Sometimes, I feel GW can't win

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.

**Throt**

insaniak wrote:
Throt wrote:
Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.

So how did you draw LOS from models without eyes without creating a house rule?

It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from.

You need no such thing. There are multiple, really simple ways to fix the problem. One is the solution that GW finally went with: Stop drawing LOS from the model's eyes, and just let players use any part of the model.

Another option would have been to just add a caveat to the original rule for models without eyes and/or heads, to tell you to draw LOS from somewhere else.

You're making it into a far bigger issue than it actually was, though. For the vast majority of players, a workaround was easy enough that many players didn't even consider it a workaround, as appears to be the case for you. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a basic situation that was not covered by the rules for multiple editions, and that should have been.

You have just said it was a minor issue that workaround was easy enough, yet GW is terrible for not addressing it. They didn't need to address it. But I guess when the 1% constantly yell about it they address it to quiet them down.
I'm sure someone has choked to death trying to swallow a Sword, so should we put labels on swords for choking hazards?

The whole point of having a set of rules is to tell you what to do when a given situation arises.

The bit I can never figure out in these discussions is why people go to such great lengths to insist that having a badly-written ruleset is actually a good thing. As it stands, if the rules are unclear, or have a bunch of things that they just don't cover, then the players who don't mind filling in the gaps won't mind, while the players who want a clear, workable ruleset are going to be unhappy with it.

By contrast, if the rules were written in a clear, concise manner that actually covered the entire game, that first group of players would still be fine (in most cases they wouldn't even notice a difference other than perhaps that the rules were easier to read) and the second group would also be fine. Everybody wins... which makes it, to me, seem like the no-brainer option to aim for.

I typed a few posts to Perigrine that will answer much of this.
The reason it is brought up is that the no eyes issue is used as evidence of GW's incompetence. And it is a minor issue.
The rules as written cover the entire game.
I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up. And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers. With the millions upon millions of possible happenings the occasional special case doesn't need addressing.
Ever see those silica packets in a shoe. Originally they never said do not eat but a small number of people apparently did try.
People turned this into a problem because of their inability to understand something, not because of a problem from the maker.
It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.

**loki old fart**

People think GW sell models and rules( GW thinks like this). They do not, they sell an experience. The models and rules help create that experience for the customer. The closing of stores and the antagonistic way they behave towards independent stockists and customers, has reduced the satisfaction level. All value is perceived value, and GW perceived value has dropped.

**Peregrine**

Throt wrote:
Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

So let me get this straight: the box of guardians more than doubled in per-model price, and you think that this is somehow magically not a drop in the value of the box because of some vague subjective willingness of some people to buy it?

Nope, you're still wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Throt wrote:
I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up.

Then you are wrong. Good games can and do cover every potential situation.

And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.

Yes it does, because a game that covers every situation (or at least all of them that can occur in normal play) is better than a game that doesn't. And since we've already established that it is possible for a good game designer to cover every possible situation the only possible conclusion is that failure to cover every situation is a result of either lack of skill or laziness.

It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.

It was only unforeseen because GW's rule authors are lazy idiots. If they had done proper playtesting, which includes having someone who has never seen the rules before (and therefore doesn't share the author's assumptions about how they're meant to work) try to follow them as literally as possible, someone would have noticed that, for example, Tau gun drones do not have eyes or anything even vaguely like an eye. And that person would have asked how they should draw LOS from the gun drone, the person running the playtest would have recorded their question, and someone would have gone back and clarified the rule to handle situations involving models with no eyes.

**Kangodo**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.

Not really fair since I've been working on my multiplayer deck for almost 15 years

The biggest difference would be that it's an entirely different system.
MtG can bring out a thousand new cards per year and players will flock to buy them.
In Standard, one of the most played formats, your collection will be quite useless after two years whereas my 10 year old SM-model is still in play.
I wouldn't really like WH40k if they released hundreds of models every year.
A gigantic part of their income is from the rules, which is why I feel that they shouldn't have so many errors and issues.

