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.

Top priority

Creating a balanced, competitive ruleset. What does that mean? Creating a baseline, then balancing everything around it. I'd start with a single codex, use that as the guideline for all other codex's to follow in that edition. Right now, more than half of the codex's are not even viable in a competitive sense. Whereas others just dominate everyone. That is horrible balance/design and it is not healthy for the game as a whole.

Sales

"How will they sell models then if they are not broken overpowered?" GW could stand to learn a great deal from video game companies. If you create a great game, people WILL buy it. Whereas if you create a game with the sole intention of maximizing micro transactions & DLC people are going to avoid that sh*t like the plague. If every codex was balanced, competitive, & brought its own niche to the table like its supposed to...it would incentivize players to purchase armies they normally wouldn't.

FLGS

In my eyes, if any single decision GW has made in recent history has been the most damaging to their brand it has been their war against private small business owners. By moving towards online only & changing the trade agreement & imposing strict restrictions on small business owners GW has drastically reduced the visibility this game once had. It use to be in stores everywhere in my area. People would walk by in the mall & go "WoW, I've never seen anything like that!." Now, most people don't even know it exists. Most of the people that have gotten into 40k recently is because they were introduced to it via video games - Dawn of War, Space Marine etc. With that in mind, I feel the path forward is twofold:

1. Create an aggressive campaign that creates thousands of new players by either making a 40k movie that isn't horrible. Probably best if the movie was shot from a guard perspective so people new to the setting can relate akin to band of brothers or something of that note. If not a movie than a video game that matches or trumps the success of the original Dawn of War installment. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an updated version of DoW but it would have to be a successful title launch unlike half of the new 40K games that have come out recently.

2. Attempt to repair the bridges burned with small business owners. Change the trade agreement to incentivize doing business with GW again & offer them other incentives as well. Such as large discounts, exclusive products etc.

Focus

Right now GW is all over the place. They are trying to support AoS, 30k, 40k and so many specialist games I don't even know anymore. As someone who only plays 40k & has been interested in playing 30k, AoS...why would I when GW cannot even support its golden goose? 40k literally is the foundation on which GW rests upon yet they cannot even support it? Why then would I have any confidence & spend thousands of dollars into those systems if they cannot even balance/improve the system I am currently playing?

Public Relations

Its 2016. Games Workshop is LITERALLY the only company I do business with that does not communicate with its fanbase. If it were not for the incredible setting & excellent models I would have stopped doing business with GW over a decade ago. I don't know what dinosaurs are running GW but get rid of that rotary phone & join the rest of civilization. I would create a PR department which engages with the community on a daily basis & gathers feedback to not only create a better relationship between customer & client but also use their feedback to improve the game.

I'm aware that the likelihood of GW seeing this or even caring is about as likely as SoB getting new models but I needed to vent. I love this game & it has so much potential but I just feel like it belongs to a company that doesn't give a sh*t. At any rate thanks for reading & feel free to share your thoughts!

Commissar Benny wrote:
Top priority

Creating a ... competitive ruleset.

Are you sure that is what GW want to create? I'm not being sardonic here. Do you believe that GW actually wants a "competitive ruleset"?

Commissar Benny wrote:
"How will they sell models then if they are not broken overpowered?"

The best sellers of 2015 that GW did showed that "broken" rules do not actually sell models. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary. What we could perhaps guess from the same list is the "weak" units are affected; i.e. amazing rules may not increase sales but bad rules do lower sales. But this last part is guess work.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Whereas if you create a game with the sole intention of maximizing micro transactions & DLC people are going to avoid that sh*t like the plague.

Nit-picking here but this is incorrect. It is the very success of these business models which sees it happening more often in gaming. If you solely create a game on it then yes, you may struggle if there is actually no hook. But most game design is now including these elements/gambling/psychological conditioning from the design level up.

Commissar Benny wrote:
1. Create an aggressive campaign that creates thousands of new players by either making a 40k movie that isn't horrible. Probably best if the movie was shot from a guard perspective so people new to the setting can relate akin to band of brothers or something of that note. If not a movie than a video game that matches or trumps the success of the original Dawn of War installment. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an updated version of DoW but it would have to be a successful title launch unlike half of the new 40K games that have come out recently.

A 40k movie would require a 100+ million budget. No way GW would take any financial responsibility for that. I'm sure if a big studio put the money in it'd already have happened.

