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.

 Jidmah wrote:
If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?

I mean, Dakka would have hundreds of pages complaining about free ham and swiss sandwich day, ranging from arguments that it hurts the lactose intolerant to whining that they won't throw in a bag of chips.

Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?

You're begging the questions. I dont think GW's rules are good, but they are "good enough."

Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?

probably, although probably not as much as we'd think

How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?

havne't they always existed?

Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?

But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.

40k is special and unique, because it's one of the very few games with "a unique vast background and iconic models." It's certainly the only one to have both of those and near universal distribution. I'll happily concede that GW games aren't great examples of game design (although they are surprisingly clever and creative within an antiquated engine), but GW is one of the extremely few games that gets people to collect armies they don't even play with. Plenty of companies sell models to painters, but not a ton of folks are collecting massive Warmachine collections if they don't play.

The rules matter, enough to really affect GW's profit, but probably not enough to completely tank the company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Except - I'm also not sure about the the above. 6th and into 7th edition was clearly a troubling time period and 40k did seem to be in decline a bit. It's common knowledge that 8th edition brought a lot of people into the game (or back into it). Was it "just" the idea of it being a clean-start or was it actually because of the greatly simplified core rules that made it easy for people to try it out and check out the buzz?

So, for GW, yes they could invest in a "better" rule system - but I wonder if they are hesitant to do that because they got such a positive market response from the streamlined 8th edition. If they feel that better (using AA or something else) also mean's more-complex, I could see GW deciding that the complexity isn't worth losing relatively more audience than they would gain by appeasing to hardcore wargame enthusiasts with a better design.

The switch to 8th had a lot of major effects. It was a clean slate on codexes, it (briefly) eliminated the obscene bloat of 7th edition, it simplified the core rules while adding meaningful decisions (namely stratagems), but it also introduced primaris space marines, which was the first complete overhaul for Space Marines since 3rd edition. All of these things combined to reignite what had been a stale game.

40k is a game that serves a lot of masters. It's being played at a very high competitive level, in store leagues, in narrative games, while also being simple enough for people to play a game or two a year and not completely miss the thread. that is a harder needle to thread than you may think.

 Jidmah wrote:
If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?

Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?

Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?

But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.

Look, i'm not saying 40k cannot grow and that having a better game will not make more sales. This is 100% true.

I'm saying that for GW execs, seeing the current amount of money they make off their inertia is enough for them (aka : they don't need to pay more for better designers).

 Polonius wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?

You're begging the questions. I dont think GW's rules are good, but they are "good enough."

GW writes bad rules, bad rules affect sales, GW's sales are affected by bad rules. Do you disagree with the premises or the conclusion?

I am also not certain that Jidmah was begging the question, he was just asking a question.

not begging the question wrote:Jane is an intelligent, insightful, well-educated and personable individual, which begs the question: why does she stay at that dead-end job?

begging the question wrote:The Apple iPhone is the best smartphone on the planet because no one makes a better smartphone than Apple does.

All corporations are creatures of inertia, it comes with bureaucracy.

Even if you manage to convince a GW executive that they need better rules, that executive still needs to convince the rest of the executives.

Corporations are very slow, and the bigger they are the slower they become.

 Tyran wrote:
All corporations are creatures of inertia, it comes with bureaucracy.

Even if you manage to convince a GW executive that they need better rules, that executive still needs to convince the rest of the executives.

Corporations are very slow, and the bigger they are the slower they become.

i'm using the physics definition of "Inertia" in case that was what caused the misunderstanding.

a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

basically, 40k is carrying itself

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

Lol, no, D&D has been with us since 1974.

i thought 40k got released in the mid-late 80's?

'87.
Doesn't change the fact D&D had 13 year lead on it.
13yr =/= 10yr.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Perhaps something that broadly groups equivalent points worth of activations together to avoid the peril of activation spam (something like splitting your list into 4 activation groups) and then that's the only real downside solved.

My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.

40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.

nou wrote:


My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.

40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.

This sounds great - any chance you could PM me the details?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I guess?

My experience has been that the Sisters dex convinced me to not play Sisters (the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all). I haven't sold them but I also haven't unpacked them since moving in January.

The Aeldari codex made me sell my Eldar, because, again, the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all ("grav tanks? You idiot, those aren't an aspect. Stop playing Eldar wrong!" - GW)

That's why I don't think crusade is a very good system and telling someone "just play casual PL crusade games" is not the answer to the atrocious balance we've been seeing in matched play recently.

nou wrote:

40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.

RT & 2nd were plenty interesting & engaging. Which apparently is something they gave up in the quest for larger model counts.

Karol wrote:
How much does an avarge titanicus army cost? Is it a lot cheaper then w40k?

