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.

Sigvatr wrote:
How could anything be worse than GW? Considerable price increases, increasing anti-gaming attitude...in what way would another company be worse? Even if GW shut down the stores, we would not see any decrease in prices. Not by a long shot.

I didn't say they'd be worse I said they wouldn't be any better. The stores are a huge overhead, their closure would definitely result in a reduction in prices, though more likely expressed as a slow down in price hikes than an actual reduction. In my humble opinion.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You, yet again, fail at reading comprehension.

The discussion was an aside regarding the hypothetical fate of the games should GW cease to exist.

Go back, reread (or actually just READ what I said) and try, for the love of God, to contribute in a positive and mature way instead of your endless kneejerk reactions on this board, which have painted you as an absolute idiot, unless of course you are an absolute idiot and that measure of maturity is simply beyond your capacity to process.

Also, GROW UP.

"Go back and reread what I put" is up there with "strawman" and "fanboy". It's bad enough making me read your posts once, please don't ask me to do so again (see I can make personal attacks as an excuse for a valid logical reasoning behind my arguments too!).

H.B.M.C. wrote:
They've licensed the IP out to other non-miniature related things (FFG RPGs, various video games) and those turn out fine. What makes the miniature and rules side of things any different to that?

Other than ignoring the casual base and catering exclusively to "hardcore" gamers, there's not much GW could do rules-wise. They won't make a rulebook that reads like parliamentary legislation (which is good imo), and they won't provide internal balancing (which is bad imo).

So yes another company could appease the "hardcore" gamers, but not without losing the casual crowd. I think the idea that you can have both is invalid.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It might be a bit cheaper because they wouldn't have to pay for the stores, but on the other hand that means a lot less newcomers, ...

That's the GW Koolaid speaking.

For a time there, Oz was GW's most profitable region. At that time, we had less than a dozen GW stores scattered across a landmass the size of the US. GW stores are not required for recruiting new players (players do that themselves much better than GW ever has)... that's just the business model that they have managed to make work in the UK.

Well I'd happily stand corrected. I find it hard to believe that their high street presence doesn't give them a much bigger reach than comparable games companies though, maybe that's because the UK has a dozen or so "large" cities and GW stores are pretty much ubiquitous.

 Smillie wrote:
I would doubt that many of the uk stores pay fr themselves. Does anyone know if there are figures out there for online v shop sales?

GW business model is terrible the business could b streamlined by shutting dead weight stores.

That's what they have been doing, and whaddaya know, people complain that they're killing the hobby by closing down stores.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

How could anything be worse than GW? Considerable price increases, increasing anti-gaming attitude...in what way would another company be worse? Even if GW shut down the stores, we would not see any decrease in prices. Not by a long shot.

Any company that would pick up GW's IP would simply end up new GW, simple as that, and little or nothing would change.

Herzlos wrote:
Whether or not the customer numbers have fallen is largely irrelevant if the sales are falling (which is what the financials show).

The reduction in sales means that either the same number of customers are buying less (collecting smaller armies or dropping out earlier) or a smaller number of customers are buying as much. Both result in a reduction in the 'critical mass' of players, where people get into the game because people play it.

We can reasonably assume that since the cost of starting is increasing significantly, the number of starters must be decreasing as some will be priced out of the market.

As the business model is based on short-term customers spending lots of money before dropping out after a couple of years, a reduction in customer recruitment can only be seen as a bad thing in the long term, as at some point it'll become too expensive / obscure to attract new customers at all.


Regarding points values; from what I can tell of the FOC's, 500pt armies are pretty hard to make legally without having to bend rules, and the commonly used point values seem to remain constant (tournament and magazine points values haven't decreased), and getting a pick-up game of <1000pt is hard to do. So whilst you may not need a 2000pt army initially, you may find that you need at least 1000pt before you can participate in a lot of club games.

Actually it does not necessarily mean either of those, it is possible that GW have the same customer base who are buying less each month due to the price rises but will still eventually buy the same size army (for the sake of argument lets say 2000 points) now previously they would have bought this in 2 years, now it takes them 3 - giving GW their customer for a whole extra year.