As for the game, Total War is on its way.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Right now GW is all over the place. They are trying to support AoS, 30k, 40k and so many specialist games I don't even know anymore. As someone who only plays 40k & has been interested in playing 30k, AoS...why would I when GW cannot even support its golden goose? 40k literally is the foundation on which GW rests upon yet they cannot even support it? Why then would I have any confidence & spend thousands of dollars into those systems if they cannot even balance/improve the system I am currently playing?

30k is Forge World. Specialist Games are now under SSG. GW main is AoS and 40k.
As for support, it depends what you mean by support. GW is supporting 40k by increasing the release schedule and (re)introducing new smaller forces (Mech/Wulfen/Cult).

Commissar Benny wrote:
Its 2016. Games Workshop is LITERALLY the only company I do business with that does not communicate with its fanbase. If it were not for the incredible setting & excellent models I would have stopped doing business with GW over a decade ago. I don't know what dinosaurs are running GW but get rid of that rotary phone & join the rest of civilization. I would create a PR department which engages with the community on a daily basis & gathers feedback to not only create a better relationship between customer & client but also use their feedback to improve the game.

Don't disagree with this. But then a lot of companies with a 'face' are a super tightly controlled PR control cog factory that is completely soulless but sells you that it cares.
Forgeworld has just re-opened its Facebook page. From reading this forum it does appear that there is improved communication with FLGS.



Whilst I disagree with the specific points you've raised I don't disagree with where this has come from. 40k suffers from bloat. There are pages of special rules stacked on special rules, leading to awkwardness, imbalance, and RAW dead-ends. 8th edition - or whatever it becomes - needs to strip all this crap back and start again. Trying to clean this up without a reset would be a job that'd never end.

Are you sure that is what GW want to create? I'm not being sardonic here. Do you believe that GW actually wants a "competitive ruleset"?

I would hope so? I can't imagine it is their intention to create a tabletop game where half of their products are not even playable. When I say competitive, I don't mean tournament based play but balanced. Now, realistically creating balance in a game such as 40k with so many variables is near impossible. However, that does not mean that there isn't room for massive improvements. Take point costs for example, some units out there are so overpriced just fielding them is almost an auto loss. Other units that exist have such horrible rules that once again, fielding them puts you at a significant disadvantage before the game even begins. By improving these units it not only gives players more options on the board, but more reasons to buy those units.

The best sellers of 2015 that GW did showed that "broken" rules do not actually sell models. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary. What we could perhaps guess from the same list is the "weak" units are affected; i.e. amazing rules may not increase sales but bad rules do lower sales. But this last part is guess work.

I cannot dispute your claim. I can however say that from all the games I have been present for, the tournaments I have attended as well as all of the batreps I have seen come out this year show an overwhelming popularity for armies such as Eldar/Tau/Necrons. The lists composing of largely the same units. Several of the events I turned out for this year already have armies that haven't even been represented. No Dark Eldar, SoB, IG etc.

Nit-picking here but this is incorrect. It is the very success of these business models which sees it happening more often in gaming. If you solely create a game on it then yes, you may struggle if there is actually no hook. But most game design is now including these elements/gambling/psychological conditioning from the design level up.

I cannot speak for everyone on this matter, but I know for a fact since GW started going this route more & more people I know have spent less. What was once a rulebook/codex purchase every few years has now turned into campaigns, dataslates, imperial armor #(x), expansions, its getting out of control. If however the base game & armies were not a total mess, I think these "extras" would be received with much more positive appeal.

A 40k movie would require a 100+ million budget. No way GW would take any financial responsibility for that. I'm sure if a big studio put the money in it'd already have happened.

As for the game, Total War is on its way.

A 40k movie would cost a fortune yes. However, if done correctly it could be just as popular/successful as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc. The setting is there. The lore is there. Hell, warcraft is coming out with a movie here soon. It looks awful, but the fact that it is having a movie hit theatres before Warhammer when it is literally a ripoff of the universe is just sad.

30k is Forge World. Specialist Games are now under SSG. GW main is AoS and 40k.
As for support, it depends what you mean by support. GW is supporting 40k by increasing the release schedule and (re)introducing new smaller forces (Mech/Wulfen/Cult).

I will applaud GW on the most recent releases (Mech/Wulfen/Cult) & I think they have largely received positive reception. That said, when I see the amount of support AoS is getting from GW there is absolutely no reason why the existing issues within 40k shouldn't be getting resolved. While this does tie into above, I do believe it is in GW's best interest to make all armies viable/balanced. If they can support an entirely different system, they can fix the issues within their golden goose.

