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.

Oshova wrote:@Manchu
Everyone would love GW to do what they wanted . . . personally I want the new Dark Eldar models and Codex released tomorrow . . . but generally they do things that please the majority and move the hobby and the company in a positive directions.

Exactly my point. If GW just responded to whatever I wanted, there would be a thread like this questioning my judgment--maybe even calling me some sort of tyrant. I think that GW must make decisions based on what their customers want. Maybe we just have to wake up to the fact that not all GW customers are us.

I put it like this:

I shot myself in the foot so I could get good drugs from the ER, but then met the most wonderful nurse and decided to do it again - only she has never been there again . . . and now I've moved on to my hands.

Insanity

Actually the business strategy is to make money in the long run . . . they've fallen foul of that before with LOTR.

But yeah IMHO the rules have improved with each edition, and they do fix some broken rules . . . but I agree that there are a lot of broken rules that appear in each edition, whether it's purposeful or due to lack of play-testing I don't know. But FAQs sort some out, and general common sense always helps. The main rule with gaming is that it's about having fun, and making it your own, and if that means ignoring the uber-beardy rules, and making in-house solutions to broken rules then do that. Nothing to stop you playing it the way you want to =D

H.B.M.C. wrote:Every rulebook GW puts out is filled with vague ambiguities, broken units (both good and bad), units that suck, units that are too good, things that don't work as intended, things that work despite their intent, and so on. Their rules are not written with the aim of fixing things, if they were, things would be fixed already.

This is a bit narrow-minded. Fixed according to who? You? Or some other longtime wargamer? I think you'll find that opinions differ as to how precise a rule needs to be or even if there needs to be a rule or not. Also, have you ever considered that leaving the rules intentionally vague--in some areas, certainly not all--is also a good idea since it allows the players to respond creatively? This is done in MtG all the time, for example.

H.M.B.C wrote:You're a card-carrying GW employee who so far has managed to spout the usual GW-can-do-no-wrong stuff that the people here are sick of hearing. They can do wrong. Every day they make new mistakes (some unavoidable, and they cannot be blamed for those), but please, take off the GW-issued rose-tinted glasses they gave you when you signed up and take a quick look at the reality of the situation. Not all is well with GW, they have major issues with their rules and their business practices - they're not awful of 'mean', and I very much doubt their their actions are fueld or directed by any sort of malice on their part - but don't act like they're blameless and that they're doing everything they can to make things better.

They're not.

They're doing everything they can to make money in the short term.

It doesn't seem to me that Oshova is saying GW can do no wrong. Seems like he's just offering a counterpoint to a lot of the complaints (a la supposedly witty one liners) in this thread that get tossed around the interwebz all the time so that people sound "in the know." No one is saying that GW is saintly. The argument that Oshova was making--again, IMO--is exactly what you said: GW is a business and *gasp* primarily interested in making money. Quick, call the Better Business Bureau!

Yeah, the codices are specifically designed to sell toys, nothing more to it. GW seems to focus on the fluff, then kinda rough out the math stuff.

I am not sure how it could appear any other way, given their consumers reactions to the new changes.

It is so lovely to see a billion Ork players every store I go to.

I would like to see what happens with GW over the next decade, will they actually admit being a modeling company only?

Oshova wrote:But yeah IMHO the rules have improved with each edition, and they do fix some broken rules . . . but I agree that there are a lot of broken rules that appear in each edition, whether it's purposeful or due to lack of play-testing I don't know.

Please. There is a right way and wrong way to go about things. It is clear that GW does not playtest throroghly (if at all) as the rules contain many things that would have been caught if they bothered to check.

Oshova wrote:But FAQs sort some out, and general common sense always helps.

I hope you are not waiting on GW to sort things out. The first problem is that the FAQs do not contain any errata. I do not understand why GW does not issue errata for things that are clearly wrong. As well, the FAQs usually leave major issues unresolved... such as the infamous: are Drop Pod Petals part of hull problem.