Another difference is that a new release, like the Orks now, only appeals to Ork-players whereas any MtG-release is interesting to each player, from Standard to Vintage and casual to hardcore-tournament players.

**loki old fart**

I don't think GW has the capability to write a good rule set anymore. I think all the talent has left.
Gw see their market share dropping, and are just trying to hang on for as long as possible.
The increases in price, are just GW milking it till it dies.

**snooggums**

Kangodo wrote:
A gigantic part of their income is from the rules, which is why I feel that they shouldn't have so many errors and issues.

This is the biggest point for me, if the rules were free I wouldn't care so much about them being so poorly written and needing to be sorted out between players. When it costs over $100 (BRB + Codex) and you get rules that still require players to make stuff up to address the unclear rules then there is no amount of complaining that is too much.

GW can win, they can stop charging for rules, drastically reduce the cost for rules and spend some time writing them more clearly, or take the time to write them properly and update them all at the same time so the "last edition's codex" situations don't come up.

**Kangodo**

But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.

That's because MtG-cards have a perishable date for most players. Models don't have that.
And I would hate it if each Codex forced me to spend another 500 on models.

**Elemental**

VanHallan wrote:
I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.

No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.

The thing is, you're saying this can be fixed by applying common sense. That's great in principle, but if a win hinges on whether X can see Y and where the "eyes" would be, the rule needs to be clear and unambiguous to avoid the game screeching to a halt for a good ol' rules debate when each players' "common sense" tells them something different. And no, "cheat on a 4+" is not an acceptable answer. Part of good rules writing is to lessen the subjectivity.

Take the same issue in Malifaux. I check if a line can be drawn from any part of the shooter's base to any part of the target's base that is not broken by scenery or models with an equal or greater Height stat. It's quick and simple to resolve, and lets the game carry on. (And incidentally, this doesn't punish me for mounting my Malifaux miniatures on scenic bases that increase their height.)

(edit) I keep making this example, but look at a 40K YMDC thread that's 5 pages or longer. Then look at the rules questions board for something like Infinity or Warmachine, where the answers are almost all "The rules say this, so do this."

**Azreal13**

Kangodo wrote:
But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.

That's because MtG-cards have a perishable date for most players. Models don't have that.
And I would hate it if each Codex forced me to spend another 500 on models.

Making the rules freely available to promote the sale of models, and then making a fluff + rules full colour hard back works for Infinity.

But you're right, it would mean the loss of a substantial revenue stream for GW, because their model is different.

**Throt**

Peregrine wrote:
Throt wrote:
Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

So let me get this straight: the box of guardians more than doubled in per-model price, and you think that this is somehow magically not a drop in the value of the box because of some vague subjective willingness of some people to buy it?

Nope, you're still wrong.

Wow, that was very nuh, uh you're, wrong.

Yes, yes I am. I have said repeatedly. ALL of this is subjective. People pay millions for artwork. They perceive a value in it that makes it worth them spending. You don't you don't buy it.
People pay $180 for a pair of shoes that cost $5 to make in Malaysia.
It is not up to me to tell someone they are wrong because they see value in something.
This is where your disconnect is, you are telling me and others that we are wrong for something that is nothing more than opinion. I have never said you are wrong. I disagree with you and I have told you why.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Throt wrote:
I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up.

Then you are wrong. Good games can and do cover every potential situation.

With the millions upon millions of possibilities within a single game of 40k. you will never see this in your lifetime. Not without costing thousands for a single 10,000 page rulebook.

And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.

Yes it does, because a game that covers every situation (or at least all of them that can occur in normal play) is better than a game that doesn't. And since we've already established that it is possible for a good game designer to cover every possible situation the only possible conclusion is that failure to cover every situation is a result of either lack of skill or laziness.

Actually that is your conclusion and opinion. They have covered everything. People like me just don't need the rule book to specifically tell me how to deal with everything and don't hold it against the company because they didn't catch every single thing. Call it a house rule if you'd like. GW did their job and they did it well, and I am reaping the rewards of hours of fun with my friends.
This idea that you know better than someone else what is good is like telling someone chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. It's just your opinion. If you learn that you may be a happier person. In my opinion.