Therefore the argument could easilly be that GW price rises are good for the company as they keep customers buying for longer.

I'm not saying that is the case - I have said multiple times in this thread that my personal belief is that customer numbers are falling, but we have no proof of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Taking the thread back to the dividend again for a moment, an argument that nobody seems to have made - The thread started by saying that the dividend was being paid for by massive price increases driving away the customer base, so lets analyse this for a moment. GW has slightly over 3 million shares, at 17p each that works out at (roughly) £600,000 total payout . Now I can't find their annual report to the year end, but the annual report to June 2012 showed a total turnover of £131million.

Based on an average sale price of £15 (which is around about the GW mid point, single models/paints/brushes are all less than that, units/ codexes and army boxes are more) then we can safely say they sold around 8733333 items (again this is roughly speaking) if we subtract the cost of the dividend from each unit sold then they would become 7p cheaper each.

Do you still feel that the price rises are going to pay the dividend?

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Chadian shock troops where £18 for 20, now they are £18 for 10. Miniatures are exactly the same just half the original box contents. Inflation wasn't 100% over that period.

Yes, but Necron Immortals were $10.00 for 1 in 2004 (not inflation-adjusted) and now they're $33.00 for 5. Some models go up dramatically, some models go down dramatically.

So you say kroothawks examples aren't valid because the product has changed over time, I then post an example where the core product hasn't changed other than quantity for cost which was a good example in terms of changing cost over time. You then decry this example by creating one using a product that has changed over time, the very thing you stated invalidated kroothawks example. Make your mind up, you can't have your cake and eat it. All this shows is that you know your wrong but will try to take any stand point you think will prove you right.

The difference is that in Kroothawk's examples, you're paying more because you get more stuff. So you pay more for more, which counters Kroothawk's claim that you pay more for an equivalent item. The items aren't equivalent-- a starter set that contains 10 Tactical Marines, a Land Speeder, and 20 Dark Eldar Warriors is not equivalent to a starter set that contains 10 Tactical Marines, 5 Terminators, 3 Bikes, a Librarian, a Captain, 20 Cultists, 5 Chosen, a Chaos Lord, and a Helbrute.

In my example, 5 Necron Immortals are equivalent to 5 Necron Immortals.

I suppose you could argue that the new Necron Immortals aren't equivalent to the old ones. The only problem with that line of argument is that then you have to admit that the new Necron Immortals are better than the old ones, and therefore you are paying less for more and better models-- hardly an argument in favor of the thesis that GW hikes prices extravagantly!

Or the fact that they have changed material which has very different cost implications, again your not getting the same ad before which is what your arguin is invalid.

Stranger83 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Whether or not the customer numbers have fallen is largely irrelevant if the sales are falling (which is what the financials show).

The reduction in sales means that either the same number of customers are buying less (collecting smaller armies or dropping out earlier) or a smaller number of customers are buying as much. Both result in a reduction in the 'critical mass' of players, where people get into the game because people play it.

We can reasonably assume that since the cost of starting is increasing significantly, the number of starters must be decreasing as some will be priced out of the market.

As the business model is based on short-term customers spending lots of money before dropping out after a couple of years, a reduction in customer recruitment can only be seen as a bad thing in the long term, as at some point it'll become too expensive / obscure to attract new customers at all.


Regarding points values; from what I can tell of the FOC's, 500pt armies are pretty hard to make legally without having to bend rules, and the commonly used point values seem to remain constant (tournament and magazine points values haven't decreased), and getting a pick-up game of <1000pt is hard to do. So whilst you may not need a 2000pt army initially, you may find that you need at least 1000pt before you can participate in a lot of club games.

Actually it does not necessarily mean either of those, it is possible that GW have the same customer base who are buying less each month due to the price rises but will still eventually buy the same size army (for the sake of argument lets say 2000 points) now previously they would have bought this in 2 years, now it takes them 3 - giving GW their customer for a whole extra year.