Oshova wrote:The main rule with gaming is that it's about having fun, and making it your own, and if that means ignoring the uber-beardy rules, and making in-house solutions to broken rules then do that.

Have fun and do whatever you want? Having house rules to deviate from the main ruleset due to consensus is one thing, but having to create house rules to fix problems with the main ruleset is poor game design. I don't see how this is defensable in any way.

At any rate, you are dragging this thread woefully off topic. Your relentless defense of GW might be better off in its own thread titled "Why GW is AWESOME"

keezus wrote:At any rate, you are dragging this thread woefully off topic. Your relentless defense of GW might be better off in its own thread titled "Why GW is AWESOME"

Yeppers. Good try though mate.

Well actually I think this is the right thread for my views on GW . . . or is the title "How do you feel about GW?" supposed to read "Why don't you like GW?" . . . I apologise if my view that GW is a good company offends you in any way . . . but everyone is entitled to their opinion on a thread, and my opinion on how I feel about GW is that it is good, and I am entitled to back up my views, and argue against people who say that it is bad.

Manchu wrote:Also, have you ever considered that leaving the rules intentionally vague--in some areas, certainly not all--is also a good idea since it allows the players to respond creatively? This is done in MtG all the time, for example.

That's a terrible analogy, as Magic has one of the tightest rulesets that exists. On top of that, when things interact in unintended overpowered ways, Wizards of the Coast moves quickly to reset the metagame through restrictions and bannings. GW on the other hand - waits 3-4 years before issuing a FAQ which deals with a small number of reported issues... on top of this, the FAQs are treated as house rules with no official backing. I mean... WTF.

keezus wrote:At any rate, you are dragging this thread woefully off topic. Your relentless defense of GW might be better off in its own thread titled "Why GW is AWESOME"

I think you must be confused. This thread isn't called "Why GW is evil and to be hated." It's called "How do you feel about GW?" Just as attacks on GW are on-topic here, defenses are on-topic as well.

Oshova wrote:Well actually I think this is the right thread for my views on GW . . . or is the title "How do you feel about GW?" supposed to read "Why don't you like GW?" . . . I apologise if my view that GW is a good company offends you in any way . . . but everyone is entitled to their opinion on a thread, and my opinion on how I feel about GW is that it is good, and I am entitled to back up my views, and argue against people who say that it is bad.

Nothing personal, but we already knew how you felt, yet you were the only one that took 2 pages to explain it anyway.

Manchu wrote:

keezus wrote:At any rate, you are dragging this thread woefully off topic. Your relentless defense of GW might be better off in its own thread titled "Why GW is AWESOME"

I think you must be confused. This thread isn't called "Why GW is evil and to be hated." It's called "How do you feel about GW?" Just as attacks on GW are on-topic here, defenses are on-topic as well.

My opinions are not un-debatable by default. Some of the things Oshova has said remind me of training I have received under corporations, standard "un-debatable" stuff really. GW is a company and needs to make money is not a real argument (to a customer) when I feel I am being overcharged. THAT is my main point here, I feel like their toys are overpriced.

Nurglitch wrote:It costs them something like 1/2 the price of a pack of Terminators to maintain the network of company owned stores. Don't take my word for it though, as you can check their financial statements for yourself on their corporate website.

I don't think toning down their prices will encourage people to buy more. The product has too many of its own caps (points, game-size, patience in painting, etc), and people that will buy more than three Dreadnoughts, for example, will do so regardless of whether they're $40.00 or $50.00. Products like Apocalypse and Planet Strike are about stoking demand, giving people incentive to buy more, rather than taking the risk that a people will plow their savings back into more GW products.

I don't care so much about the prices.

Hell lots of people spend lots of money on hobbies.

What I hate about GW is the nut kicking i mentioned: I don't mind paying for my toys, and the quality of GW models overall gets better and better, but the nut kicking in the form of dropping whole armies after I have spent hundreds of dollars and scores of hours building/converting/painting them is what makes me still fume years after the fact.

