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.

1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second

 Trondheim wrote:
because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second

People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

I thought the exact same thing.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

I thought the exact same thing.

1. Its a porpoise not a dolphin. 2. New marines book Space Porpii with Marines riding Porpoises and power tridents.

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

Went even better for ya

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

Most powerful armies tend to be cheapest. Look how cheap it is to make a Draigowing army - maybe 5% the cost of a horde guard army.
Not that "facts" have ever got in the way of GW bashing, just look at the statistical analysis in Dakka discussions showing price inflation of 4-5% per annum for a regular army, then simply a list of people whinging about price increases.

xxvaderxx wrote:

2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

No ruleset is perfectly written, especially one as complex as 40k. Thankfully we have FAQs and errata, and the "major" rules holes that have yet to be fixed are actually very trivial.

xxvaderxx wrote:

3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.

Use your initiative.

xxvaderxx wrote:

4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

Not as painful as having 5 lascannons and 5 plasma guns standing right in the open but being able to remove casualties from the unit from the guys standing 12" away at the back of a ruin.

 captain collius wrote:

1. Its a porpoise not a dolphin. 2. New marines book Space Porpii with Marines riding Porpoises and power tridents.

1. Touche
2. http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsmhcxrLXf1r0ralmo1_r1_500.gif


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlueDagger wrote:




Went even better for ya

I... my... it... you... YOU.... you are a hero among men.

I may have had to just wipe my eyes from the tears.

 BlueDagger wrote:

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

Went even better for ya

Thank you sir you are epic.

... Be best if we ended this particular diversion and returned to the original topic please folks.


... well played though

 reds8n wrote:


... Be best if we ended this particular diversion and returned to the original topic please folks.


... well played though

Fair enough.

To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.

Anyway we are sorry

But the rules set is much better than it was does it have clunky bits .....yes. Is it missing important pieces of info? Yes. Keep in mind whenever some one writes a ruleset they understand it can blind them to possible missing elements as they can understand their intent even if we do not.

Evertras wrote:
To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.

Because ya know, a $75 flier that slices things open as you fly over them then cooks things with a hell house incinerator doesn't meet those guidelines at all...

 BlueDagger wrote:

Evertras wrote:
To actually contribute to the topic at hand... I don't think any balance issues are done on purpose. Look at CSM. If they really wanted to boost sales by making them OP, they could've done a far better job of it.

Because ya know, a $75 flier that slices things open as you fly over them then cooks things with a hell house incinerator doesn't meet those guidelines at all...

Except it doesn't because it can't fire the flame behind itself. (Well, it can - but it can't wound anything)

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.

 Trondheim wrote:

because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second

Yes, them being called GAMESworkshop, screams at me that they are a models company.

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.

So you are essentially agreeing with me that they did bad rules then and do bad rules now?.

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.

Yes, let us go back to 4th ed. I cannot wait to have my entire gun line rolled up again. Nothing like two rounds of shooting before auto losing!

Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?

Spelling issues all over the place. Done on purpose to troll us mostly, I know.

Arguments that don't add up or have consistency issues.

Obvious lack of important points like what actually could be done to improve the ruleset.

Painful and twisted posting style with inconsistent capitalization and ridiculous formatting.

Because the only thing GW hates more than making money is their fans

Well besides that let's take a little trip back in time...

1987 Warhammer 40k 1st edition (Rogue Trader) comes out, followed by several rule changes, additions, army lists. The game is still developing so over time they end up completely rewriting the vehicle and assault rules. In order to play you need a minimum of 4 or 5 books and countless templates and tables.

1994 Warhammer 40k 2nd edition comes out, all the rules are in one place, there are new army lists for (almost) all the factions. The stats and game engine is more or less the same so existing fans can adapt quickly. But the game still needs you to buy 2 box sets and a codex can carry all kinds of templates and tables. And this makes all the books that fans and retailers bought worthless overnight. They have to buy everything over again. It also makes many models obsolete.

1998 Warhammer 40k 3rd edition comes out, this time they're serious about making the game playable. 1 rulebook, 3 templates, and a codex and you're good to go. And the stats and game system are still more or less the same. But again it makes all previous codexes and rule books worthless along wtih some models.

