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.

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Even more unbalanced models is not what I, or anyone else in my play group, requested. The new releases are blatant money grabs with very little thought behind them.

Gamers have been clamoring for plastic titans for years. No one should be surprised if GW makes them. I can't wait for the rage when GW surprises us with some other long requested item like Plastic Sisters or a Thunderhawk. People will gak themselves with how angry it makes them that GW is making super heavy flyers or women mandatory in their games.

I'm not really angry, just choosing not to participate. If someone has this new stuff, I'll try to find a new opponent. If I can't, I guess I won't play this game anymore and hope the next BA codex is great so I can ebay my stuff.

themadlbb wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So happy that I haven't bought anything from them in 8 months or so.

Spoiler:

I love the pace of releases and all the new things coming out. The real downer has been some of the relentless negativity surrounding GW.

That's why I made this thread. For the longest time, the complaint around 40k was one of stagnation, repetitive gameplay, and lack of rules updates. I would never argue that GW is perfect, but they do seem to be actively giving the playerbase what we've said we wanted for years now. I can't help but be both ecstatic at this and simultaneously disappointed in the fans a little bit. As soon as GW releases something crazy and cool the discussion now turns immediately to how we can ban that thing, or else how to shame someone for bringing the best and coolest units in their army.

They're giving us something, but I'm not certain I'd call it "what we've said we wanted for years now". We want clear and concise rules, but haven't had even a FAQ update in almost a year. We wanted a balanced game, we have Taudar vs Nids. I'm not sure we asked for D strength weapons in 40k games, but we have Escalation and now Knights. We wanted some sort of communication, but it's all entirely one sided: GW telling us what is new while ignoring anything the player base actually says.

I mean, if you ignore the actual issues and say that getting Imperial Knights is in fact a "rules update", then sure, it sounds like GW is giving us "what we said we wanted", then sure, it might seem that way. Reality is, however, that many of the long term requests from players have gone, and continue to go, unanswered.

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Even more unbalanced models is not what I, or anyone else in my play group, requested. The new releases are blatant money grabs with very little thought behind them.

Gamers have been clamoring for plastic titans for years. No one should be surprised if GW makes them. I can't wait for the rage when GW surprises us with some other long requested item like Plastic Sisters or a Thunderhawk. People will gak themselves with how angry it makes them that GW is forcing super heavy flyers or women on their games.

Especially if the flyer or the new Sisters are competitive. The more competitive GW makes them, the more people get angry. This is not what we requested!

I honestly think a lot of people request stagnation so that they wouldn't feel compelled to spend money, even though noone in reality is forcing them to. I can't see how a casual gamer would get angry if a new cheesy army enters the game, because his casual army is already curbstomped by the existing cheesy armies. What's the difference? So the only conclusion is that the angry people are those who intentionally built cheesy armies to curbstomp casual players, and now have to spend money to keep the habit going.

I'm not requesting stagnation. I'm requesting that the abomination of Eldar vs Nids not exist.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not requesting stagnation. I'm requesting that the abomination of Eldar vs Nids not exist.

What's the abomination? I'm sure guys like jy2 win games with his Nids. You act like bad matchups are new to GW games. Armies are not equal in gaming terms. They never have been nor will they ever be.

 Therion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not requesting stagnation. I'm requesting that the abomination of Eldar vs Nids not exist.

What's the abomination? I'm sure guys like jy2 win games with his Nids. You act like bad matchups are new to GW games. Armies are not equal in gaming terms. They never have been nor will they ever be.

Maybe I'm just sick of it after playing since 1995. You've just accepted it. I'm happy for you.

 streamdragon wrote:
They're giving us something, but I'm not certain I'd call it "what we've said we wanted for years now". We want clear and concise rules, but haven't had even a FAQ update in almost a year. We wanted a balanced game, we have Taudar vs Nids. I'm not sure we asked for D strength weapons in 40k games, but we have Escalation and now Knights. We wanted some sort of communication, but it's all entirely one sided: GW telling us what is new while ignoring anything the player base actually says.