I'm sorry you do a hobby that it appears you are so unhappy with.

It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.

It was only unforeseen because GW's rule authors are lazy idiots. If they had done proper playtesting, which includes having someone who has never seen the rules before (and therefore doesn't share the author's assumptions about how they're meant to work) try to follow them as literally as possible, someone would have noticed that, for example, Tau gun drones do not have eyes or anything even vaguely like an eye. And that person would have asked how they should draw LOS from the gun drone, the person running the playtest would have recorded their question, and someone would have gone back and clarified the rule to handle situations involving models with no eyes.

YOu make many assumptions about people that you don't even know and the job that you are not doing. I guess this is human nature.
Is it ok to play in a tin shed? The rules don't say it's okay to play there. What do I do if the power goes out and I can't see? Is it ok to play by candles ro do I have to stop until tomorrow??
Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.

The topic is circular and I will not change your opinions of things.
I will end by saying something that continues to baffle me to this day..
I read so much from very few people (it's usually the same people in each place) about how terrible the game is, how much they hate GW, how the writers are lazy and incompetent, how it's poorly priced, how so many other games are better etc...yet they continue to go to forums, play the game and buy the models.
Then there are people that get in these discussions and suddenly you find that they haven't played or bought in years...
These are mindsets I will never understand.

Good day.

**Azreal13**

Elemental wrote:
VanHallan wrote:
I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.

No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.

The thing is, you're saying this can be fixed by applying common sense. That's great in principle, but if a win hinges on whether X can see Y and where the "eyes" would be, the rule needs to be clear and unambiguous to avoid the game screeching to a halt for a good ol' rules debate when each players' "common sense" tells them something different. And no, "cheat on a 4+" is not an acceptable answer.

Take the same issue in Malifaux. I check if a line can be drawn from any part of the shooter's base to any part of the target's base that is not broken by scenery or models with an equal or greater Height stat. It's quick and simple to resolve, and lets the game carry on. (And incidentally, this doesn't punish me for mounting my Malifaux miniatures on scenic bases that increase their height.)

(edit) I keep making this example, but look at a 40K YMDC thread that's 5 pages or longer. Then look at the rules questions board for something like Infinity or Warmachine, where the answers are almost all "The rules say this, so do this."

Exactly, most rules issues can be resolved by the application of common sense.

The real conflicts arise when there are two ways of interpreting how a rule works/interacts with another rule, both of which are reasonable ways to interpret it, and two players who read it differently...

**insaniak**

VanHallan wrote:
I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.

No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.

The point is that the rules specified a particular part of the model to use in order to determine whether or not it had LOS. Using a different part of the model, particularly on larger models, could potentially have a fairly large impact on what it could see.

So it is absolutely a must for GW to address what you should do if the model doesn't have eyes. On the old Wraithlord, with its gigantic head, it was potentially the difference as to whether or not it could see over an obstruction. For artillery last edition, it was an even bigger deal since not only do artillery weapons not have eyes, they don't have heads either, which is the next best obvious 'default' when the model doesn't have eyes.

It's not like it needed a massive re-write to fix it... they accomplished it this edition by changing the requirement from 'eyes' to 'anywhere on the model's body'. Which not only fixes models without eyes but also removes a certain amount of the imbalance between standing and crouching models and fixes whatever remains of the old 'Fish of Fury' tactic (using crouching or prone models to fire under a skimmer while the upright target unit can't see under to shoot back).

There should never be any need in a commercially purchased set of rules to flip a coin in order to determine what should happen. You just paid someone a large sum of money to provide you with the rules required to play a game.

**Azreal13**

"On a 4+, one of us gets to cheat."

**insaniak**

Throt wrote:
You have just said it was a minor issue that workaround was easy enough, yet GW is terrible for not addressing it. They didn't need to address it. But I guess when the 1% constantly yell about it they address it to quiet them down.

Was it, or was it not, a missing detail in the rules that affected multiple units in the game?

The reason it is brought up is that the no eyes issue is used as evidence of GW's incompetence. And it is a minor issue.

