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.

As for the (fantasy) daemons thing, I think that was more a case of Ward knowing where 8th was going as he wrote the daemons army book, so yes for a little while it was OP but I think anyone saying fantasy having to change to fix it has it the wrong way around.

Grey Knights on the other hand, I have heard it said that even some of the people at GW admit they didn't playtest them enough and have tried to step up their game since.

If you want to see changes in Games workshop, vote with your dollar and buy shares in the company. Take an active interest and try and effect positive change. We can sit here an talk about all the faults GW has; but unless we actually try and change them we are simply wasting time.

You need a crap load of stock to even be looked at and the majority of stock being held on too are by Kirby and 5 investment Funds holders (5 investment fund holders currently hold +51% of the total GW stock.)

The other method is to vote with your wallet.

 Fafnir wrote:

battleranch wrote:
This may be annoying to hear but maybe people play the game wrong.

When we pay as much as we do, we should be able to play it however we want. This point is irrelevant.

Maybe the game isn't meant to be played with 4 of the same unit to maximize effectiveness to win the massive grand tournament? Maybe the game is ment to be played with a large selection of units with a group of friends who invested time and effort into building a painting an army.

If such is the case, then the rules should reflect that. Besides, if one of those friends ends up consistently winning because of having the arbitrarily better army, it doesn't matter what the friends are trying to do, the game becomes stale and boring.

Maybe it has nothing to do with winning or losing, maybe the GW standard of play testing is one that says

"hey daemons need something to do on the turn they deep strike, lets give them a couple units that can soften up targets; then, the awesome Blood letter models can get into combat!"

If such is the case, why even include things like points or force orginization charts in the first place?

I'm sure they don't give two monkies if the Nova Open had 12 Grey Knights or 12 Daemon players. Games-Workshop doesn't host tournament or cater to tournaments because tournaments don't matter.

So you're saying that people who enjoy the game for anything other than an advanced yahtzee simulation don't matter?

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses. It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome. Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy. Don't feed me that "o you can't do that in tournaments!" line because your argument was a friend. Who is a person I assume you see regularly. If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people. If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Take some personnel responsibility and quit trying to blame your failings on the company that is doing an actual bang up job. The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works. the Models look amazing, the story is rich and continues to get denser.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game. If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

 Daedricbob wrote:
It seems a bit odd that in this modern age GW don't have a community rep that liaises with the main wargaming websites/publications.

Such a position would allow them to provide official rulings on rule interpretations/questions as well as providing 'sneak peeks' of upcoming products, promoting offers, gaining valuable product/design feedback and I feel would go a long way to promoting general goodwill within the gaming community, the people that buy their products.

I honestly can't understand why they don't have anyone doing this, they don't even have their own forums.

A community rep would not be asked these kinds of things. Instead he'd get "OHMYGAWDWAAARDISSOOOSTUPIDWHYCANTMYARMYBEASAWESOMESAUCEASMYCUSTOMFANDEXSTUFFISEXPENSIVEYOUSHOULDLOWERYOURPRICESBUTYOURSTUFFISCRAPWWWWWWHHHHHHYYYYYY??????"

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page " target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page

Can't remember the last time I heard VW chiming in on the forum I was on for my Jetta...

battleranch wrote:
I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

Chess isn't perfectly balanced. And you seem to assume that balance a) must be perfect and b) requires everyone to be the same.

Take some personnel responsibility and quit trying to blame your failings on the company that is doing an actual bang up job. The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works. the Models look amazing, the story is rich and continues to get denser.

And the rules are poorly written. Ignoring balance (which is dumb) they could at least put out a well written set of rules. Which would benefit everyone, not just tournament goers.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game. If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Disparity between books is fine. Horrible internal balance isn't.

every so often, I see one of these posts saying how everyone would simply explode and act like a 5 year old if given the chance to tell their opinion.
Is this common to other places that ask for feedback, or just GW because people are displeased and are annoyed because they're not listening.
But because people are unhappy it is assumed they cannot make any rational points and scream like fools.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
every so often, I see one of these posts saying how everyone would simply explode and act like a 5 year old if given the chance to tell their opinion.
Is this common to other places that ask for feedback, or just GW because people are displeased and are annoyed because they're not listening.
But because people are unhappy it is assumed they cannot make any rational points and scream like fools.

again, look what happened when a guy started a thread about job recruitment at GW. about three responses later, the price question is dropped. Eventually, it would turn into a sci-fi convention q&a where people who have no control over the topics being asked are grilled about decisions over which tjey would never be able to answer.

you'd never have a person like that on a forum like this- besides that wasn't about hearing anyone's opinion that was a job thing

I think, if they actually had someone come here, even still, I have some faith people could carry on more respectfully.
It was the stuff people felt and some knew was wrong, and such, made them mad.
Simply the mere gesture of someone from GW asking an opinion from the community, I think people would be mature

I seriously hope you are kidding, Rainbow...