Therefore the argument could easilly be that GW price rises are good for the company as they keep customers buying for longer.

I'm not saying that is the case - I have said multiple times in this thread that my personal belief is that customer numbers are falling, but we have no proof of that.

But that's assuming that completion of armies equates to leaving the game, and that the new players who are dropping out will stay on for another year if they haven't completed an army. The drop out seems to be age / time related; from what I can tell most players get into it at an early-mid teen stage and start to disappear from the scene at the mid-late teen stage where other things are more important (girls, booze, looking cool, going to uni), and then many come back in their mid 20's when they have more time.

I at least, dropped out of the hobby when I was about 16-17, when I was old enough to sneak into nightclubs, and took it back up at about 26, and I still don't have a complete army


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

Other than ignoring the casual base and catering exclusively to "hardcore" gamers, there's not much GW could do rules-wise. They won't make a rulebook that reads like parliamentary legislation (which is good imo), and they won't provide internal balancing (which is bad imo).

So yes another company could appease the "hardcore" gamers, but not without losing the casual crowd. I think the idea that you can have both is invalid.

Not really, the hardcore gamers just want clear, streamlined, balanced rules, and the new gamers would benefit from clear, streamlined, balanced rules.

Clear rules don't need to be tome-like, and to be fair most of the problems in the GW rulebooks is because there are just too many overlapping and contradictory rules.

There's no reason they can't cater to both, except that it'd require a ground up re-write of the current rule incarnations, and that would go against their model sale waves (as they'd need to bring out the rules and army books together).

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Or the fact that they have changed material which has very different cost implications, again your not getting the same ad before which is what your arguin is invalid.

I'm arguing from the gamer's perspective. The average gamer doesn't care what material something is made out of. They care how much it costs and whether or not it looks good. I don't know anyone who chooses units in their army based on what material the models are made out of.

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Or the fact that they have changed material which has very different cost implications, again your not getting the same ad before which is what your arguin is invalid.

I'm arguing from the gamer's perspective. The average gamer doesn't care what material something is made out of. They care how much it costs and whether or not it looks good. I don't know anyone who chooses units in their army based on what material the models are made out of.

You don't?

I live in a country with very few gamers and I personally knew more than 10 people that avoid Finecrap like the plague and resort to converting plastic minis (or using minis from other companies), to replace them.

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Or the fact that they have changed material which has very different cost implications, again your not getting the same ad before which is what your arguin is invalid.

I'm arguing from the gamer's perspective. The average gamer doesn't care what material something is made out of. They care how much it costs and whether or not it looks good. I don't know anyone who chooses units in their army based on what material the models are made out of.

Yes they do; because they need to assemble/paint/use the figure, and some materials have advantages over others. If they find one material better than another they'll prefer it, and if they've had a bad experience with a material they'll avoid it where they can.

Incidently, I prefer plastics to (real) resins to metals, and won't touch finecast. Many older gamers are metal only. Many new gamers probably don't realise metal figures exist(/ed)

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
Or the fact that they have changed material which has very different cost implications, again your not getting the same ad before which is what your arguin is invalid.

I'm arguing from the gamer's perspective. The average gamer doesn't care what material something is made out of. They care how much it costs and whether or not it looks good. I don't know anyone who chooses units in their army based on what material the models are made out of.

I do. I absolutely hate metal miniatures because they did not allow for any modifications. All my Necron Warriors in my army are altered to stand upright in the very same position. Would be impossible with metal miniatures. When it comes to plastic vs finecast, I agree.

 Testify wrote:
Other than ignoring the casual base and catering exclusively to "hardcore" gamers, there's not much GW could do rules-wise. They won't make a rulebook that reads like parliamentary legislation (which is good imo), and they won't provide internal balancing (which is bad imo).

False dilemma.

Try again!

I totaly agree that gamers care about the end result.
EG' How much time effort and money do I have to spend to arrive at the army I want to play.'