They had a maniple box last year that would've been a fully playable 1500 point list for like $150. It's MUCH cheaper. I've maybe spent $400 and I have all the campaign books plus a 1750 list with different weapon options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

Yep. The "its easier to find a game of the current edition" is what sticks a lot of people to GW games, and is why GW has no incentive to make good rules.

Also +1 to the Titanicus ruleset. If they put in tanks and infantry and made a proper EPIC I'd buy in 100%.

That's the only thing that keeps me playing 40k. I try like hell to start groups for Titanicus, Infinity, Necromunda, etc everywhere I live. Nobody wants to spend for a new game when they can just play 40k with their existing models even if the game is awful.

ccs wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

Lol, no, D&D has been with us since 1974.

i thought 40k got released in the mid-late 80's?

'87.
Doesn't change the fact D&D had 13 year lead on it.
13yr =/= 10yr.

Do you examine GW rules with the same degree of pedantry as you're applying here?

For things that are almost 40/50 years old, no, plus or minus 3 years is not worth calling out.

Racerguy180 wrote:

nou wrote:

40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.

RT & 2nd were plenty interesting & engaging. Which apparently is something they gave up in the quest for larger model counts.

Oh, I agree, that 2nd ed was a pinnacle of 40k and I still play Oldmunda, which I vastly prefer to the new AA iteration. But as you wrote, it collapses under model count and even originally, a squad vs squad CC was tedious. 3rd had none of the charm, some of it gradually returned, with 7th ed garagehammer games having at least the feel of heroism 2nd ed had, but as stated above, classic IGOUGO has it's very tight limits, that 40k breaks all around.

 Jidmah wrote:
If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?

Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?

Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?

But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.

People who do like current 40k tend not to spend hours and hours writing comments about it, they just enjoy the game.
Call it silent majority if you want.

If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...

 Aenar wrote:

If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...

GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.

Toofast wrote:

 Aenar wrote:

If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...

GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.

This gets glossed over way too often.

The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

Dai wrote:
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.

Snugiraffe wrote:

nou wrote:


My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.

40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.

This sounds great - any chance you could PM me the details?

Me too! I'd like to learn more about this system.

Ditto, end of round saves are my preferred way of casualties.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 Aenar wrote:

If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...

GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.

This gets glossed over way too often.

Because it's definitely bullgak? That's pure marketing talk and primarily came from an era where GW ALSO said they very proudly didn't do market research.

Fantasy ceasing to exist at the same time 40k was largely unplayable had the company verifiably hemorrhaging money in 2015-2016, but yeah, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.

Brickfix wrote:
This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.

I'm 100% in the same boat. I would not look at the models without the game. I'd be building model fighter planes or oil painting or doing cg something else. I collect 40k models with the expectation of eventual use.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ditto, end of round saves are my preferred way of casualties.

This just seems to incentivize throwing units out into the open. They're going to get their shots off so who cares? Then the guy with the fastest units dictates the flow of the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.

I'm 100% in the same boat. I would not look at the models without the game. I'd be building model fighter planes or oil painting or doing cg something else. I collect 40k models with the expectation of eventual use.

I collect and play, but I have a few friends who only collect, are completely uninterested in the game and don't even own/read a codex for their faction. And yes, those who are long enough in the hobby own a full army worth of models, or more.

ERJAK wrote:

Dai wrote:
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.

That's hilarious

ERJAK wrote:

Dai wrote:
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.

[Citation required]

 Dysartes wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Dai wrote:
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.

[Citation required]

I had exactly as much evidence as the other guy did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Dai wrote:
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.

I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.

That's hilarious

Unsubstantiated claims based on anecdotes usually are. People just don't notice that until they hear one that goes against what THEY believe to be true.

Mr. 'GW SAYS NO ONE EVER BUYS MODELS FOR THE GAME THO!!!!'

As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.

25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.

Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.

You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.

And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.

I know probably 2-3x amount of collectors/painters than I do gamers. Some of us fall more at the modeling/painting side rather than the game end of the continuum. But the people happy with models, lore, narrative aren't screaming about stuff they dislike, cuz there is plenty to like. Whereas, if you're constantly playing bleeding edge tourney meta there is a large prospect that something will be egregiously wrong enuff to complain.

But game use never enters my mind when I'm buying a model. Sold the Judiciar & bladeguard ancient from Indomitus box as willfully as the necron side due to how they look. Morvenn & Nundams have no place in my Bloody Rose. Wracks & grotesques do absolutely nothing for me esthetically, so zero in my army.

I can understand that I'm not the normal 40k player, but to think the really really squeaky wheel is the only one is ridiculously Folly.