what the complainers get. The same result (disappointment).

Why can't someone talk about it, and boycott it?

Let's add catharsis to your recommended reading along side suspension of disbelief.

 azreal13 wrote:
Why can't someone talk about it, and boycott it?

Let's add catharsis to your recommended reading along side suspension of disbelief.

Because for the most part, they havent boycotted the game. Some have, but many havent. Many say how much they hate it, then have a few games. Then complain about it. Then there are the ones that refuse to play the game, yet have all the rules and books etc and learn every thing they can about it like an obsession and complain.

As I said earlier, there is also the fact that things havent changed for the better in the eyes of many who complain. So obviously what the complainers are doing doesnt work. Its a broken record. (much like those like me complaining about the complainers).

At the end of the day, how much blame can be put on GW? None really. they make a game, you can choose what to do with it. Their fault? Nope.

Is it GW fault that you cant switch games because they are the most popular? Nope.

Is it GW fault you chose to play the game and buy their product? Nope.

Its not GW fault. You had every right and opportunity to play test and try out the game first. You can play older editions if you dont like the new 40k. You can do what you wish. Its not GW fault.

So why is it all directed at GW in the first place?

Honestly I don't know why people complain about Balance, Warhammer 40k has never ever been balanced in anyway what so ever.

I know that I personally face a dilemma. I feel that GW miniatures are some of my favorite, I enjoy the aesthetic, the heroic scale, I feel they are a good size and they cover all of the different ranges I have interest in (traditional fantasy and sci-fi). They are fairly customize-able, with the kits going together in many ways, and the plastic makes for easy conversions. There are a wealth of kits that allow truly unique armies to be made simply from mixing-and-matching.

I really enjoy the models, but on the flip side I have issues with two things: price and rules.

I feel like I pay a lot for GW miniatures. A lot, so much that sometimes I'm embarrassed to admit how much I paid for something. It can be difficult to justify the cost, especially as I've seen it increase in a lot of ways I feel are unfair and money-grabbing. I have cut back on buying miniatures from GW since, and feel that I am quickly hitting a price-out point. I also complain about this on dakka, as I feel my complaints about price increases are well-justified and can be backed up by solid data.

GW prices their rules at a premium. The quality of the books themselves shows it; they are hardbacks with nice color art, of which I know many good artists have contributed. But the problem I have with the books is what I perceive to be a lack of quality in the rules themselves. Over in the Astra Militarum thread, people are complaining that GW *still* can't get the pricing for power weapons and plasma pistols down. The rules are not properly vetted; Jervis himself pointed out that they "feel out" price points for rules. But they don't check them against other rules, someone writes the rules down and they are left as the final copy. To me it comes off like someone presenting a research paper, but they never did spellcheck or even ask someone to look over their work. And I expect more than that from GW's rule department. Heck, I'm paying about $120 just for the main rulebook and a codex, I should hope I could get something in terms of effort in the rules department.

 Mitranekh the Omniscient wrote:

-If you REALLY cannot get on with the game at all, take a break. Keep up with the hobby, expand your forces maybe, but don't play until you get a new rules set you can live with.

That's where I've been since May 2013. They may have lost me for good. Turns out that X-wing is a lot of fun.
It's just as tactical and the rules make sense.
Probably going to give some other games a shot, too.

As of next week, we are a total of one year since a FAQ has been answered. GW hasn't made any money off of me in the same amount of time! In that single year the game has become almost unrecognizable as the same game, to me.

As someone who's only recently returned to 40K there's a lot in 6th edition that I find either disconcerting or disapointing, so I'm not surprised there's a lot of criticism going around for now.

40K turning into Epic-28mm...

The focus on fliers and superheavies and oversized 'miniatures'...

The bizarre current trend to have entire codexes dedicated to one unit armies...

Aside from all that though (and I'm not a competitive player so I can't touch on their concerns) GW gets this level of flak not only because a lot of it is deserved, but because it's the leader of the pack - the biggest name in the hobby. It's much the same reason that EA is the most heavily criticised publisher in pc/console/mobile gaming. It does more, so it has more opportunities to get it wrong.

And like EA, it does seem to seize rather a lot of those opportunities with both hands.