I have a sliver of faith in some people I guess
it has many risks but it is something never done by GW before. Of course it would need moderation but I think people could surprise you.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I have a sliver of faith in some people I guess
it has many risks but it is something never done by GW before. Of course it would need moderation but I think people could surprise you.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493404.page

Sorry to diaappoint, but this isn't MLP world... some people believe GW needs to be brought task for creating a fun game that should be serious like they are...

oh bronies are more hardcore and angry then warhammer fans lol
a game is only as fun as the person feels it is.
the current ed is not my taste so I play 3rd ed

battleranch wrote:

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

There's no point in playing a lot of games if all of the games are one-sided messes.

And as Rigeld noted, Chess is not perfectly balanced.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses.

And who said a game can't be balanced and can have different factions with strengths and weaknesses at the same time? If anything, 40k is extremely homogenous compared to other games despite its terrible balance.

It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome.

I don't play 40k anymore, so that point I made had nothing to do with myself. Besides, back when I did play, I tended to have a decent record. But "adapt and overcome" simply doesn't work in every single context concerning this game. Try to take on a Necron flying bakery with an army with no available anti-air, such as Black Templars, and tell me that it's 100% the fault of the player of the BT for losing. Some armies simply do not have the tools to be competitive.

40k is an extremely list dependent game. It's built that way in order to sell more models.

Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy.

I played Daemonhunters. The very worst codex in the game before it was updated. I had to work for my wins. Typically, a good game was not one where I won, but where I didn't lose horribly. Let me assure you, simply 'swapping weapons' doesn't do anything for you when none of the options available are relevant to the situation and metagame. Changing your deployment doesn't tend to do much when the army you're facing is simply more capable than yours in every possible way.

If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people.

"Simply being happy to play games" doesn't work when all the games are one-sided slaughter-fests. That, or they're all the same (and boring as hell because of it), because only a few options are viable.

If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Once again, balance=/=homogeneity. In fact, the major thing you don't seem to understand is that in wanting balance, we want it so that players can go into a game (tournament setting or not) with something that isn't identical to the flavour of the month and have a chance of winning. Better balance would in fact give players more reasons to play different armies. Come back when you have an understanding of what actually constitutes game balance.

The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works.

Which is why they have to release massive erratas rewriting entire sections of the rulebook not long after release. Which is why the YMDC section of this forum is bloated as hell.

Models look amazing,

Are you kidding? Horrendous proportions aside (I understand what "heroic" proportions means, but that's a relic from the past when sculpting and casting capabilities were not what they are now), they get more busy and toyetic as each release comes.

the story is rich and continues to get denser.

That's cute. But I'll refrain from even touching this point, since I don't want this to turn into yet another Ward-hate thread.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game.

Have you even read the 6th edition rulebook? The game contains far more random elements than previous editions. Random terrain features, random charge range, random warlord abilities, random psychic powers, etc. It is factually wrong to state that GW is "de-yahtzeeing" the game when they are taking more options away from the player and making them random.

If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Once again, and I feel I must hammer this in as much and as hard as possible, balance=/=homogeneity. Furthermore, the random nature of the game has nothing to do with balance (that's just an issue with the poorly written and tactically shallow nature of the game itself).

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
The other method is to vote with your wallet.

Wallet and also make noise.

There are a lot of people who rage on that anyone who doesn't like GW should just shut up and not buy their products - that is fine and good, if you feel like it.

However, a more effective approach is to stop buying them...and make sure other people stop buying them...and make sure those other people make sure other people stop buying them... One person stopping isn't really something that GW will notice, but if you manage to convince a majority of people in your local area it is something that GW will notice. Their sales reps have numbers which they are supposed to meet each month, quarter, year. If you get the groups in a town to switch from GW games to something like PP or Infinity (or any number of other game systems which are out there) - then the drop in sales to the independent retailers [of GW products] would show up on the balance sheet for that regional rep. Get enough of those to happen - then GW might even consider rethinking their policies.

It is something which has been shown to work against other companies in the past - though it really needs to be a concerted effort if it is something you would like to see actually happen.