If plastic is easier to convert then that is positive.

However, if you tell people the cost of metal minatures is so much higher than plastic because the base material costs, keep rising and rising year on year.And gamers expect metal minatures to be 3 to 5 times more expencive than plastic ones because of this.

Simply changing from a 'prohibitively expencive material ' to the' cheapest material currently available' and NOT charging LESS.
Is not going to be recieved well .(When other companies double the amount of minatures in the box for the same price!)

Compare GW plastic minature prices to those of other companies.(Perry Minatures for example.)

24% of the current retail price includes ALL costs apart from logistics,(appx 10%) and retail (appx 50%)

So paying at least double for products to pay for stores I would not enter.Is not good value for money .

Obviously if you use your local GW store,then you get better value for money then those who don't.

But it would be much fairer for GW to charge store goers for the in store services directly at source.(IMO.)

Herzlos wrote:

Not really, the hardcore gamers just want clear, streamlined, balanced rules, and the new gamers would benefit from clear, streamlined, balanced rules.

This is one of those silly "All I want is for everything to be perfect" things.

"Clear" and "streamlined" are both subjective, and if you want "balanced" go play chess. The fact that you have difficulty understanding the rules doesn't mean everyone does.

Herzlos wrote:



But that's assuming that completion of armies equates to leaving the game, and that the new players who are dropping out will stay on for another year if they haven't completed an army. The drop out seems to be age / time related; from what I can tell most players get into it at an early-mid teen stage and start to disappear from the scene at the mid-late teen stage where other things are more important (girls, booze, looking cool, going to uni), and then many come back in their mid 20's when they have more time.

I at least, dropped out of the hobby when I was about 16-17, when I was old enough to sneak into nightclubs, and took it back up at about 26, and I still don't have a complete army

I guess thats the old chicken and the egg point though, do people stop buying because their army is "complete" and they look around for something else to fill their time that they spent buying/assembling/painting (poosibly) their army or do they give up buying new stuff because they have found girls/booze/whatever?

The point however is that a falling sales revenue does not mean, like many on here have said, that a falling number of sales means a falling customer base - it simply means a falling number of sales. Even accepting that every single player that drops out of GW does so because they have become a sex craved alcoholic desperately trying to get into uni (N.B. thats a joke, please don't take it as poking fun at your argument) then isn't it better for GW to extract as much cash from the customer base as possible in the 2 years they know that their customers have nothing better to spend their money on? Especially given that many return to the hobby in the future and may want to "finish" their army that they couldn't because of the cost, whilst before they would have come back with a "Full" army ready to play and no need to spend anything.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, despite what many people on here claim, I doubt that GWis not monitoring the situation as best they can (obviously unless you are an MMO or such where you have a monthly subscription to keep track of its impossible to keep an accurate record of customer base)I'm sure that, should GW suspect that customers are leaving en mass (and by that I mean more than used to leave anyway when they decide wargaming is not for them or go to more grown up games)and are not being replaced by the next crop of youngsters then something would happen (either a price freeze or even "improved machining" lowering prices).

Despite what many on here say my own personal experiance is that GW are still very popular with new gamers. Looking at the 4-5 who played when I was a kid and the massive number my son knows at his school that play I'd say it is around 800% more popular today, despite the price rise. I realise that you can't extrapolate that to the whole world, but it's the only evidence that I have to go on. So whilst experianced hobbyists may well be switching to other cheaper game systems I have to ask is this larger than always left GW anyway? I guess GW might be in trouble if other companies started to market to the non gamer market - but I've yet to see any company target anyone who isn't already a gamer other than GW.

I've rambled on a bit here, for which I apologise - but I'm trying to show why I don't think GW are in trouble at all, and why a (roughly) 7p addition to everything they sell (see above calculations why 7p) to pay a dividend to their shareholders is resonable

 Testify wrote:
This is one of those silly "All I want is for everything to be perfect" things.

Stop and think about that for a moment, and then ask yourself if expecting a commercially released, professionally-written game to be written competently is actually that big an ask...