Yes, it's a minor issue. But it's a minor issue that they've taken 20 years to correct.

A large part of the point of releasing a new edition of a set of game rules is to correct those niggling little details that were missed in the original design process. Instead, GW focus more on shaking the game up than on fixing the things that actually need it.

I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up. And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.

Of course it does. Because a well-written game does cover every single potential aspect.

Magic the Gathering includes more than ten thousand unique cards. And yet rules issues are, in all bar the very, very small minority of cases, resolved by simply comparing the specific wording of the rules in question.

Being a complicated system doesn't excuse incomplete rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.

It works for Privateer Press.

Every model comes witha stat card that includes the rules for that model. The starter sets come with enough rules to get you started, and you can potentially play games forever without ever buying any of the books... They're ultimately just a bit of shiny for those who want them.

There's not really any reason that GW couldn't do the same. The 'rulebook and codex requred to play' model is just the system they have chosen to use, not the only one that works.

**TheKbob**

Throt wrote:

2. the material or monetary worth of something.

So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.

The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Throt wrote:

People pay $180 for a pair of shoes that cost $5 to make in Malaysia.

First, false analogy as shoes have no relation to miniatures intended for a wargame. More so, the margin on plastics makes that look reasonable. Further, you're not making the right anology. Said shoes are $180 a pair. Now, changing absolutely nothing about the product in any manner, to include availability, they are $280 a pair.

This does not change their worth in any form and decreases their value. Just by charging more you do not increase value. And I will refer you to the great debate over video game pricing and piracy. It has been shown that lower pricing and increasing the games value through accessibility, availability, and automated support results in far more sales revenue than increased pricing. Granted this is digital product, but when you are competing for the piracy pricing of "free," dramatically increasing revenues where they did not exist is astounding.

So again, provide substance.

**ninjafiredragon**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
ninjafiredragon wrote:
Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case

List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."

In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.

5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.

And I agree.
What I was trying to say is that atm list building and what army you play is what determines if you win or lose. Thats not all it should be about.

**TheKbob**

insaniak wrote:

There should never be any need in a commercially purchased set of rules to flip a coin in order to determine what should happen. You just paid someone a large sum of money to provide you with the rules required to play a game.

To be fair, both the Infinity and Warmachine rules also have a dice off mechanic. I have never seen a reason to use it in either game to date, though. And both rules mention first party resources to resolve the rules dispute during and post game. I dislike this mechanic in any form.

**Peregrine**

Throt wrote:
ALL of this is subjective.

No it is not. If the exact same product doubles in price then it has lost significant value. This is objective fact, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise.

With the millions upon millions of possibilities within a single game of 40k. you will never see this in your lifetime. Not without costing thousands for a single 10,000 page rulebook.

And, as has been previously stated, other games do this without needing a 10,000 page rulebook with a ridiculous cost. MTG, for example, has far more potential combinations than 40k, none of its rule ambiguity or arguments, and all of the rules are available for free.

They have covered everything.

No they have not, as has been clearly demonstrated by things like Tau gun drones being unable to shoot (since they have no eyes) or LOTD automatically losing the game unless you take allies with them.

People like me just don't need the rule book to specifically tell me how to deal with everything and don't hold it against the company because they didn't catch every single thing.

Why do you have such low expectations for GW when other companies are able to do the "impossible" and produce games that DO catch every single thing? Do you honestly not see how a game that catches everything is better than a game that doesn't, or are you just white knighting for GW and declaring that everything GW does is the best possible outcome?

This idea that you know better than someone else what is good is like telling someone chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

No, it's like telling someone that chocolate ice cream is better than moldy ice cream with shards of broken glass in it.

Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.

Well yes, obviously this is what happened. But this is because GW's rule authors are lazy and/or stupid, not because this is a good way to write the rules for a game.

I read so much from very few people (it's usually the same people in each place) about how terrible the game is, how much they hate GW, how the writers are lazy and incompetent, how it's poorly priced, how so many other games are better etc...yet they continue to go to forums, play the game and buy the models.