 Fafnir wrote:

battleranch wrote:

I am saying people who froth at the mouth about the game needing tournament balance don't matter. The entire point of tournaments should be to go out and play a lot of games. If you want a perfectly balanced game all the time; play chess.

There's no point in playing a lot of games if all of the games are one-sided messes.

And as Rigeld noted, Chess is not perfectly balanced.

Warhammer is supposed to be interesting with armies with strengths and weaknesses.

And who said a game can't be balanced and can have different factions with strengths and weaknesses at the same time? If anything, 40k is extremely homogenous compared to other games despite its terrible balance.

It's 100% your fault if you have a friend that wins constantly with the same army. Change something! Learn from your mistakes, adapt overcome.

I don't play 40k anymore, so that point I made had nothing to do with myself. Besides, back when I did play, I tended to have a decent record. But "adapt and overcome" simply doesn't work in every single context concerning this game. Try to take on a Necron flying bakery with an army with no available anti-air, such as Black Templars, and tell me that it's 100% the fault of the player of the BT for losing. Some armies simply do not have the tools to be competitive.

40k is an extremely list dependent game. It's built that way in order to sell more models.

Clearly YOUR doing something wrong. Sure it may be hard. But it's as simple as swapping weapons on units or changing the way you deploy.

I played Daemonhunters. The very worst codex in the game before it was updated. I had to work for my wins. Typically, a good game was not one where I won, but where I didn't lose horribly. Let me assure you, simply 'swapping weapons' doesn't do anything for you when none of the options available are relevant to the situation and metagame. Changing your deployment doesn't tend to do much when the army you're facing is simply more capable than yours in every possible way.

If you can't go to a tournament and simply be happy playing games, seeing armies and meeting people.

"Simply being happy to play games" doesn't work when all the games are one-sided slaughter-fests. That, or they're all the same (and boring as hell because of it), because only a few options are viable.

If you need the blanket reassurance of knowing that maybe you might win because you know your army is mathematically identical to every other army; this probably isn't the game for you.

Once again, balance=/=homogeneity. In fact, the major thing you don't seem to understand is that in wanting balance, we want it so that players can go into a game (tournament setting or not) with something that isn't identical to the flavour of the month and have a chance of winning. Better balance would in fact give players more reasons to play different armies. Come back when you have an understanding of what actually constitutes game balance.

The game works. At a fundamental level everything about it works.

Which is why they have to release massive erratas rewriting entire sections of the rulebook not long after release. Which is why the YMDC section of this forum is bloated as hell.

Models look amazing,

Are you kidding? Horrendous proportions aside (I understand what "heroic" proportions means, but that's a relic from the past when sculpting and casting capabilities were not what they are now), they get more busy and toyetic as each release comes.

the story is rich and continues to get denser.

That's cute. But I'll refrain from even touching this point, since I don't want this to turn into yet another Ward-hate thread.

If anything GW has done an amazing job "de-yahtzeeing" the game.

Have you even read the 6th edition rulebook? The game contains far more random elements than previous editions. Random terrain features, random charge range, random warlord abilities, random psychic powers, etc. It is factually wrong to state that GW is "de-yahtzeeing" the game when they are taking more options away from the player and making them random.

If you wanted the Game to be more than an "advanced Yahtzee simulator" you'd be happy with the Disparity between army books.

Once again, and I feel I must hammer this in as much and as hard as possible, balance=/=homogeneity. Furthermore, the random nature of the game has nothing to do with balance (that's just an issue with the poorly written and tactically shallow nature of the game itself).

Have you read the 6th edition rule book? Do you know how many options there are to change the game, simply buy using a few dice rolls? that Space Marine Statue terrain piece is something exciting every game! Black Library is publishing books that make me want to start new armies all the time! I can use more models, more often. I have hours of value because I make the game valuable.
It's like I said, You have options against hard lists. Necron flyers versus Black Templars? Guess what 6's happen. I played that very match up yesterday and WON. I got hot dice and it was all over.
You're citing an army from years ago that got updated and is now good It has tonnes of options and flavour.
The game is Supposed to be random, That's why it has dice. the dice are supposed to determine success of failure. You can tip the balance. But fate is always supposed to decide. That's how epic things like a Space marine Sgt with a power axe killing wraith lord. If you can't accept that. If you can hand over that little piece of your ego for the sake of fun, You are probably not mature enough to play this game. I don't think it's to expensive. I think it's priced fairly. I think the kits are worth every penny. I bought a land-raider at the new price and spent 36 hours on it. Building painting and playing. 36 hours of use. For 100 bucks.