There are holes in 6th edition 40K that simply shouldn't be there. By the 6th edition of a game, you would think that they would remember to mention in the movement rules that you can't move through other models. You would think that the Look Out Sir rule would have been playtested enough for them to not have to have changed it 3 and a half minutes after release. You could expect that the allies rules would have included some sort of explanation as to how they function with army wide rules... or even just a brief explanation as to exactly how they are defining the word 'army' for rules purposes. You might even be excused for thinking that rules that were corrected by FAQ towards the end of 5th edition, like ICs joining units pre-game, might have had those corrections carried over to the new edition rather than just reverting to being broken again...

But apparently, because GW don't want to write 'hardcore' rules, and because we're not supposed to 'take the game too seriously', it's acceptable for GW to release a flawed product and charge a premium price for it. But why is that? I don't take toasted sandwiches particularly 'seriously'... but I still expect the toasted sandwich maker that I paid darn good money for to work correctly.

Here's the thing: 'Fun' does not have to mean 'poorly written'. It's eminently possible to write a fun, beer&pretzels ruleset that doesn't have holes in it. GW's writers don't have to take the game seriously... but that's no reason for them to not take their job seriously.

 Testify wrote:
This is one of those silly "All I want is for everything to be perfect" things.

He didn't say that.

Try again.

 Testify wrote:
"Clear" and "streamlined" are both subjective, and if you want "balanced" go play chess. The fact that you have difficulty understanding the rules doesn't mean everyone does.

Red herring.

Try again.

 insaniak wrote:

 Testify wrote:
This is one of those silly "All I want is for everything to be perfect" things.

Stop and think about that for a moment, and then ask yourself if expecting a commercially released, professionally-written game to be written competently is actually that big an ask...

At no point during my read-through of 6th edition did I think "man this is badly written". Even after a few games, I thought it was pretty clear (even though I got most of the rules wrong, obviously). It took the internet to open my eyes to the fact that it was badly-written, which is odd as I have tastes in both literature and abstract systems - you'd think I'd recognise poorly written rules but there you go.

 insaniak wrote:

There are holes in 6th edition 40K that simply shouldn't be there. By the 6th edition of a game, you would think that they would remember to mention in the movement rules that you can't move through other models. You would think that the Look Out Sir rule would have been playtested enough for them to not have to have changed it 3 and a half minutes after release. You could expect that the allies rules would have included some sort of explanation as to how they function with army wide rules... or even just a brief explanation as to exactly how they are defining the word 'army' for rules purposes. You might even be excused for thinking that rules that were corrected by FAQ towards the end of 5th edition, like ICs joining units pre-game, might have had those corrections carried over to the new edition rather than just reverting to being broken again...

Those are by and large common sense. Obviously models can't move through each other, they also can't spontaniously multiply or sprout wings (oh wait...).

I honestly can't say that any of those things were an issue for me. I'm strictly a casual gamer, and conversely would probably have been put off by a lawyer-like approach that many demand, and I think many casual gamers would. A degree of ambiguity is nessesary in readable English. There are some who undoubtedly would say they are too ambiguous, but the strength and popularity of 6th edition would lead me to believe that's a minority opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

But apparently, because GW don't want to write 'hardcore' rules, and because we're not supposed to 'take the game too seriously', it's acceptable for GW to release a flawed product and charge a premium price for it. But why is that? I don't take toasted sandwiches particularly 'seriously'... but I still expect the toasted sandwich maker that I paid darn good money for to work correctly.

Right, because you're a "hardcore" gamer. I'm a casual gamer, and I will pay for it (or go halves with a friend and share it). I don't regard it as "flawed", in fact I regard it as a damn sight better than many computer games I've played. Remember the Sisters of Battle bug in the release version of Soulstorm? It broke multiplayer (and I'm not exagerating, SOB had infinite requisition) and took them about 3 months to fix.

 insaniak wrote:

Here's the thing: 'Fun' does not have to mean 'poorly written'. It's eminently possible to write a fun, beer&pretzels ruleset that doesn't have holes in it. GW's writers don't have to take the game seriously... but that's no reason for them to not take their job seriously.