Hollismason wrote:
Honestly I don't know why people complain about Balance, Warhammer 40k has never ever been balanced in anyway what so ever.

Because it's gotten worse?
Because there is now competition with much better rules but people still want to play 40k because they love the fluff/models?
Because none of this 'oh we aren't trying to make a balanced game' talk didn't start until a couple of years ago, years (or decades) and thousands of dollars after many of us got into it (it might not have been advertised as a balanced game back then but you assume any game is supposed to be fair unless otherwise stated when getting into it).

Or maybe, just maybe, it is because an significant number of people want that to change and GW have cut off any means for us to communicate with them so we haven't really got anywhere else but there to talk about it?

Hollismason wrote:
Honestly I don't know why people complain about Balance, Warhammer 40k has never ever been balanced in anyway what so ever.

This isn't something to be proud of. The fact that 40k has always been a flawed game doesn't mean that we should excuse its current flaws.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ranting about all the ranting people are doing is hypocritical.

So it's only okay to complain as long as its aimed at GW then?

No, but you don't see anyone making a thread complaining about people for *not* venting.

Give it a week.

 Peregrine wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Honestly I don't know why people complain about Balance, Warhammer 40k has never ever been balanced in anyway what so ever.

This isn't something to be proud of. The fact that 40k has always been a flawed game doesn't mean that we should excuse its current flaws.

Yep, the other thing is that you may not realise how painfully unbalanced the game is until you've already assembled your army and played a few games, by which time you're now invested in the game.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Both true, but I think that the rules make it very clear that they are not 100%. You call that an excuse to right bad rules, I call it a genius move to let us change and play with them as we see fit.

I mean, all games have flaws. All games have problems. I just think people look at 40k and want something different, but still want 40k. How this is GW fault is beyond me. Why not use 40k models with another game. It seems more like what a lot of people want.

There are improvements that can be made, and everyone agrees. But 40k isnt going to get better for any one by simply complaining or making a ruckus, its only gonna get better if GW decides to listen. Which they wont. So why keep complaining? Instead work towards fixing it for yourselves out of love for the game (if thats why you stick around) or move on and grow from it.

Lingering and complaining only damages things more so than many already see it.

This has to be the most depressing way to think I every heard, "There not going to change, so don't even try".

Noir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Both true, but I think that the rules make it very clear that they are not 100%. You call that an excuse to right bad rules, I call it a genius move to let us change and play with them as we see fit.

I mean, all games have flaws. All games have problems. I just think people look at 40k and want something different, but still want 40k. How this is GW fault is beyond me. Why not use 40k models with another game. It seems more like what a lot of people want.

There are improvements that can be made, and everyone agrees. But 40k isnt going to get better for any one by simply complaining or making a ruckus, its only gonna get better if GW decides to listen. Which they wont. So why keep complaining? Instead work towards fixing it for yourselves out of love for the game (if thats why you stick around) or move on and grow from it.

Lingering and complaining only damages things more so than many already see it.

This has to be the most depressing way to think I every heard, "There not going to change, so don't even try".

Well you could look at it as I do, and find ways to enjoy it with your friends. I love the game, I used to hate it at it at one point. But I gave it some trial games playing it differently and like it. After all I didnt want to be dumb and throw away thousands worth of models and books because i was too silly to properly think about what I purchased.

But remember, the saddest things in life are usually true

Here's the thing about 40k, I like the game, I have fun playing it.

I don't mind playing games where I'm at a disadvantage, am I running a lot of grunts vs a flamer heavy army? That just means I have to work harder.

But my problem is when I'm playing a game where there is absolutely no possible way of me winning. Games where 95%+ of my army can't damage 75%+ their army. That's not fun.

What if I want to play my Corsair list? Full of fast units that put out an Ork load of STR4-6 shots, I love that list, I love the way it plays, it's the reason I'm restarting my Eldar army. But what happens when my opponent drops transports with AV13 I suddenly only have three or four guns in my entire army that have a 50% chance of glancing, and that's not counting his five up saves.

Why not play a seer star or beast star those works all the time and you can call it corsair too?

