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.

Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

The CSM Hellbrute was altered because the cost was wrong in English prints of the codex.

Well...from what I've seen GW's FAQs are mostly clarifying questions about the books. To me, it seems to be an indication that GW is trying to keep 6th around a bit longer and add a little bit of stability to the game. Personally, I think that 7th Ed is 6th with the current FAQs applied and few rules deleted, but mostly unchanged. To your suggestion of "sticking with the RAW/codex...People have been SPECIFICALLY complaining about GW not updating rules between editions. I've seen it on this forum as well as in talking to other players, so I'd say the current system is a bit better.

If you look at your specific examples, you'll see that most of them are basic clarifications:
1. Hellbrute was covered by the previous post
2. Darkshroud was ambiguous...did it have the 'shrouded" or "stealth" special rule? The FAQ clarified that.
3. It was unclear if the Dreadknight's sword was a "dreadnought close combat weapon". The FAQ established that it was. To be fair, it could easily be argued that it was flat out buffed but when it was replacing a DCCW it really didn't make much sense as an upgrade as it was.
4. Well, yes; the WD supplements were to sell models. But it should be obvious that eventually they'll be codified, WD has on a couple of occasions now been a testbed of sorts for product lines and rules (hopefully you sisters players out there get your codex...someday). Quite frankly, flyer rules have been around since apocalypse though. If your complaint is that you got a codex for something that was only in WD...I'll refer you to the sisters players. I'll also point out that the rules really didn't change that much; at least no more than any other unit does between editions/codices.

That being said, yes games workshop does things purely to increase profit. But I don't think as a whole that the FAQs are a bad thing.

The Helbrute was 5pts too expensive in the English book- ie, it was a misprint.

2- Again, misprint. In its own Stealth-granting ability in explcitly prevents self-protection using stealth.

3- That is simply following rules. In 5th it couldn't gain +1 attack because it had 2 different weapons. In 6th it could. In 5th, DCCW only doubled a walker's strength. In 6th it is simply StrX2 AP2.

4-Rules change, deal with it. Its the way the game is designed. The same could be said of Codexes always being updatedp.

wufai wrote:
Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

I completely agree with you. The Daemon White Dwarf update was the biggest "bait and switch" I have ever seen from GW. There is no excuse, professional game designers wrote it. They new exactly what they were releasing.
They did it for a period of 6 months to maximize sales, and than the Codex released completely changing those units.

GW has done this 2 me at least 3 times.

NoArmorSave wrote:

wufai wrote:
Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

I completely agree with you. The Daemon White Dwarf update was the biggest "bait and switch" I have ever seen from GW. There is no excuse, professional game designers wrote it. They new exactly what they were releasing.
They did it for a period of 6 months to maximize sales, and than the Codex released completely changing those units.

GW has done this 2 me at least 3 times.

If you were a sensible player and didn't max spam units, only picking up a unit of each this wouldn't be a problem, the new book would of toned them down but still made that one unit include. If people invested used car monies in making an OMFG unit and expected nothing would ever change then really... Umm I have beautiful coastal land in Arizona that I think is in your price range.

Screamers and Flamers are balanced now and are worth taking even after the change. While more WAAC players will not max spam them they will see uses. Must like Skullcrushers or the Terrogeist they did a fine job keeping them relevant even through their book releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the FAQ process I can agree GW's implementation is uneven at the best of times. Things need legitimate clarification and being done by the publisher is the best source. To their credit GW will very rarely make a point to re-balance models in any overt way.

 lazarian wrote:

NoArmorSave wrote:

wufai wrote:
Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

I completely agree with you. The Daemon White Dwarf update was the biggest "bait and switch" I have ever seen from GW. There is no excuse, professional game designers wrote it. They new exactly what they were releasing.
They did it for a period of 6 months to maximize sales, and than the Codex released completely changing those units.

GW has done this 2 me at least 3 times.

If you were a sensible player and didn't max spam units, only picking up a unit of each this wouldn't be a problem, the new book would of toned them down but still made that one unit include. If people invested used car monies in making an OMFG unit and expected nothing would ever change then really... Umm I have beautiful coastal land in Arizona that I think is in your price range.