See above. Try seeing the world from a casual gamer's point of view.

Think of it this way - there are a lot of people who play 40k 6th edition and enjoy it. Are all these people stupid? Do they lack the ability to form the abstract concept of a ruleset to the extent that you do? Or do you in fact just want a different ruleset and are trying to pass off your subjective viewpoint as objective (something that more or less everyone does on a constant basis).

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense, bloody nightshifts


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Testify wrote:
This is one of those silly "All I want is for everything to be perfect" things.

He didn't say that.

Try again.

 Testify wrote:
"Clear" and "streamlined" are both subjective, and if you want "balanced" go play chess. The fact that you have difficulty understanding the rules doesn't mean everyone does.

Red herring.

Try again.

Posts like these are why I utilise no intellegence or effort whatsoever into replying to you. The fact that you are not on my ignore list is testament to my idleness.

So if you are strictly a casual gamer then what difference does it make to you if the rules are tightly, concisely and unambiguously written? Surely everyone wins then, right? Casuals can play as they always have and the tournament crowd are happy because less FAqs and arguments. Surely no-one is put out in such a scenario? I think that was the point that Insaniak and others are driving at - a well written ruleset benefits everyone, not just a subset of gamers.

Also, I would like to add I am a casual gamer too and I hate having to flip through rulebooks, cross-check FAQs, debate a rule meaning with an opponent etc etc. Just being a casual does not necessarily mean you happily tolerate poorly-worded, unbalanced or ill-playtested rules.

 filbert wrote:
So if you are strictly a casual gamer then what difference does it make to you if the rules are tightly, concisely and unambiguously written? Surely everyone wins then, right? Casuals can play as they always have and the tournament crowd are happy because less FAqs and arguments. Surely no-one is put out in such a scenario? I think that was the point that Insaniak and others are driving at - a well written ruleset benefits everyone, not just a subset of gamers.

You must know that there's a difference between writing something as a lawyer, and writing something as an author. I have friends who already struggle to understand certain logical constructs in the ruleset, if it were any more legalese they'd be put off completely.

 filbert wrote:

Also, I would like to add I am a casual gamer too and I hate having to flip through rulebooks, cross-check FAQs, debate a rule meaning with an opponent etc etc. Just being a casual does not necessarily mean you happily tolerate poorly-worded, unbalanced or ill-playtested rules.

See above. Computer games with dozens of people working on them for years with dedicated QA testers are capable of releasing bug-written crap-fests. And as I've said, I don't regard the rulebook as being badly written at all, I actually think it's pretty lucid once you think about what's actually important for casual gamers.

Why did you lump in "unbalanced" with that? Please don't assume I'm a GW fanboy as others have done. "Games Workshop release badly written rules because Vendettas cost 130 points" is not a valid...anything.

 Testify wrote:

You must know that there's a difference between writing something as a lawyer, and writing something as an author. I have friends who already struggle to understand certain logical constructs in the ruleset, if it were any more legalese they'd be put off completely.

It's a set of rules - it more or less has to be written in a 'lawyerly' way. That's kind of part of the definition of a rule; that it is clear and unambiguous. I can't speak for your friends but I would rather read something once without having to cross-reference it in other places, download and read a FAQ, argue/discuss it with my opponent or roll a d6. Having to do any of those means that whoever wrote the rules has not done their job correctly.

 Testify wrote:

See above. Computer games with dozens of people working on them for years with dedicated QA testers are capable of releasing bug-written crap-fests. And as I've said, I don't regard the rulebook as being badly written at all, I actually think it's pretty lucid once you think about what's actually important for casual gamers.

Why did you lump in "unbalanced" with that? Please don't assume I'm a GW fanboy as others have done. "Games Workshop release badly written rules because Vendettas cost 130 points" is not a valid...anything.