Because some of us like the fluff and models and hate the way GW is destroying the IP that we love. I don't hate GW because I want 40k to die, I want GW to die so that the IP can go to a better company and I can have a better game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheKbob wrote:
To be fair, both the Infinity and Warmachine rules also have a dice off mechanic. I have never seen a reason to use it in either game to date, though. And both rules mention first party resources to resolve the rules dispute during and post game. I dislike this mechanic in any form.

The bolded part is the most important part. Having a "4+ it" rule is fine as long as it's a last resort that should only be used in the incredibly rare case that you find an unexpected rule issue and need to keep the game moving. The problem with GW's attitude isn't that they've offered a last resort option, it's that they've decided to substitute having a "4+ it" option for making the rules work properly.

**A Town Called Malus**

GW does not know how to test a game. Testing a game is not just playing a game a couple of times, as I suspect it is done at GW.

**Wayniac**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
GW does not know how to test a game. Testing a game is not just playing a game a couple of times, as I suspect it is done at GW.

It seems like it. They seem to think playtesting is just having a few games. Playtesting is setting up a specific scenario to test a specific rule. I'd wager they play everything out each time and see what comes of it, rather than set up a specific condition in a hypothetical game.

**MWHistorian**

GW can't win because they don't do what it takes to win.

**Retrogamer0001**

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
I think this topic has really gone so far off topic and a lot of personal attacks are being made that we need to get back to discussing what it is about.

I don't think anyone is saying there are absolutely no redeeming qualities about 40k, some are saying there are no redeeming qualities of GW, but that doesn't make people whinners for disliking a lot of what is going on with their hobby.

In the spirit of good will, these are the things I enjoy about this game and this hobby;

The fluff is fun and interesting, it isn't the best written but it certainly has its appeal in the over the top characters and the parody grim dark setting.
The models ARE really nice and fun to work with, even if they are not the best and considerably expensive.
The armies are unique and varied, even between Space Marine chapters you can easily tell the differences and it makes for a lot of interesting games.
The allowance of such customization of your army, to personalize every aspect of it if you desire.

But I have a major problem with the following, because it seems that every step forward GW takes they take two steps back;

The accelerated release schedule, many armies are not getting the attention they need in order to push of codices faster. Tyranids suffer a lot because of the copy and pasting from past editions that have left many units unusable even in a casual setting. You can not tell me that even casually the Pyrovore has any viability. I have not seen the Ork codex yet but from talking with people who have it is in much the same boat. Taking into consideration that these two armies both suffer greatly from the core rules favoring shooting heavy armies it is disheartening to see our favorite armies left behind and it seems that we are being ignored.

Part two of my problem with the accelerated release schedule is that they aren't releasing more rule sets, they are just breaking down the rule sets they made and selling them of piece by piece as opposed to making larger more thought out releases.

Part three is that MANY of their choices seem to be blatant money grabs and regardless of GW being in the business of making money it is disrespectful to your customers.

The rules ARE ambiguous in many areas, more so than in many competing games and while those defending GW may be right and part of it may indeed be because of the scale difference then I would have to argue that GW needs to reconcile their expectation of the game with the rules. If you are going to give us skirmish level rules, make the game skirmish level. If you want the game to be larger scale, modify the rules to reflect this. I have played so many competing games at this point that to me the GW method or rule writing seems archaic and a relic of a day when they were the only game on the scene. I am not asking GW to reinvent the wheel, but it isn't a bad thing to learn something from your competition.

Finally, the pricing. I know many people will say jump on this but I don't mean at large,I mean in a few specific cases. Paying $5-$10 for individual infantry is ridiculous, I am not talking about Terminators I am talking about Dire Avengers and Dark Elf Witch Elves. By and large GW products are priced a little higher than the competition and that is okay, but there are some REAL outliers than need to be addressed. Also, supplements. There is NO reason to charge codex prices for a couple of pages of fluff and about two pages of rules. These things need to be made less expensive seeing as how you already need a codex to play them in the first pace.