Screamers and Flamers are balanced now and are worth taking even after the change. While more WAAC players will not max spam them they will see uses. Must like Skullcrushers or the Terrogeist they did a fine job keeping them relevant even through their book releases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to the FAQ process I can agree GW's implementation is uneven at the best of times. Things need legitimate clarification and being done by the publisher is the best source. To their credit GW will very rarely make a point to re-balance models in any overt way.

No. As a competitive tournament player, that is not how the game is played. And GW knows it. It is nothing more than a classic example of "bait and switch".

Text removed.
Reds8n

Wait....

You based an army on a WD article when a new edition of the game was slated for release, what, two months later?

And you did not expect that, maybe, a new Codex for that army might be on the production schedule?

And you've forgotten that GW does not craft a ruleset for a "competitive tournament player", they craft a ruleset for a "cinematic, beer and pretzels" player?

Frankly, GW has as much told you flat out that they don't care how the tournament players play, you're not (currently) the ones their game is targeted towards. This should be obvious by the number of house-rules tournaments put into place in order to make the game somewhat balanced across the board.

 Psienesis wrote:
Wait....

And you've forgotten that GW does not craft a ruleset for a "competitive tournament player", they craft a ruleset for a "cinematic, beer and pretzels" player?

Frankly, GW has as much told you flat out that they don't care how the tournament players play, you're not (currently) the ones their game is targeted towards. This should be obvious by the number of house-rules tournaments put into place in order to make the game somewhat balanced across the board.

Great posts guys, thanks for letting me know some of the accusations (point #1 ) I made of GW is invalid.

Psienesis brought up the core of my concern though. I know GW states their games are make for casual beer and pretzels player, so they are perfectly fine with altering the rules to sell more units. as a DA player myself. the flyers are not that good ruleswise so I'm sure GW will makes rules changes within the year to OP the DA flyers and entice me to buy. HOWEVER, many of us are tournament players or at least more serious than the 'beer and pretzel' level. Adepticon, BAO, and other high level tournamenst reflects this. My conern with the current GW attitude to altering rules at such a quite pace, no regard for balanced gameplay and random FAQ explainations will cause 40K players to leave this game and play other games with more concrate rules.

Most FAQ alteration are not random. They're to bring older codex's inline with newer rules or to correct misprinted information and clear up ambiguous rules.

FAQ's are vital for the life of an edition.

Is it really so hard to print out the relevant FAQ for your army?

Supplements are just that, supplements. You don't need them to play the core game, indeed most tournaments don't use them. They provide extra rules and scenarios for a change of pace in your games and are entirely optional.

Well, you have two options, really:

1.) Make a rules set and scarcely change it. You get stability, but if you screw up, then people are going to have to live with your mistakes for YEARS. Furthermore, as new stuff comes out elsewhere, you're likely going to get left behind.

2.) You update your rules continuously. This gives you the flexibility you need, but does always sort of leave in doubt what the rules actually ARE at any given time, as they tend to change.

So, the question you have to ask yourself is which is more likely, that GW will write perfect rules, or that you're going to have no possible way of figuring out when new FAQs and other bits of content come out?

I think most people here would rather approach 2 rather than 1.

 Ailaros wrote:
I think most people here would rather approach 2 rather than 1.

That depends.

For GW? Option 2. They aren't competent enough to write good rules that won't need updating, so the only slight possibility of ever having good rules is to have constant updates.

For a good company? Option 1. Do it right the first time and have a nice stable game. For example, WOTC rarely makes changes to the core rules of MTG and only makes meaningful changes (as opposed to minor cleanup of things only high-level judges even notice) every few years at most. That's not because they're lazy about it, it's because they do the job right the first time and only release rules once they're absolutely sure everything is working properly.

NoArmorSave wrote:

wufai wrote:
Hi all,

I am posting this to ask your opinions about the way GW has altered the rules to 6th edition. I understand it is their game and they do alter rules in hopes to sell more models. What I am concern is that with the 'I can do what I want' attitude it will ruin the enjoyment of the game. Here are a few examples I found in the 8 or so months after 6th ed released.