Don't disagree with this. But then a lot of companies with a 'face' are a super tightly controlled PR control cog factory that is completely soulless but sells you that it cares.
Forgeworld has just re-opened its Facebook page. From reading this forum it does appear that there is improved communication with FLGS.

You are correct. There is a right & wrong way to go about PR & alot of companies do it wrong. While I am not asking for GW to change how they release products (leaks & such), it would be nice if players within this community could have a direct line to GW to ask questions/interact. There are so many rules out there for example which the community has just ruled upon themselves because we never get a direct answer.

Whilst I disagree with the specific points you've raised I don't disagree with where this has come from. 40k suffers from bloat. There are pages of special rules stacked on special rules, leading to awkwardness, imbalance, and RAW dead-ends. 8th edition - or whatever it becomes - needs to strip all this crap back and start again. Trying to clean this up without a reset would be a job that'd never end.

I don't expect everyone to agree & thats fine. I'm glad we do both agree however that currently 40k has many issues that need to be resolved.

I would strip back the ruleset like 3rd did. Too much Special rules bloat.

I would eliminate stacking modifiers: -1 to cover save, that's your lot.
+1 to toughness, that's your lot.

Eliminate FNP and any other 'extra saves'. Units with FNP either get a toughness boost in their base stats (T, W, Sv) or lose it.

Twinlinked weapons would refer you to the coaxial rule, there are two guns there, a twin heavy bolter is heavy 6.

Vehicles get toughness, wounds. +1 to wound roll on side and reroll to wound rear. I'm sorry Land raider, that massive exposed engine block is not as tough as your front armour plate.

Damage chart roll every wound. 2d6, 8 and below do nothing,
9 crew stunned, 10, weapon destroyed, 11 immobilised, 12, explodes.
Modifiers as now, may be enhanced.

Also applies to Monstrous creatures.

3rd ed Cityfight style casualty removal- controlling player picks who dies.

Look out sir is gone.

So they hired me to fix 40k.

Fist thing: could we do anything about the prices.
Probably get a quick answer: -> no, that is not your job.

Second thing could we do some about communication with the community, and hobby articles etc. -> Same result.

Now back to fixing 40k.
-> I would ask them If I am string 8th edition or if it would be an update call it 7,5. And if it was 7,5 if the update could also be available free online as well as a new printed book.

Things in 7,5 / 8th I would change.
- Formations cost points now.
- Rebalance point costs in a errata
- More Pictures and examples explaining difficult rules in the rule book.
- A good standardised referencing system for rules incorporated in the rules. With some examples.
So that if they want to say Rule A = Rule B anyone will know that is is just that and not the messy stuff they like to use now.
- Remove duplicate special rules, clear up rule inconsistencies, and make sure no one creates new duplicate special rules but uses the standardised references.
- Encouraging players to Bring their own painted terrain to a game.
- Reserve rolls can be made from turn 1.
- Modified allies chart ( splitting up the imperium again)

- Casualties from overwatch are taken from the back.
-Multi wound models will get crit tables just as vehicles have.
-Cover saves will be taken on top of armour saves.
- All ranged weapons will also have a cover piercing value that works just like armour piercing. Lascannons will no longer care for shrubberies nor do basilisk shells.
- Focus fire will be back in some form.
- Jink and dodge saves will be a separate save from cover saves that can be taken instead of an armour save.
- Pistol stats can be used in close combat.
- SD will be buffed, but will be removed from most models, cover will not save you from D weapons.
- A few new pseudo D rules will be made for models who lost D.

-Vehicles get armour saves on top of AV.
-Most walkers get some dune strider like rule.

- Warlord traits are buy able upgrades.
- There will be some rules to avoid IC rule stacking shenanigans.
-Max % point cost on a single unit in the standard missions.
-The Mealstorm cards will be rebalanced

Psy overhaul
- Powers known are buyable upgrades again. The point cost for invisibility will be high.
- Any power known can be cast once by that caster
- The lv of a psyker +1 = the amount of dice he can roll per power.
- Each power requires a dice total to be reached in order to be casted. Warp charge 1 powers will be 3, warp charge 3 will be 6 warp charge 3 will be 9 etc.
-Each time you roll for a power add upp all the dice with all the previous used dice and check the result on the multipage perils table. Low results are okish high results are really bad. Can even result in your opponent giving you some deamons under their controll.
- Most nasty perils will affect all psykers in the unit.