I mean, if you ignore the actual issues and say that getting Imperial Knights is in fact a "rules update", then sure, it sounds like GW is giving us "what we said we wanted", then sure, it might seem that way. Reality is, however, that many of the long term requests from players have gone, and continue to go, unanswered.

To be clear, I meant "What we want from a product standpoint". GW probably has no desire to give us what we want from a communications or corporate governance standpoint. They do have a vested interest in giving us what we want from a product standpoint though.

GW has never had clear and concise rules and has never been balanced, so I doubt you're going to get that anytime soon.

Ask them to produce a model that's really cool? Sure, that's possible.
A tight, concise ruleset? You're dreaming.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe I'm just sick of it after playing since 1995. You've just accepted it. I'm happy for you.

So who's fault is that?

If you're sick of the game because you played for 20 years, then quit. But don't attribute it to Tau vs Nids.

 pretre wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
They're giving us something, but I'm not certain I'd call it "what we've said we wanted for years now". We want clear and concise rules, but haven't had even a FAQ update in almost a year. We wanted a balanced game, we have Taudar vs Nids. I'm not sure we asked for D strength weapons in 40k games, but we have Escalation and now Knights. We wanted some sort of communication, but it's all entirely one sided: GW telling us what is new while ignoring anything the player base actually says.

I mean, if you ignore the actual issues and say that getting Imperial Knights is in fact a "rules update", then sure, it sounds like GW is giving us "what we said we wanted", then sure, it might seem that way. Reality is, however, that many of the long term requests from players have gone, and continue to go, unanswered.

To be clear, I meant "What we want from a product standpoint". GW probably has no desire to give us what we want from a communications or corporate governance standpoint. They do have a vested interest in giving us what we want from a product standpoint though.

GW has never had clear and concise rules and has never been balanced, so I doubt you're going to get that anytime soon.

Ask them to produce a model that's really cool? Sure, that's possible.
A tight, concise ruleset? You're dreaming.

If GW was giving us the models we've been saying we wanted for years, you and I would be assembling plastic Sisters right now.

But yes, I agree that their actual model releases have been pretty good to great lately.

And I don't need perfect rules, but devoting time to small FAQ updates more than once a year should not be outside the realm of reality for a company like GW. Their silence, as they say, is deafening.

 Therion wrote:
What's the difference? So the only conclusion is that the angry people are those who intentionally built cheesy armies to curbstomp casual players, and now have to spend money to keep the habit going.

I might drop some of the adjectives out of this statement, but probably agree.

If you are a 'keep up with the joneses' kind of guy, the new release schedule is bad for your pocketbook. If you are a 'collect what you like and play games with it' kind of guy, you probably love it.

I collect what I like and adapt it to be semi-competitive, so I get best of both worlds.

 streamdragon wrote:
We want clear and concise rules, but haven't had even a FAQ update in almost a year. We wanted a balanced game, we have Taudar vs Nids. I'm not sure we asked for D strength weapons in 40k games, but we have Escalation and now Knights. We wanted some sort of communication, but it's all entirely one sided: GW telling us what is new while ignoring anything the player base actually says.

I mean, if you ignore the actual issues and say that getting Imperial Knights is in fact a "rules update", then sure, it sounds like GW is giving us "what we said we wanted", then sure, it might seem that way. Reality is, however, that many of the long term requests from players have gone, and continue to go, unanswered.

Agreed with Steamdragon on many points here. Especially the lack of FAQ's. Through 5th edition and early 6th, GW was relatively prompt with FAQs. They seems to have just stopped cold.

 streamdragon wrote:
If GW was giving us the models we've been saying we wanted for years, you and I would be assembling plastic Sisters right now.

Look at what the last year or two have brought us though (outside of plastic sisters). There have been an enormous number of new releases with a lot of really cool kits and a ton of army updates.

Would I love plastic sisters? Sure, but I'm not so selfish that I would give up everything else just to get them.

Martel732 wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not requesting stagnation. I'm requesting that the abomination of Eldar vs Nids not exist.

What's the abomination? I'm sure guys like jy2 win games with his Nids. You act like bad matchups are new to GW games. Armies are not equal in gaming terms. They never have been nor will they ever be.