I don't really think there is much of an argument against GW games being unbalanced. I mean, it is fairly obvious, even from a casual standpoint, that there are codexes/army books and units/models that are more/less powerful than others. That's partly as a consequence of the way that GW slowly trickles books out over time (so-called codex creep) and partly as a marketing method (making the latest model the best and most desirable). I mean if you don't think that, well that's entirely your point of view. It's got nothing to do with being 'pro' or 'anti' GW - such a distinction is not really relevant. The computer game point is not really valid; there you are talking about fairly large teams working for a long period and with a very complex medium. Writing an army book or rulebook can be done by one person alone, if needed. Obviously, GW don't write alone but the point stands; it is a less complex endeavour and takes less effort to playtest. There really isn't much excuse for not playtesting properly; part of the reason GW don't seem to do as well is because they keep it all in-house to prevent leaks - as a result, stuff doesn't get 'gamed' as much as it does in real life.

 Testify wrote:
Those are by and large common sense. Obviously models can't move through each other, they also can't spontaniously multiply or sprout wings (oh wait...).

It's common sense that a cannon can destroy a car. It's also common sense that a car can move faster than a land-based canon with no apparent means of locomotion. So given the lack of rules to back up this common sense, should these things be allowed in Monopoly?

Common sense is not the issue. If you buy a set of game rules, you shouldn't have to make up your own rules in order to make the game function correctly. That sort of defies the point of paying someone to have written those rules.

Right, because you're a "hardcore" gamer.

Er... yeah... That's about as far off base as it's possible to be. I'm about as far from 'hardcore' as it's possible to be and still be breathing.

What I am is someone who expects a product he paid a premium price for to be of premium quality.

And that means, when buying a game, that the rules should be complete, and should make sense. As of right now, that doesn't describe the Warhammer 40000 rules.

Remember the Sisters of Battle bug in the release version of Soulstorm? It broke multiplayer (and I'm not exagerating, SOB had infinite requisition) and took them about 3 months to fix.

And, what? Because other products are faulty, we shouldn't have a problem with flaws in this game?

See above. Try seeing the world from a casual gamer's point of view.

See above. I do.

My gaming is much more casual when my opponent and I are playing the same game. That's made easier when there are no great gaping holes in the rules.

Think of it this way - there are a lot of people who play 40k 6th edition and enjoy it. Are all these people stupid? Do they lack the ability to form the abstract concept of a ruleset to the extent that you do? Or do you in fact just want a different ruleset and are trying to pass off your subjective viewpoint as objective (something that more or less everyone does on a constant basis).

The what now? I have never tried to pass my opinion off as anything other than my opinion. If other players are happy with the standard of the 40K rules, then that's absolutely fantastic for them. It doesn't change my personal standards.

 Testify wrote:
You must know that there's a difference between writing something as a lawyer, and writing something as an author. I have friends who already struggle to understand certain logical constructs in the ruleset, if it were any more legalese they'd be put off completely.

You're like a factory for logical fallacies.

1. Strawman. No one is saying it should be written 'as a lawyer' might write it.
2. False Dilemma. You're assuming that it must be written in legalese to be a tight/concise/consistent rule set.

 Testify wrote:
Computer games with dozens of people working on them for years with dedicated QA testers are capable of releasing bug-written crap-fests. And as I've said, I don't regard the rulebook as being badly written at all, I actually think it's pretty lucid once you think about what's actually important for casual gamers.

3. Red Herring. And many don't release bug-ridden crap-fests either. And some that do fix them.
4. When you think about what's important to casual gamers? That's circular logic. A tight/concise/consistent rule set impacts casual gamers not a bit (other than giving them a better game to play, that is).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
4. When you think about what's important to casual gamers? That's circular logic. A tight/concise/consistent rule set impacts casual gamers not a bit (other than giving them a better game to play, that is).

But you are not a true casual player if you care about that stuff

Now where did I put my kilt?