One of my first armies was Genesteler cult back in the days of 2nd edition. Then GW Kicks me soundly in the nuts...

Fluke I say and build other armies equaling much cost and time when I would have preferred to keep playing my cult...

Along comes LATD and I am smitten: once again a cool converter's army with that "heretical cultist" vibe I love. So again I spend many hundreds of dollars and many score hours building my Plague Cult. But wait GW realizes I'm a sucker and kicks me right in the nuts a second time laughing all the way to the bank...

This is the crap I hate, and why i feel no pity for them regarding torrents, vassal, ebay discounters, etc., etc. Sometimes the downtrodden need to do a little nut kicking in return...

I only took 2 pages to explain it because I was giving points as to why I felt that other people's views were incorrect or misguided. I didn't realise I had to make my point and scarper, never to return again. I thought I was allowed to back up my opinions . . .

Oshova wrote:I only took 2 pages to explain it because I was giving points as to why I felt that other people's views were incorrect or misguided. I didn't realise I had to make my point and scarper, never to return again. I thought I was allowed to back up my opinions . . .

No problem with that, and I think we have been misunderstanding each other. The fact remains that you seem to voraciously defend GW, then other people imply that I am voraciously attacking them. Simple misunderstanding I think.

"Note"
You did not actually take 2 pages, and you did mention you are new to forums.

-deleted by original poster-

keezus wrote:That's a terrible analogy

Not really. It's hardly a perfect match but all analogies have their weak points. In fact, I think you could set up a larger analogy between Wizards and GW. Both companies are constantly berated for acting like companies. Moreover, I simply don't believe Wizards are just correcting things. They intentionally put vague spots and power sinks in the rules just like GW does. It just so happens that MtG has a much faster product-turnover (remember how everyone constantly complains about that, too?) than 40k does so it seems like Wizards is more on top of it. But, as I said, every analogy has its weak spots. You could also compare the rules of 40k with the rule changes in D&D.

@Wrexasaur

Sorry for the misunderstanding there, it's getting late . . . or is it early? And I obviously just misread it =]

@Keezus

I have made my view clear yes, and I'm not saying other people aren't entitled to their views aswell, and in no way to I think I will change everyone's views, but I just hope that people will listen to what I have to say and actually pay attention instead of sticking to the age old mantra of "GW is rubbish . . . end of" . . . and I don't understand why you think this isn't a good thread to discuss views on GW . . .

keezus wrote:They are entiteld to their views indicating how "they feel about GW" and you are certainly not going to change their minds.

So what's the point of communicating on Dakka? Are we supposed to just post and leave it at that? As I've kept up with this thread, I've gone back and forth. I appreciate the good points made on both sides. What I think is absurd is the notion that the point of any thread is something other than discussion and furthermore that discussion cannot result in people changing their minds. If you have a counterpoint to someone's argument, that's fine. If you're just trying to chase off a relatively new user, that's being a bully.

Oshova wrote:@JohnHwanggDD

I understand the reasoning that goes into the pricing of the products, and only 1/3 of the price of the products is profit for GW, which is actually very reasonable when you think of it that way . . .

Except, per my .sig (which only covers the largest single chunk of my stuff), I literally have enough GW product to last a lifetime. So I don't need to buy anything anymore. And if it's not exceptional, and well-priced, I won't.
____

Nurglitch wrote: JohnHwangDD:

I agree. I like GW, but I won't pay full price for their products so long as I can get a hefty discount elsewhere. I can't blame the company for selling above what I'm willing to pay for their product, since it's not a necessity. I already own several armies, and there are discounters to provide the product that I want. Heck, given that I don't pay full price when I actually buy something, and I've gotten so much from them for free (Specialist Games) I'm actually pretty happy with GW. That they survive without my regular monetary support is icing on the cake. Maybe it's because I've had the opportunity to sit down and sink a pint with Jervis Johnson, but I like the guy, like his design philosophy, enjoy his work, and hope the best for him. Maybe GW will give him the opportunity to produce a game I'll pay retail for someday.