Codex specific
- Grav weapons become more expensive.
- Most eldar models become more expensive
- Lower tier armies units will get point reduction
- Most walker like monsters become walkers
- Most re roll cover saves will be removed and replaced by + x to cover saves.
- Most ignore cover will be removed and replaced by -y to cover.
- The book of daemon cheese will do something else that is good but not be 2++ re rollable good.

Extra releases
- Bring back most of the 6th terrain rules and more in the form of a terrain book. Going into the hobby aspect as well as providing tons of data sheets for terrain.

On top of that I would stress the importance of a regular FAQ and rebalancing errata's

Simply rerelease 5th and go from there. Let's just forget the last 4 years ever happened with GW.

Commissar Benny wrote:
Creating a balanced, competitive ruleset.

That is actually really hard to do.
Blizzard has been trying to achieve class balance for years, and they take great input from their customers, yet still they cannot reach class balance. Some specs are still useless in raiding, and there are still 'required builds' -- which is the same as everyone having to pick the same units from one codex.

The best way to get perfect balance is to have the same pieces, such as in chess. Even then, white has an advantage going first (nurf white!).

As such, a perfect codex balance will never happen. The best you can hope for is to build a good Rock/Paper/Scissors/Lizard/Spock game.

Finally, it's also rather refreshing to see 40k constantly evolving. New codex's mean changes to the meta, which means the tourney's change. I would get bored if I had to fight marine players all the time, but in another year Eldar may be knocked from the top spot and I may see more Chaos/Ork players.

While I agree, it would be nice if half of the Codex's had multiple competitive builds, I think a cycle is actually good for the game.

Commissar Benny wrote:
if any single decision GW has made in recent history has been the most damaging to their brand it has been their war against private small business owners.

Its 2016. Games Workshop is LITERALLY the only company I do business with that does not communicate with its fanbase.

I could not agree more with the rest of your posts.

Outsource the codices and BRB to a company that knows what they are doing like Fantasy Flight or WizKids. I'd still publish them under the GW name, but at least they would come from a company that's had a lot of experience with miniatures games.

SG

Burn the rule book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Creating a balanced, competitive ruleset.

That is actually really hard to do.
Blizzard has been trying to achieve class balance for years, and they take great input from their customers, yet still they cannot reach class balance. Some specs are still useless in raiding, and there are still 'required builds' -- which is the same as everyone having to pick the same units from one codex.

The best way to get perfect balance is to have the same pieces, such as in chess. Even then, white has an advantage going first (nurf white!).

As such, a perfect codex balance will never happen. The best you can hope for is to build a good Rock/Paper/Scissors/Lizard/Spock game.

Finally, it's also rather refreshing to see 40k constantly evolving. New codex's mean changes to the meta, which means the tourney's change. I would get bored if I had to fight marine players all the time, but in another year Eldar may be knocked from the top spot and I may see more Chaos/Ork players.

While I agree, it would be nice if half of the Codex's had multiple competitive builds, I think a cycle is actually good for the game.

Commissar Benny wrote:
if any single decision GW has made in recent history has been the most damaging to their brand it has been their war against private small business owners.

Its 2016. Games Workshop is LITERALLY the only company I do business with that does not communicate with its fanbase.

I could not agree more with the rest of your posts.

I might not get it perfect, but I'm pretty sure I can get a lot closer on the WK.

Hire Matt Ward. We need our spiritual liege back.

Matt Ward is actually less of a douche than Phil "Eldar are the gods" Kelly.

 ServiceGames wrote:
Outsource the codices and BRB to a company that knows what they are doing like Fantasy Flight or WizKids. I'd still publish them under the GW name, but at least they would come from a company that's had a lot of experience with miniatures games.

SG

Cough. They can create great games. But their 40k RPG's are kinda famous for having no balance at all. Some of these books make GW's rules look like the best thing in the world.
So this might be a good idea, but you might have to have some rounds of feedback ; )

Martel732 wrote:
Matt Ward is actually less of a douche than Phil "Eldar are the gods" Kelly.

Matt Ward can also write decent crunch.

Martel732 wrote:
Burn the rule book.

So, make up your own rules?