Maybe I'm just sick of it after playing since 1995. You've just accepted it. I'm happy for you.

Well, being all delusional about the game we're playing doesn't benefit anyone. Honesty does. GW games are fun because of a wide variety of (sometimes hard to explain) reasons, and the fictional universe they created is very immersive and addictive. That said, the game isn't balanced and isn't designed for competitive play. If we nevertheless decide to try play it competitively, it would be good to understand what we're walking into. Every edition is (and has been) dominated by a handful of competitive builds and every other army in comparison to those is always utter trash.

 Therion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not requesting stagnation. I'm requesting that the abomination of Eldar vs Nids not exist.

What's the abomination? I'm sure guys like jy2 win games with his Nids. You act like bad matchups are new to GW games. Armies are not equal in gaming terms. They never have been nor will they ever be.

Are you honestly saying that because some people will win games, that the Nid codex update is any way, shape or form comparable to the overhaul armies like Eldar (and others) got?

I'm not even talking about actual unit strength, although that is a part of it. I mean, other than unit descriptions, there was what? A SINGLE new piece of fluff in the entire book? You can't honestly tell me that should be acceptable to people.

 pretre wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
If GW was giving us the models we've been saying we wanted for years, you and I would be assembling plastic Sisters right now.

Look at what the last year or two have brought us though (outside of plastic sisters). There have been an enormous number of new releases with a lot of really cool kits and a ton of army updates.

Would I love plastic sisters? Sure, but I'm not so selfish that I would give up everything else just to get them.

Hey, I agreed we've seen some fantastic new models. But once again, I'm not sure they really fall into the "exactly what we wanted" category. Unless you mean "new models of any kind", in which case, sure. But I certainly can't think of a Space Marine player that said "Ya know what we REALLY need? A new tactical marine box. Man, that would just be the bees knees!"

It's even worse when you look at Fantasy.

Blind positivity isnt better than blind negativity. Just saying, "Oh, everything is good about 40k" is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. In addition, writing off people who have complaints as "whiners" or "haters" is silly. I also liked the post that basically said "If dont agree with us you do not belong here".

That said... I do have some good things to say about gee dubs. The Knight Titan is an ace model and I cant wait to get one. Forgeworld, as always, is putting out great stuff. The Sicarian battle tank is ace. Codex: Space Marines is a nice book with interesting concepts. I like the new Tyranid models and I am glad they are giving out deals again. Sternguard/Vanguard veterans are splendid kits.

Of course, the power imbalance and horrid prices sour these good things.

GW model kits are great. I've never once complained about how models post 2002 look. That's not the problem at all.

 streamdragon wrote:
Hey, I agreed we've seen some fantastic new models. But once again, I'm not sure they really fall into the "exactly what we wanted" category. Unless you mean "new models of any kind", in which case, sure. But I certainly can't think of a Space Marine player that said "Ya know what we REALLY need? A new tactical marine box. Man, that would just be the bees knees!"

It's even worse when you look at Fantasy.

Fantasy has seen a ton of conversions from finecast/metal to plastic. That tactical marine box came with Vanguard and Sternguard in plastic (something people have really wanted) and the Tac box came with more options including combi-weapons (something people have really wanted). So yeah, I do think people have been saying they wanted that.

Look at all the 40k releases for the last year or so and then take a look at what was in them. I think you'll find a lot of stuff we've been asking for for a long time, along with a bunch of cool new kits. (Keep in mind that I am ignoring rules updates for a minute here and focusing on the models.)

I'm loving. 40k right now. People just like to complain about everything...

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Blind positivity isnt better than blind negativity. Just saying, "Oh, everything is good about 40k" is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. In addition, writing off people who have complaints as "whiners" or "haters" is silly. I also liked the post that basically said "If dont agree with us you do not belong here".

You must have missed all the times that the original poster said 'I know GW screws up' and such then. You're applying your own filter.

I consider it pure laziness that a codex like Eldar and then a codex like Tyranids gets published. If they want to be a model company, then why not make electronic codices that are free for download and are updated in real time as new match up results come in?