I have a bit different view on w40k , because the avarge pay here is 1/4th of what people in UK make , so while it is a hobby it is as far from being a hobby as a sports car is from a family car. It costs so much , that no one in their right mind can play what they want . Or rather they can if they play in a very small group , but then they play in shops anyway , so sooner or later they will end up playing people with normal armies. And it sucks for them , if they didn't pick a good faction from the start .

I'm surprised GW just doesn't use the community to help design a balanced game. It would take a fair bit of sifting and sorting but the community would probably do the "heavy lifting." I believe that moving away from the community will be GW's single biggest mistake.

Wanting better balance and clear, precise rules from a company is not hate. And contrary to popular belief COULD be done, but not cost effectively to GW. Its the fact they claim to be a model company and their models sell themselves, while churning out unending dataslates, unnecessary codices that could have all been wrapped into the parent codex if not for pure greed, and blatant rules lately designed soley to sell models (im looking at you, rvanna riptide that had its rules cranked up to 11 apparently to push the model only) that make people dislike GW.

GW has a problem. And that is no advertising, along with those who DO play having extensive collections already. So they have to add things that retract from the quality of the game like out of place flyer rules that made them must have units, or escalation and stronghold to try and make generic models many armies could integrate because this is what they have come to, run out of options and trying to stay afloat. Higher prices that price many new players out aren't helping their PR.

The game is nothing like it used to be. Some changes are good, many are bad, and that seems to be the popular opinion of the day. And no matter how strongly you may feel its improved leaps and bounds, the majority don't, and posts telling haters not to hate aren't helpful. Their is a reason 7th is being rushed out the door, and that's damage control. For a long time they made arrogant decisions based off the fact that there was no competition for their particular field. Their is now. And that may be the best thing that could have happened to them. No more lazy excuses for poor product or rules, its quality or get out. And they DESPERATLEY need their cred back. GW is no longer that one company who makes tabletop games everyone plays. Its that one company who got everyone into tabletop games, but overall has the worst gaming experience of them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Median Trace wrote:
I'm surprised GW just doesn't use the community to help design a balanced game. It would take a fair bit of sifting and sorting but the community would probably do the "heavy lifting." I believe that moving away from the community will be GW's single biggest mistake.

worked for warmahordes

 azreal13 wrote:
Why can't someone talk about it, and boycott it?

Let's add catharsis to your recommended reading along side suspension of disbelief.

So you don't like the rules. I get that. But why do you feel the need to constantly whine about it?
It is okay to say it if you disagree or dislike something. Repeating it over and over again is not.
I you hate the 40k rules so much, go play another game. If you don't want to stop 40k because you like other aspects of the hobby, than the bad rules are just something you'll have to deal with.
Complaining on the internet does not help, it changes nothing and it is just annoying to other people. You yourself are probably also not getting more happy by complaining.
So do everyone a favour and chat about positive things.


GW's vision of the 'rules' is clearly as a non-competitive framework of guidelines that allows people to have narrative games; not unlike a roleplaying game. That might explain GW's perceived apathy towards the rules. The rules are meant as guidelines and can be changed by the players at will.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Why can't someone talk about it, and boycott it?

Let's add catharsis to your recommended reading along side suspension of disbelief.

So you don't like the rules. I get that. But why do you feel the need to constantly whine about it?
It is okay to say it if you disagree or dislike something. Repeating it over and over again is not.
I you hate the 40k rules so much, go play another game. If you don't want to stop 40k because you like other aspects of the hobby, than the bad rules are just something you'll have to deal with.
Complaining on the internet does not help, it changes nothing and it is just annoying to other people. You yourself are probably also not getting more happy by complaining.
So do everyone a favour and chat about positive things.


GW's vision of the 'rules' is clearly as a non-competitive framework of guidelines that allows people to have narrative games; not unlike a roleplaying game. That might explain GW's perceived apathy towards the rules. The rules are meant as guidelines and can be changed by the players at will.

If it annoys you, rather than telling me to stop, just don't participate, you see how one is you trying to control another persons behaviour, which might really, really irritate them, and the other is something completely in your control that doesn't require a redundant, facile post in a thread that seems to be discussing something that you're not interested in?