But if you're so upset you want to stop playing please do. Negative players are the worst. If you can't lose with something approaching grace don't bother playing. I play as often as I can and can say I hate whiney players more than I have ever been upset with the rules.

Saying chess isn't balanced is the exact reason GW shouldn't have a rep. How ungreatful are you? Do you seriously think any sane person would allow themselves to be harassed by a group that clearly can't ever be pleased? Chess is about as fair a game as you can get and you bashed it without a second thought. Maybe Solitaire is more your game?

I've no words, but I guess a picture is worth a thousand so here goes:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
you'd never have a person like that on a forum like this- besides that wasn't about hearing anyone's opinion that was a job thing

I think, if they actually had someone come here, even still, I have some faith people could carry on more respectfully.
It was the stuff people felt and some knew was wrong, and such, made them mad.
Simply the mere gesture of someone from GW asking an opinion from the community, I think people would be mature

You have to be kidding me right?

Have you actually READ these forums?!

Oh boy, Fafnir, you've got a live one here.

Good luck!

How is chess not balanced?

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
How is chess not balanced?

Queens are broken. Duh!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh boy, Fafnir, you've got a live one here.

Good luck!

You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

battleranch wrote:
Have you read the 6th edition rule book?

Yes. And played quite a few games with it before I decided that 6th edition was not enjoyable in the least, and quit 40k.

Do you know how many options there are to change the game, simply buy using a few dice rolls?

If you wanted to have the option to change the game and its outcomes, why not leave it up to player involvement? 6th edition takes many options away from the player and puts them in the dice. One of the major reasons I decided to leave 40k is that I felt that I wasn't playing an actual game, so much as I was just rolling a lot of dice.

It's like I said, You have options against hard lists. Necron flyers versus Black Templars? Guess what 6's happen. I played that very match up yesterday and WON. I got hot dice and it was all over.

"Getting obscenely lucky" does not count as a viable strategy against anything. You didn't win because you played well, you won because you rolled well. It doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely one-sided matchup that is not fun to play. Being forced to rely on nearly impossible odds to win is horrible game design.

You're citing an army from years ago that got updated

Irrelevant to the point I was making. It was Daemonhunters years ago, now it's Black Templar and Tau. Soon it will be another army. The point is, I'm no stranger to losing games, or making due with what I have, but it doesn't change the fact that some armies are inherently far better than others, and some armies simply do not have the options available to be competitive, no matter how blessed your tactical acumen is.

and is now good It has tonnes of options and flavour.

It's 'good' in the sense that it can win now. As for "tonnes of options and flavour," that's very debatable. The only worthwhile assassin now is the Vindicare (Callidus and Eversor, you shall be missed), Inquisitors lost almost all of their customization, not to mention the loss of most Inquisitional elements in favour of making the codex more SPACE MARINES BUT GREY.
Besides, when it comes down to it, the entire codex comes down to two basic strategies: Spam psycannons/psyriflemen, or spam shooty henchmen/psyriflemen. There are different loadouts available, but at the end of the day, those are the only two real play styles worth noting.

As for flavour, let's not even get started. If this is "tonnes of flavour," I'd rather have the faint hint that the old codex gave us, because the new 'flavour' is horrendous.

The game is Supposed to be random, That's why it has dice. the dice are supposed to determine success of failure.

The dice determine almost everything. There are plenty of other games out there that use dice for determining success or failure, but do not feel nearly as inherently random, and require much more in terms of player input, and give much more for that input. As it is, in 40k 6th edition, what you're given to work with is random, what you do is random, and your outcomes are random. After you've made your army list, the level of player input is low at best, which is why I compare the game to yahtzee.

If you can hand over that little piece of your ego for the sake of fun, You are probably not mature enough to play this game.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ego, but simply the fact that the game is no longer fun to play. Winning or losing itself isn't important, so long as it's something involving and entertaining, but as it stands, the only reason I'm there is to roll dice, in which case, I might as well not be there at all.

I don't think it's to expensive. I think it's priced fairly. I think the kits are worth every penny. I bought a land-raider at the new price and spent 36 hours on it. Building painting and playing. 36 hours of use. For 100 bucks.

Time=/=Value, and I hate such comparisons. I could watch the entirety of Coronation Street, and that's likely a literal eternity of use, but that doesn't necessarily make the time spent of value.

But if you're so upset you want to stop playing please do. Negative players are the worst.