Martel732 wrote:
I might not get it perfect, but I'm pretty sure I can get a lot closer on the WK.

I agree that GW needs more playtesting. I've still hold to the belief that the best move GW could do is hire the top 50 international players to help balance the game through playtesting. The overall cost to their bottom line would be minimal and the quality they could produce would jump exponentially.

Would it be possible to achieve balance through faction exclusive CADs and formations?

 Matthew wrote:
Would it be possible to achieve balance through faction exclusive CADs and formations?

So long as you had a baseline for what CADs and Formations gave you. I see a lot of complaints about formations and "free rules". The problem isn't formations. The problem is a combination of half the armies completely lacking them and the special rules granted by those formations being all over the place.

 ServiceGames wrote:
Outsource the codices and BRB to a company that knows what they are doing like Fantasy Flight or WizKids. I'd still publish them under the GW name, but at least they would come from a company that's had a lot of experience with miniatures games.

SG

All of this. Seriously, a whole basket full of this.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Burn the rule book.

So, make up your own rules?

Martel732 wrote:
I might not get it perfect, but I'm pretty sure I can get a lot closer on the WK.

I agree that GW needs more playtesting. I've still hold to the belief that the best move GW could do is hire the top 50 international players to help balance the game through playtesting. The overall cost to their bottom line would be minimal and the quality they could produce would jump exponentially.

As I have stated elsewhere, the game could benefit greatly by moving to do a D10 or D12. Marine armor, Eldar armor, Necron armor could all be rated differently then.

GW doesn't need to play test because there are so many people with multiple armies. If I were what GW was counting on, they'd be out of business a long time ago. I realize that now after the "how many lists do you own?" poll.

Perfect balance is simply not achievable with the number of unique armies and units in 40K, but they could certainly do a better job. Problem is the approach. Do you nerf the OP units or do you buff the weaker ones? Seems like buffing the weaker units often leads to more cries of OP, and when you nerf the OP units, you get outrage from the players who loaded up on those units. Then you have the problem of getting the updated stats out, do you release a new codex, put the datasheets in a WD, put it online, use a FAQ? All of which have a significant downside. Its kind of a Pandora's Box in a way, and I think the best way to approach it is a complete overhaul, aka, AoSing 40K. That has its own risk as well, and will likely not happen anytime soon.

What GW could do is get rid of actual published hardback rule book/codex format, go all digital/monthly magazine style with units represented on a tear-out datasheet with ALL rules present. This allows easier changes and re-balancing when a new army or unit is introduced. Players can keep either a tablet or a binder for physical copies and this would actually give us a reason to purchase White Dwarf. They could still release fluff books and campaign sets, and could actually use those books to progress the story whenever they wanted, but keep the rules for armies out of them, just include missions and campaign structures.

Of course, in order for such a system like that to work, GW would have to re-establish some form of contact with its player base, and this is a risky proposition. Anyone that was around for 3rd edition remembers the cesspool that was the 40K forums on GW's website. I still believe, to this day, that particular den of scum and villainy is WHY GW is so hesitant to touch base with its players. The other alternative would be to hire game developers who lurk on sites like this one to kind of get an idea of those units that are universally considered broken.

As for some of the other points....

No, GW does not need to make a movie. The story simply doesn't lend itself to a 2-hour time frame, and the effects budget would be insane, so it would likely flop and do more harm than good (a very real danger to Blizzard by the way). The Black Library approach is the best approach IMO.

The DLC business model is here to stay. Nobody seems to have problems with it when other companies do it, not just video games either. One could argue that the DLC model is exactly what PP follows with Warmahordes, and we all know how beloved they are. GW just needs to learn how to do it better. Moving away from big book releases would be useful for this approach.

Focus and support is fine as it is for the most part. When GW puts too much focus on one product, the fans of the others get outraged. Since 30K, Specialist Games, etc all have their own focused sub-companies to manage them, I'm thinking GW can handle 40K and AoS easily enough. GW gives tons of support to both games as far as releases go. If we could just get some decent FAQs....

Vendor support could be a little better, agreed. GW just has to accept that they are not the only game in town anymore, and make use of their extensive FLGS network to really show that while they aren't the only one around, they are (in their minds) the best and really give the FLGS the resources they need to push the product.

 ServiceGames wrote:
Outsource the codices and BRB to a company that knows what they are doing like Fantasy Flight or WizKids. I'd still publish them under the GW name, but at least they would come from a company that's had a lot of experience with miniatures games.