Also, I don't think using emotive and inflammatory language like "hate" and "whine" is a fantastic idea either. I don't hate 40K, I just see how it is flawed and could be improved, I also enjoy discussing this on the net with others that feel similarly and debating it with those who don't. The fact you have written what you have suggests you haven't really got the idea of catharsis either.

I'm not overly fond of how GW conduct themselves, and that is why I have modified my buying behaviour accordingly.

I'm not a competitive player, so you appear to have also misunderstood my position in that as well. My desire for a better written ruleset stems both from a desire to simply have a better game, but also because I recognise that a ruleset where there fewer objectively poor units may well result in better sales for the models representing those units. Better sales = a healthier GW, that means a healthier future for 40K, and who here doesn't want that?

Most other major competitors offer their (often substantially better) core rules for free or for a substantially lower cost, and use the fact that people want to play the game to drive the sale of their core product (the models.) Can you explain why a similar situation would be worse for GW/40K than the current situation, where some aspects of the rules simply do not work, others are dramatically skewed, balance-wise, and they are priced very near to the top (possibly the top) of the price curve of what wargaming rules cost?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Why can't someone talk about it, and boycott it?

Let's add catharsis to your recommended reading along side suspension of disbelief.

So you don't like the rules. I get that. But why do you feel the need to constantly whine about it?
It is okay to say it if you disagree or dislike something. Repeating it over and over again is not.
I you hate the 40k rules so much, go play another game. If you don't want to stop 40k because you like other aspects of the hobby, than the bad rules are just something you'll have to deal with.
Complaining on the internet does not help, it changes nothing and it is just annoying to other people. You yourself are probably also not getting more happy by complaining.
So do everyone a favour and chat about positive things.


GW's vision of the 'rules' is clearly as a non-competitive framework of guidelines that allows people to have narrative games; not unlike a roleplaying game. That might explain GW's perceived apathy towards the rules. The rules are meant as guidelines and can be changed by the players at will.

If it annoys you, rather than telling me to stop, just don't participate, you see how one is you trying to control another persons behaviour, which might really, really irritate them, and the other is something completely in your control that doesn't require a redundant, facile post in a thread that seems to be discussing something that you're not interested in?

Also, I don't think using emotive and inflammatory language like "hate" and "whine" is a fantastic idea either. I don't hate 40K, I just see how it is flawed and could be improved, I also enjoy discussing this on the net with others that feel similarly and debating it with those who don't. The fact you have written what you have suggests you haven't really got the idea of catharsis either.

I'm not overly fond of how GW conduct themselves, and that is why I have modified my buying behaviour accordingly.

I'm not a competitive player, so you appear to have also misunderstood my position in that as well. My desire for a better written ruleset stems both from a desire to simply have a better game, but also because I recognise that a ruleset where there fewer objectively poor units may well result in better sales for the models representing those units. Better sales = a healthier GW, that means a healthier future for 40K, and who here doesn't want that?

Most other major competitors offer their (often substantially better) core rules for free or for a substantially lower cost, and use the fact that people want to play the game to drive the sale of their core product (the models.) Can you explain why a similar situation would be worse for GW/40K than the current situation, where some aspects of the rules simply do not work, others are dramatically skewed, balance-wise, and they are priced very near to the top (possibly the top) of the price curve of what wargaming rules cost?

Oh this threat is interesting to me allright, as it discusses the frequency of negative posts on this forum. And my post is also in that line; I get your points, they are all valid criticisms I can agree with, but why does it need to be repeated over and over again? Why not make more posts about positive things instead?

At least people are not complaining about Space Marines anymore. It's all about GW now.

Find me something I can get behind (such as the Knight model, perhaps best not to discuss the implementation of the rules, but the model itself is awesome) and I assure you I'm happy to post positive things.

Just personally, if you were to trawl through my 4k-odd posts and seek out posts related to other systems or products I'm interested in, you'd find I'm generally positive and up beat when I find something to worthy of being positive and upbeat a out

I have no specific axe to grind with regard to GW, the situation of repeated negative posts is simply the case that their actions continually seem to stimulate a negative response. They also seem to repeatedly take actions so that there is seldom any respite for "old wounds" to close over. I suspect only a handful of posters are actively GW "haters" to use your vernacular, the majority are likely in a similar position to me and just dying for GW to throw them something to get really excited about.