2004, 2008, 2012 4th, 5th and 6th editions come out. They hold to the same pattern that you should only need 1 rulebook and 1 codex and that these books will keep all previous models (from 3rd edition on) useful and playable.

It's the need for each rule set to accomodate older books that really makes the rules overcomplicated and unbalanced.

Just a quick example, Jump Troops now have a rule called Hammer of Wrath which gives them an extra attack on the charge. So why not just put that in their profile? Because it has to be backwards compatible with existing books like the Ork, Nid, Eldar and 5 different marine codexes.

Plus you have a team of writers, each with their own ideas of how the game should be.

So you get a mess.

So we have a 1987 game engine, which got its last serious changes in 1998, and now has 14 years of add-ons, revisions and bright ideas.

No wonder it's a mess.

 pretre wrote:
Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?

Spelling issues all over the place. Done on purpose to troll us mostly, I know.

Arguments that don't add up or have consistency issues.

Obvious lack of important points like what actually could be done to improve the ruleset.

Painful and twisted posting style with inconsistent capitalization and ridiculous formatting.

Srry if i offended you spelling sensibility, see red blue and white on that little flag over there? no, me neither. Americans...

 pretre wrote:
Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?

Spelling issues all over the place. Done on purpose to troll us mostly, I know.

... Seriously? You even edited your post and left it in!

xxvaderxx wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?

Spelling issues all over the place. Done on purpose to troll us mostly, I know.

Arguments that don't add up or have consistency issues.

Obvious lack of important points like what actually could be done to improve the ruleset.

Painful and twisted posting style with inconsistent capitalization and ridiculous formatting.

Srry if i offended you spelling sensibility, see red blue and white on that little flag over there? no, me neither. Americans...

While I disagree with your points, I apologize on behalf of Americans.

Muphry's Rule, rigeld2.

 pretre wrote:
Why are posters dead set on putting our poor quality complaint posts?

I don't know for sure where he's from but the flag says Argentina. Given how bad my Japanese and Chinese are I give non-native English speakers a lot of leeway.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Srry if i offended you spelling sensibility, see red blue and white on that little flag over there? no, me neither. Americans...

Two things.
One: It was satire. Funny. Apparently, they don't have humor outside of the US.
Two: It was satire. Funny. Apparently, they don't have humor outside of the US.
Three: (See? Funny) That was only one point. The main point was that the argument itself (not the spelling) was poorly phrased and thought out.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second

People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.

They come right out and say that's exactly what they are in their report to shareholders. A model company. The fact that they don't immediately have models but have rules wasn't an issue as it was for future expansion, until others started filling the gaps and threatening their copyright.

Dont get me wrong, i got a laugh out of the Dolphin thing my self, but getting "offended" by things like less than perfect spelling/grammar over a 20 seconds post on the interwebs... this are usually the same people that request you speak "American" to them.


Back to the OP, why is GW so dead set on using the "we are a miniatures company" line, it does not fly with games, it does not fly with modelers and it is about to get busted legally in court with the Chapterhouse law suit, so why are they so dead set on it?.

They keep using it to as a crutch for every rules screw up, they could instead do a 15 minutes update on the FAQs and be done with it.

See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.

There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont get me wrong, i got a laugh out of the Dolphin thing my self, but getting "offended" by things like less than perfect spelling/grammar over a 20 seconds post on the interwebs... this are usually the same people that request you speak "American" to them.

Swing and a miss.
Again, content was the thrust of it. And satire, definitely satire.

Back to the OP, why is GW so dead set on using the "we are a miniatures company" line, it does not fly with games, it does not fly with modelers and it is about to get busted legally in court with the Chapterhouse law suit, so why are they so dead set on it?.

They keep using it to as a crutch for every rules screw up, they could instead do a 15 minutes update on the FAQs and be done with it.

Or, and this is crazy, they are a miniatures company and bad at rules. Despite everyone's expectations, hopes and dreams, GW has never put the money or effort into getting better at it. My contention has always been that we have much different expectations about what a good ruleset than GW does. They think it is good because they play almost a different game than we do.

Occam's Razor. Rather than assume that GW has this grand conspiracy to build bad rules in order to sell models, it is probably easier to just assume their rules guys aren't very good at it.