Whilst studying law we were told to draft something that met a requirement (I seem to remember it was to do with vehicles in parks). After each group presented their version the lecturer prceeded to pull each one to bits. Being able to write 'lawyerly' stuff doesn't prevent gaming a system.

There will always be those who wish to play the rules to his advantage in a 'competitive' game, and writing in such a way to prevent it, especially in a system with so many combinations of situations and armies and special rules, is almost impossible. Could they have put more effort into trying to handle such peope, sure, should they?. Those people will still exist and still find loop holes, at some point you have to say enough is enough, we are not in the business of writing rules for such people and release the product.


As for the comment about playtesting, I had to laugh at that. Playtesting something like 40k is less complex and requires less effort to test than a computer game. Are you kidding! How many combinations of things are there to test in 40k, over how many scenarios etc, does something that works at small points need restesting at larger points etc. Sure there are complex games that are a nightmare to test, e.g mmos (and they often get more hate aimed at them than 40k for failing to have someones personal concept of balance), but 40k is far more complex tham a majority of computer games that keep things pretty straightjacketed as to what you can do/use.

Should some things have been better tested, probably, but is 40k somehow easy to playtest in order to achieve some subjective notion of balance, hardly.

Discussions around being hard core or casual is often pretty pointless, I'd consider my self pretty casual, but what the hell is casual and what is hardcore?

6th edition really was an example of the writers not giving a crap. Look at the "look out sir" debacle, first time I read the rule I knew it would be a cluster feth. Couple of months later they have to pretty much rewrite the entire rule making all copies of the Rulebook incorrect and outdated. This wasn't a little FAQ or an issue with a piece of wargear or magic item, this was a core mechanic. This shows that the game was not a "finished product" when released.

I wish I had a pound/dollar/euro for everytime I said this, but most people on this site should be way beyond caring about GW price rises. Given the multitude of rival companies (that do things cheaper and better IMO) there really is no excuse for putting your wargaming needs at the mercy of GW. Anything else is pure laziness in my view.

As for rules, consider yourself lucky your not wargaming in the 1980s. We got feth all!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for rules, consider yourself lucky your not wargaming in the 1980s. We got feth all!

I was wargaming in the 80s, heck I was wargaming in the 70s. I expect a good number of people on here were.

puree wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for rules, consider yourself lucky your not wargaming in the 1980s. We got feth all!

I was wargaming in the 80s, heck I was wargaming in the 70s. I expect a good number of people on here were.

Point being, compared to modern times, this younger generation has paints, models, and tech that we could only dream of, and they're still not happy!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

puree wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for rules, consider yourself lucky your not wargaming in the 1980s. We got feth all!

I was wargaming in the 80s, heck I was wargaming in the 70s. I expect a good number of people on here were.

Point being, compared to modern times, this younger generation has paints, models, and tech that we could only dream of, and they're still not happy!

Kids that start playing nowadays have a very different mindset though, that's important to keep in mind. When we started wargaming, there was no internet. The entire game was, that's how I feel however, less competitive and more "casual". Nowadays, even in friendlies, a lot of people feel compelled to min/max and as you can see on this very forum, people want to build competitive lists. A lot of them actually...despite not playing in a competitive environment.

...and let's not get started on the whole attention span thingy nowadays...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

puree wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As for rules, consider yourself lucky your not wargaming in the 1980s. We got feth all!

I was wargaming in the 80s, heck I was wargaming in the 70s. I expect a good number of people on here were.

Point being, compared to modern times, this younger generation has paints, models, and tech that we could only dream of, and they're still not happy!

Kids that start playing nowadays have a very different mindset though, that's important to keep in mind. When we started wargaming, there was no internet. The entire game was, that's how I feel however, less competitive and more "casual". Nowadays, even in friendlies, a lot of people feel compelled to min/max and as you can see on this very forum, people want to build competitive lists. A lot of them actually...despite not playing in a competitive environment.

...and let's not get started on the whole attention span thingy nowadays...

Setting up a game of 40K Rogue Trader was never a casual affair. Stupid tables
I