1. Points alterations - The CSM Hellbrute point cost is lowered in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
2. "Wrong Rules?" - the DA Darkshroud has an ability listed on the codex then taken away in an FAQ for a 6th edition codex
3. FAQ sells models - the GK FAQ V1.2 have a ruling that gives Dreadknight S10 A4 with re-roll to hit and wound when equiped with a sword. Normal stats without sword is S6 A3. This goes against normal 40K fulff and I can't understand the logic to justifly it.
4. Suppliments? - The Daemons got a WD booklet a few months ago to introduce new models. Flyers also got a WD articule with rules introduction. 6 months later both got a new suppliment with altered rules for respective models

When I play a game of 40K. I expect with the 6th ed rulbook and a army codex I will be able to play with any opponent until a new edition or new codex release comes out. I will also accept GW to release FAQs for ambigious rules clarification, especially codex made for 4th/5th ed. However the reality now is that to play a SM army. I need the 6th ed rulebook, SM codex, FAQ, WD with flyers rules (recently changed to Death from Skies book). I believe the general 40K players will suffer if we let this tread to require more and more paid suppliments to have the most updated rules of a game. Please note I'm not bashing alternative game types such as Apoc or campaign books, just additions to the core game.

My thoughts to improve this situation is to let the rules and codex be final versions players should abide to. For #1 and #2 above, just let them have what the codex gives. If an unit is OP, let it be until a new codex or new game edtion release to balance the rules. For #3, I really can't trust GW is making good ruling anymore and believe they release FAQ only to sell models, not helping us players out. It is my drean that if the gaming community would ban GW FAQ altogether and use something else like the INAT FAQ which is written by gamers for gamers. As to #4 I don't have a solution, but if we allow this to continue we will be get 'special squad supplments' and need to buy rules again and again before a new codex comes out.

What are your thoughts regarding how GW alter 40k rules?

I completely agree with you. The Daemon White Dwarf update was the biggest "bait and switch" I have ever seen from GW. There is no excuse, professional game designers wrote it. They new exactly what they were releasing.
They did it for a period of 6 months to maximize sales, and than the Codex released completely changing those units.

GW has done this 2 me at least 3 times.

That's not how spending works. If people buy flamers because their new rules are awesome, then they're buying flamers instead of buying a LOC or pink horrors. Making certain units more powerful doesn't mean GW are making more money off them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

For a good company? Option 1. Do it right the first time and have a nice stable game. For example, WOTC rarely makes changes to the core rules of MTG and only makes meaningful changes (as opposed to minor cleanup of things only high-level judges even notice) every few years at most. That's not because they're lazy about it, it's because they do the job right the first time and only release rules once they're absolutely sure everything is working properly.

You should write to GW and tell them that. Clearly it hasn't occurred to them to make a perfect ruleset.

 BryllCream wrote:
That's not how spending works. If people buy flamers because their new rules are awesome, then they're buying flamers instead of buying a LOC or pink horrors. Making certain units more powerful doesn't mean GW are making more money off them.

That's true for an individual purchase, but not in the long run. The bait and switch strategy works because they get you to buy unit X instead of unit Y one month and then unit Y next month when unit X gets nerfed. So in the end, instead of picking the one you like from a balanced pair of options and using it forever you have to buy both of them.

You should write to GW and tell them that. Clearly it hasn't occurred to them to make a perfect ruleset.

You say that with sarcasm, but it's actually true. GW is focused on making a "beer and pretzels" game and doesn't see any need to invest extra effort on making perfect rules, while GW management doesn't care how terrible the rules are as long as 12 year olds are still buying space marines and short-term profits are still good. GW's rules suck because of a lack of effort, not because it would be impossible to do it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
That's not how spending works. If people buy flamers because their new rules are awesome, then they're buying flamers instead of buying a LOC or pink horrors. Making certain units more powerful doesn't mean GW are making more money off them.

That's true for an individual purchase, but not in the long run. The bait and switch strategy works because they get you to buy unit X instead of unit Y one month and then unit Y next month when unit X gets nerfed. So in the end, instead of picking the one you like from a balanced pair of options and using it forever you have to buy both of them.

So instead of buying x or y, they buy x and y? What do they refrain from buying in the latter that they could afford to in the former? The GW hobby is by and large paid for with disposable income, which is set. The fact that a new model is OP doesn't mean my pay packet's gotten bigger.

You say that with sarcasm, but it's actually true. GW is focused on making a "beer and pretzels" game and doesn't see any need to invest extra effort on making perfect rules, while GW management doesn't care how terrible the rules are as long as 12 year olds are still buying space marines and short-term profits are still good. GW's rules suck because of a lack of effort, not because it would be impossible to do it.