See, here's the thing. I didn't want to necessarily stop playing. I really did want to enjoy 40k and 6th edition, but I simply found it to be unenjoyable. I want to like 40k and everything about it, that's why I'm here. We're not just haters for the sake of hating, everyone here wants 40k to succeed. But the problem is that the way the game is managed and the company that manage it are alienating us. I don't like the direction 40k is moving in, and I'm very concerned, because I used to enjoy it so much. Myself and others are not being negative for the sake of being negative, but because we care about this game and this world and we don't want to see it go the way it is going.

If you can't lose with something approaching grace don't bother playing.

Fun fact: none of my arguments were ever about actually winning or losing itself, or my record. If you must know, of the nine games of 6th edition I played, I only lost two of them. My issues have to do with the lack of involvement and fun I had while doing it.

Saying chess isn't balanced is the exact reason GW shouldn't have a rep. ... Chess is about as fair a game as you can get and you bashed it without a second thought. Maybe Solitaire is more your game?

This is a factual statement. Chess is not perfectly balanced, do to the nature of turn order. The white player will typically have the advantage, due to going first. Keep in mind though, perfect balance is almost never actually attainable. What I do want to see is an actual effort towards it, something GW clearly does not have.

A simple way to even get down the path to balance would be to give every army the tools to actually beat other armies. As it currently stands, in some matchups, some factions literally have no viable options available.

How ungreatful are you?

Considering that I'm paying as much as I do, there's no point in being grateful at all. They are a business, not a charity or act of good will. As the consumer, I (and you, and everyone else) owe them absolutely nothing.

Do you seriously think any sane person would allow themselves to be harassed by a group that clearly can't ever be pleased?

Considering that Games Workshop is a publicly traded company with a majority of it's ownership going to investment groups, yes, actually, I do.

 Fafnir wrote:
You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

You should too, and you should be greatful for it!

And can we please try and turn "Guess what 6's happen" into a meme? I know forcing a meme is bad, but with great comments like that just kinda have to!

 MightyGodzilla wrote:
How is chess not balanced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
You think he takes the koolaid via IV?

You should too, and you should be greatful for it!

And can we please try and turn "Guess what 6's happen" into a meme? I know forcing a meme is bad, but with great comments like that just kinda have to!

Guess what, sixes happen. YOLO!

I really like 6th edition, though.

Which one of us should GW listen to?

The ones that buy their goods.

Well Fafnir. I don't believe you. I don't think you actually like 40k. If you liked it you would ride out the changes and wait for the expansions.
Bad match ups happen, sometimes the other guy is just better than you. Deal with it. You have the tools to play the game. The armies will change in time and you're army will get it's moment in the sun.

GW is doing exactly what it needs to do. It's making money and releasing products. The game works. Minor hiccups pop up but with very little clear-headed thinking you can work through them. T
hey don't need a Community Rep. If you really want to be heard, buy shares. Maybe try and get a job with them. I don't care. Do SOMETHING. Your boycott isn't going to work. For everyone of you that stops they bring in a new player; that's their business model. You should realize you are expendable to them. You're not going to buy 2 or 3 armies any more. Why should they care about what you say? You're not moving the company forward. If anything you are dragging it back. Embrace change, seek it out through positive means and for gods sake be patience. Change with GW isn't going to happen over night. If you loved 40k you would actually be trying something not petty and vindictive. But We'll wait a year and I can promise you my positive and patience approach will yield more results than your boycott.

battleranch wrote:
Well Fafnir. I don't believe you. I don't think you actually like 40k. If you liked it you would ride out the changes and wait for the expansions.

Your argument is a pile of garbage. As if you have any authority to administer some sort of seal of approval on who is and isn't a true 40k fan. You're making distinctions drawn from nothing but your own tiny, pedantic viewpoint and yet you have the gall to act like some kind of arbiter and gatekeeper for an entire hobby? Kindly refrain from making similar statements in the future, for all our sakes, because you make a fool of yourself for saying them and a fool of us for having to listen to them.

I have been waiting for gw to change back into a decent company for about 10 years.

They used to have a loyal base of customers who bought regulaly bought their products, and would buy multiple armies. They would then bring in new people and try to keep them loyal, making them money. There is a sayin in business '20%of loyal customers make up 50% of sales'

Because of the direction they have taken, alientaing the loyal customers they are likely to mkae less money, if the loyal customers stop buying eveything. Less people buying stuff=less profits.

battleranch wrote:
Embrace change

And buy a lot of liquid greenstuff to fill all the bubblez, in the end, like the other chap said dont forget to be gratefull about the time you spend doing it