QFT, and agreed on all points.

Perhaps, if I were just getting in, and doing so at pocket change prices, I'd feel differently.

-deleted by origingal poster-

Don't worry Manhu I don't plan on leaving =]

Obviously me being here a week has had some effect on people . . . so I just want to see what happens after a month, a year . . . maybe Dakka might be allowed to have balanced discussions about wargaming . . . or is that too much to ask?

Most of the discussions are very balanced and this one is not really an exception. Dakka is a great site with a great community. Having mildly controversial discussions is a part of that.

Balanced discussions online? Not to sure how often you will get that one.

You CAN have discussions in forums, but you are essentially talking to someone with a mega-phone on the corner of the street... next to that starbucks, you know the one (maybe it shut down in the recession ).

As you can compare forums to speaking to a huge crowd, expect heated debate at every turn, it just comes with the territory. You are most welcome on DakkaDakka regardless of what others say, it is just a good idea to take your conversations with a grain of salt. Perhaps a DakkaDakka vent server could be set up... wait, that is a terrible idea!

I dunno, Wrex. I try to listen to what you have to say and even when I don't agree I feel like I'm better off for having listened. Seems like other people often do the same. That's why I like Dakka. But that's all very off-topic. So, ere we go . . .

Wrexasaur wrote:Perhaps a DakkaDakka vent server could be set up... wait, that is a terrible idea!

I think CheeseElemental started a thread for that in Off-Topic.

A vent server would just get full of abuse, and would probably crash due to the sheer amount of BS flying around =p

And I understand that most of the threads on Dakka are well balanced discussions and conversations, just gets my goat when a thread comes up where there is constant bashing of a point that I support . . .

Anywho I'm done for the night, so feel free to bash all you like, I will just do a lengthy 5 page post when I return =p . . . and yes I am joking =D

Alright.

I love 'em.

Honestly, I know they mess up. Sometimes, they write poor rules. Sometimes they'll over-price something (I'm looking at you Goldswords) Hell, sometimes they'll ruin the balance of a game (WHFB).

But, they're hearts are in the right place, I believe. I know, Jervis blathers on and on, but he means good, I'd think. Sure, Daemons kick absolute-fething-ass WHFB style, but they'll fix it up, (The new 'Dexes stand a chance, me thinks.) I hope. I think that they'll give those armies updates that desperately need them (Spehss Puppehs, Spiky Eldar, Skullquisition, etc.)

Errata aren't included in the FAQs because publishing errata is admitting liability for being wrong (you are saying "oops. We screwed the pooch. Here's how it should have gone.") From a corporate pov, it is bad. It makes you look bad, and this impacts the stock performance.

Manchu wrote:And that's true even if you don't buy directly from them.

I'm sorry, my inner economics nerd (on the shelf next to my wargaming nerd) commands me to say this.

Buying secondhand doesn't contribute to the company's profits, as it's just moving around goods already paid for. In the same fashion do products sold on eBay not contribute to GDP: it's moving around goods whose creation has already been taken into account.

Heh, Macroecon was useful...

Rico.

chromedog wrote:It makes you look bad, and this impacts the stock performance.

Do you happen to know what name GW or its parent is traded under?

Rico wrote:Buying secondhand doesn't contribute to the company's profits, as it's just moving around goods already paid for. In the same fashion do products sold on eBay not contribute to GDP: it's moving around goods whose creation has already been taken into account.

I understand the technical point you are making. But look at it practically, not from the point of a term like GDP: When goods are sold, income is generated. That income will most likely be spent. Granted it is not always the case, but income made on GW products is sometimes spent on other GW products. Aside from the selling end, consider the buying end: the person who now has a GW army is now able to become part of the GW community. They will be able to go to store events and tournaments. And eventually, in at least some of the cases to be conservative, that person is going to become a direct consumer.

Manchu wrote:

chromedog wrote:It makes you look bad, and this impacts the stock performance.

Do you happen to know what name GW or its parent is traded under?

GAW on London