I think there are two types of posters on this thread right now - the group that is interested in discussing the topic, and the group having an unending argument over things like the correct spelling of the word "organization", why GW is fine and dandy, and why GW isn't fine and dandy.

You make a lot of good points in your post, enjoyed reading it.

**A Town Called Malus**

WayneTheGame wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
GW does not know how to test a game. Testing a game is not just playing a game a couple of times, as I suspect it is done at GW.

It seems like it. They seem to think playtesting is just having a few games. Playtesting is setting up a specific scenario to test a specific rule. I'd wager they play everything out each time and see what comes of it, rather than set up a specific condition in a hypothetical game.

Think this sums it up quite nicely.

**Akiasura**

I think GW is a terrible company and the game is currently awful. I love the specialist games, but I have to house rule them pretty heavily as well. I own 4 armies, over several thousand points and have been playing since 3rd (where the BRB showed striking scorpions charging termies and elder just getting creamed in their example of play).
I really hope GW gets bought out by someone who can run this amazing IP.
I also hope they make a necromunda game using the X COM game's system, so I don't put much faith in either

**Crimson Devil**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
(By the way the mistakes in spelling are not mine. )

Are you saying that "organisation" is spelt incorrectly?

Yes I was. I have never seen organization spelled that way before, so believed it to be an error.

Sorry for the topic detour, now back to your regularly scheduled verbal combat.

**Throt**

TheKbob wrote:
Throt wrote:

2. the material or monetary worth of something.

So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.

The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.

Yes, you are right on 1 of 7 definitions of the word value. And even then you are only half right.
The material value of the object is low, as is most every product sold. That is how you make profit on a sold item.
The monetary value or market value is the $35 that it sells for because people pay $35 for it.
If half of 1 definition is good enough for you, then yes you are right.

Your statement "The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them." Therefore that is the subjective or perceived value of the item to you.
Your next statement "Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5" is not irrelevant that shows that the value of that item is subjective..i.e.. entirely up to you.
We haven't been discussing business practice. At this point we are discussing value.

So does that make others the black night with nothing more than a dislike and disdain for most things GW?
The context of complaint (using the eyes example) is that GW didn't give a specific rule addressing no eyes. Something that most gamers simply work out.
I am accused of nit picking on value, yet the black nights are nit picking that they have to make a decision on there own. Hi pot my name is kettle...
I have said from the beginning, and what I look for, is the acknowledgement that all these problems are subjective. They are a problem if you choose to make them one.
The game plays, you may not like parts of it but it works. the 'if you disagree, roll a 4+" but it will solve everything. So there is not a single broken rule in the game.
Every rule works by definition. Though you may not like it, it is a design decision. Black knights have tons of assumptions based on their dislike for particular parts of the game. They are just opinions about the game
And this, as I have always said, is fine, but to blame GW for how you play the game is disingenuous at the least. There are many ways they could balance the game but the closer to absolute balance you get the more similar the armies will become.

**Inquisitor Bob**

The problem is simple...
GW doesn't ask it's principal customer base..
It doesn't even attempt to show any evidence that it even LOOKED nevertheless achknowledged criticism...
And worse it openly acknowledges that it hires on the basis of attitude toward the company rather than skill or experience with customers and industry...
If the larger share-holders knew how the majority of long-term customers felt they were being treated in terms of communication... GW would be in a lot more pain right now...

**insaniak**

Throt wrote:
Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.

Sorry, are you seriously saying that's it's reasonable for the rules to have holes in them because the guys play testing them might have got them wrong?

**LordSolar**

I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products

For example: lets say I wanted to buy a Space Marine Strike Force in the UK. . . 140 pounds, in New Zealand - 210 pounds
The same product in USA. . . 225 USD , in New Zealand - 360 USD.

I would rather be buy American or British overpriced models rather than mine. And before anyone says that's because of shipping - that's all before shipping is put on.

Now I would happily pay those insane prices if the rules were better, if Games Workshop was more about the community like in the old days rather than the sales orientated GW.
Even if they delayed codex releases by 1 month, solely for play testing the feth out of the codices

**Yonan**

LordSolar wrote:
I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products

You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.