SG

Well, they do keep insisting they're a "hobby" company, catering to "miniature collectors"... and not a "war games" company catering to "wargamers". So, why not just be a miniatures company and, like you say, outsource the game systems to other companies?

Or...

Stop bull yourselves and everyone else, and just commit to being the wargaming company you actually are. Eh, GW?

The 40k Universe is far to big and complex to fit it into a movie and the budget needed for a miniseries//show would be at enormous.

What the feth is it with people who read "I'd like balanced rules" and think that this means that every single choice of unit and upgrade should be equally viable in all situations and combinations? Nobody means that! Everyone uses "balanced" to mean a system where there isn't a single overwhelming game tactic and that allows for multiple approaches that do decently enough. So a balanced game wouldn't have shooting-based eldar dominate utterly but would allow for every faction to have a couple of combat styles that, while they might have their good and bad match-ups to varying degrees, are reasonable choices. Nobody asks for perfect, just close enough.

The #1 thing I would do is replace editions with a living rule set available freely for download as well as managed by a good FAQ/armybuilding application.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Creating a balanced, competitive ruleset.

That is actually really hard to do.
Blizzard has been trying to achieve class balance for years, and they take great input from their customers, yet still they cannot reach class balance. Some specs are still useless in raiding, and there are still 'required builds' -- which is the same as everyone having to pick the same units from one codex.

That's because Blizzard aren't very good at actually making games, much like GW.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The 40k Universe is far to big and complex to fit it into a movie and the budget needed for a miniseries//show would be at enormous.

Just do a bunch of shorts. Some comedic, some adventure, some horror, etc etc. Animated, live action, whatever works for the short story itself. People have such a limited view of what 40k media can be.

Because when I think 40k, I think 'comedic shorts'

I would make a Video Game out of the tabletop wargame where I sell you online models and bottles of paint scheme that only paint a certain number of units before you need to buy more paint.

 Xerics wrote:
I would make a Video Game out of the tabletop wargame where I sell you online models and bottles of paint scheme that only paint a certain number of units before you need to buy more paint.

Thinking too small dude. Make a video game where the only way to get new units beyond the starter is to buy the physical kits and enter a code that you get in the box.

I think GW can balance this game just like any other game if they want it. The white collars just have to give the order to do it.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
I would make a Video Game out of the tabletop wargame where I sell you online models and bottles of paint scheme that only paint a certain number of units before you need to buy more paint.

Thinking too small dude. Make a video game where the only way to get new units beyond the starter is to buy the physical kits and enter a code that you get in the box.

No need to sell physical kits if I can charge you the same amount online for the unit. Get rid of the cost of shipping, and making the plastic kits and charge you the same amount for the digital item with the only added bonus of being able to play online against anyone in the world.

Start from scratch.

 curran12 wrote:
Because when I think 40k, I think 'comedic shorts'

Orks.

Commissar Benny wrote:
I'm aware that the likelihood of GW seeing this or even caring is about as likely as SoB getting new models but I needed to vent. I love this game & it has so much potential but I just feel like it belongs to a company that doesn't give a sh*t. At any rate thanks for reading & feel free to share your thoughts!

It all sounds great from my perspective, but I wanted to post just to point out that GW does in fact have eyes on Dakka's forums.

I know this because I once got a White Dwarf issue in the mail early, and upon realizing most people didn't have access to it yet, took the best photos I could with my crummy digital camera in lamplight in the dead of night, uploaded them, and posted them to the News and Rumors section.

Within 4 hours Photobucket had taken those photos down because GW filed a Cease and Desist order, and Photobucket said if I ever uploaded copyrighted material again they might close my account entirely. I then resolved not to ever share such info with these forums ever again, because despite my efforts, everything I posted was dubbed "mere rumors" by the community here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Commissar Benny wrote:
Creating a balanced, competitive ruleset.

That is actually really hard to do.
Blizzard has been trying to achieve class balance for years, and they take great input from their customers, yet still they cannot reach class balance. Some specs are still useless in raiding, and there are still 'required builds' -- which is the same as everyone having to pick the same units from one codex.

That's because Blizzard aren't very good at actually making games, much like GW.

Remember when Blizzard nerfed Demonology Warlocks by 25% across the board because they wanted people to play the other specs instead?

Imagine something like that happening to GW's beloved Space Marines.

:: evil grin and tents fingers ::