12 year olds buying starter sets is *not* where the profits are. They go after the 20 and 30 somethings who aren't tied down to a family and still have a bit of money to spare.

It also does amuse me that you casually mention a "perfect" ruleset. Philosophers the world over have been contemplating the meaning of perfection for thousands of years, but you expdct GW to come up with it in a couple of years. I'd sure love a perfect ruleset, just like i'd love a perfect sandwich, or a perfect world. You keep chasing that dream, slugger.

 BryllCream wrote:
So instead of buying x or y, they buy x and y? What do they refrain from buying in the latter that they could afford to in the former? The GW hobby is by and large paid for with disposable income, which is set. The fact that a new model is OP doesn't mean my pay packet's gotten bigger.

Your pay is set, but the fact that you're spending 100% of your disposable income on GW isn't. If you have a choice between equally balanced units X and Y you can just choose to buy one of them and be content with what you have. On the other hand, if GW pulls a bait and switch on you, you buy unit X immediately, and then when unit X gets nerfed into uselessness you're forced to also buy unit Y (and throw unit X in the trash) if you want to remain competitive with your friends who also bought the latest overpowered unit. You can't just be content with what you have and spend your disposable income on something else, you have to come back to GW.

12 year olds buying starter sets is *not* where the profits are. They go after the 20 and 30 somethings who aren't tied down to a family and still have a bit of money to spare.

Not really. It's pretty well known that GW's main target market is younger kids, and the "three purchase" (initial, birthday, christmas) model is their ideal sales goal. That's why there's a huge emphasis on selling as many starter sets as possible to new players instead of getting stable sales to older players who can maintain a long-term interest in the game.

It also does amuse me that you casually mention a "perfect" ruleset. Philosophers the world over have been contemplating the meaning of perfection for thousands of years, but you expdct GW to come up with it in a couple of years. I'd sure love a perfect ruleset, just like i'd love a perfect sandwich, or a perfect world. You keep chasing that dream, slugger.

Yeah, it's completely unrealistic, which is why WOTC has also failed to do it and every new edition of MTG results in wild flailing around in search of something new to fix the last round of desperate flailing around for something new.

Oh wait, they've succeeded in creating a pretty good approximation of a perfect ruleset and in a lot less time than 40k has been around.

Regarding MTG - I haven't played since 1996, but back then there were plenty of flaws. Moxes, Black Lotus, Dual Lands etc... were all in Alpha, but then removed. As the game evolved, there were many "underpowered" cards that never get used in competetive play, including the entire Fallen Empires set. There are also cards that are no longer available from later sets. Lightning Bolt, for example, was a single red mana to do three damage, and even as I played, was removed from most tournament play. Others that I think remember being removed include Serra Angels, Mountain Lions and hypnotic spectre.

Now, as I say, I have not played for a LONG time, but even in 1996 there were at least three types of tournament - Unlimited, where it was anything goes, limited, which kept you to the most recently released sets and closed, where you just got handed a pre-made deck at the start of the tournament. My impression from the small amount I have followed MTG since then is that there are now many more variants, each designed to suit a particular type of player's playstyle. Bearing that in mind, it would be hard to suggest that any one of those formats is "perfect".

A further point to consider is that WotC have always supported a tournament format for their games and have specifically aimed to make it "balanced" within each of those formats. For a long time, GW have not even pretended to support tournaments. They do not regard "the hobby" as a competetive pastime. You may think it should be, but it is their IP, and if you do not like it, go find a game that suits you, or live with the fact that within a competetive setting, the game will be flawed from your perspective.

As for "a lot less time" - M:tG has been around since 1993 - 20 years. W40K has been around since 1987 - 26 years. Yes, there is a difference, but hardly a huge one.

 Fifty wrote:
Regarding MTG - I haven't played since 1996, but back then there were plenty of flaws. Moxes, Black Lotus, Dual Lands etc... were all in Alpha, but then removed. As the game evolved, there were many "underpowered" cards that never get used in competetive play, including the entire Fallen Empires set. There are also cards that are no longer available from later sets. Lightning Bolt, for example, was a single red mana to do three damage, and even as I played, was removed from most tournament play. Others that I think remember being removed include Serra Angels, Mountain Lions and hypnotic spectre.