Martel732 wrote:
If they want to be a model company, then why not make electronic codices that are free for download and are updated in real time as new match up results come in?

You're saying 'If they're a model company, how come they don't do things like a rules company that's tech savvy?'. I think you've answered your own question.

Hanlon's Razor.

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If they want to be a model company, then why not make electronic codices that are free for download and are updated in real time as new match up results come in?

You're saying 'If they're a model company, how come they don't do things like a rules company that's tech savvy?'. I think you've answered your own question.

Hanlon's Razor.

Why don't they outsource the rules then so someone who gives a feth, then?

Martel732 wrote:
Why don't they outsource the rules then so someone who gives a feth, then?

You're asking why a company who has serious control issues with their IP doesn't outsource the rules for their flagship game? I'm amazed they let FFG work in their universe as it is.

Martel732 wrote:


Why don't they outsource the rules then so someone who gives a feth, then?

You know, you might have something there.

They outsourced their RPGs to FFG, and that same company has demonstrated some pretty solid competence through X-Wing in the game design area.

I'd certainly be behind a move to FFG for rules.

But, back to reality.

Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Then you are out of touch with reality. Expecting a control-freak company like GW let their flagship game's rules go to an outsourced group is kind of out there.

Also, I'm totally convinced of your rules-writing credentials.

 Blacksails wrote:


They outsourced their RPGs to FFG, and that same company has demonstrated some pretty solid competence through X-Wing in the game design area.

??

Have you played X-Wing? The entire game (!) has less options than the Sternguard entry in the Space Marines Codex all by itself, only two factions, no hand-to-hand, no psionics, only one type of terrain, no variant deployment-options, no units-within-units transpors, only one type of terrain, and still it's pretty easy to break (e.g. Tie Swarms, Double Falcon), etc..

I love a little X-Wing bash, but the game is simplistic to the point of anorexia ... and ... well ... not very well balanced (not to mention full of obvious "Howl Runner"-style cash-grabs).

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Then you are out of touch with reality. Expecting a control-freak company like GW let their flagship game's rules go to an outsourced group is kind of out there.

Also, I'm totally convinced of your rules-writing credentials.

It's not as out there as the rules they are expecting me to play their game by. Imo, of course.

Martel732 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Then you are out of touch with reality. Expecting a control-freak company like GW let their flagship game's rules go to an outsourced group is kind of out there.

Also, I'm totally convinced of your rules-writing credentials.

It's not as out there as the rules they are expecting me to play their game by. Imo, of course.

Except GW having unbalanced rules should be no surprise to anyone. They have been doing it for the entire history of their game. That's precedent.

Expecting GW to up and relinquish control of their flagship game's rules? That is without precedent.

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Then you are out of touch with reality. Expecting a control-freak company like GW let their flagship game's rules go to an outsourced group is kind of out there.

Also, I'm totally convinced of your rules-writing credentials.

It's not as out there as the rules they are expecting me to play their game by. Imo, of course.

Except GW having unbalanced rules should be no surprise to anyone. They have been doing it for the entire history of their game. That's precedent.

Expecting GW to up and relinquish control of their flagship game's rules? That is without precedent.

I don't care about precedents. I care that their rules are insane.

I love it how it's okay for GW to be control freaks and simultaneously allow garbage to be published. GW better hope not too many decide to vote with their $$ like I have.

Martel732 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I am. Because their rule writers suck horribly. As in I could make better rules by myself over a weekend.

Then you are out of touch with reality. Expecting a control-freak company like GW let their flagship game's rules go to an outsourced group is kind of out there.
Also, I'm totally convinced of your rules-writing credentials.

It's not as out there as the rules they are expecting me to play their game by. Imo, of course.

Except GW having unbalanced rules should be no surprise to anyone. They have been doing it for the entire history of their game. That's precedent.
Expecting GW to up and relinquish control of their flagship game's rules? That is without precedent.

I don't care about precedents. I care that their rules are insane.

You also don't appear to care about the logical consistency of your own arguments. Fair enough.