But I'm talking about the core rules of the game, not the individual cards which were designed from day one to rotate in and out of the game. There's a huge difference between not including lightning bolt in the newest set (and it was never supposed to be in every single set) and, say, changing the core rules so that you start with 10 cards in your hand.

And yes, there were some mistakes based on WOTC expecting stuff like black lotuses to be incredibly rare since nobody would buy more than a few packs of cards, and the internet and netdecking not being around yet. But once the game had been around for a while the rules converged on a nice stable "perfect" answer as the developers understood how things were working. Which is what I expect from a good game: the rules don't have to be perfect as soon as the game is invented, but they need to get there eventually.

A further point to consider is that WotC have always supported a tournament format for their games and have specifically aimed to make it "balanced" within each of those formats. For a long time, GW have not even pretended to support tournaments. They do not regard "the hobby" as a competetive pastime. You may think it should be, but it is their IP, and if you do not like it, go find a game that suits you, or live with the fact that within a competetive setting, the game will be flawed from your perspective.

Nonsense. Game balance and well-designed rules are just as important to "casual" players as competitive players. GW's focus on the 'casual' market doesn't excuse their lazy game design.

 Peregrine wrote:


Your pay is set, but the fact that you're spending 100% of your disposable income on GW isn't. If you have a choice between equally balanced units X and Y you can just choose to buy one of them and be content with what you have. On the other hand, if GW pulls a bait and switch on you, you buy unit X immediately, and then when unit X gets nerfed into uselessness you're forced to also buy unit Y (and throw unit X in the trash) if you want to remain competitive with your friends who also bought the latest overpowered unit. You can't just be content with what you have and spend your disposable income on something else, you have to come back to GW.

What? Unless people are willing to skimp on rent to buy GW products, I think that's bollocks. It also flies in the face of actual evidence - terminators and bikes did not get nerfed by the new DA 'dex, Chaos pretty much all got stronger (to varying degrees). The only model that really got nerfed from demons was Fateweaver, which we all knew deserved it. I'd be more inclined to believe you if GW came up with a new Spare Marine codex and said "okay guys, basically tactical squads suck now, instead we have no Strategic Squads that look completely different and cost a tonne more money!".

What actual evidence do you have? It seems to be that you pick and choose 2 units from codexes with 30 or so units in them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not really. It's pretty well known that GW's main target market is younger kids, and the "three purchase" (initial, birthday, christmas) model is their ideal sales goal. That's why there's a huge emphasis on selling as many starter sets as possible to new players instead of getting stable sales to older players who can maintain a long-term interest in the game.

Hey look, more unsubstantiated bs. Let's look at the new releases:

Death From the Skies - £20 for a non-essential, completely optional rulebook. What kind of child is going to buy this when they know full well they don't need it?

Then we have a load of the multi-buy stuff...because apparently the kids you know can afford to drop £100/£200 on plastic models. Yeah they're definitely aimed at kids

Then we have Plague Drones, Heralds etc. HQs, elites, heavies and fasts. None of them are Troops, none of them are required. All of them are pretty expensive, and are clearly (imo) aimed at people who already collect demons, or who have dipped a toe in the water at least, and would be willing to splash money on them (as an aside - just noticed the mono-tzeentch army kit. Payday can't come quickly enough ).

I would also say that this art style:


is aimed at the sort of people who're willing to spend £50 on a fancy rulebook. Certainly not children.

In fact with the rising cost, and rising quality (of rulebooks anyway) of GW in recent years, I'd say they've been moving away from kids towards more mature adults. Certainly I'd bet that most kids who're into 40k won't have more than the starter set and a few boxes of troops.

Yeah, it's completely unrealistic, which is why WOTC has also failed to do it and every new edition of MTG results in wild flailing around in search of something new to fix the last round of desperate flailing around for something new.

Oh wait, they've succeeded in creating a pretty good approximation of a perfect ruleset and in a lot less time than 40k has been around.

I'm going to let other people respond to this. I intuitively regard the notion of anything as "perfect" with a fair bit of reservation, but I know nothing about M:TG.

 BryllCream wrote:
What? Unless people are willing to skimp on rent to buy GW products, I think that's bollocks.

Where are you getting "skimp on rent to buy GW products" from? I'm talking about a case of "buy $50 of GW now and $50 of Infinity later" vs. "buy $50 of GW now and $50 of GW later". I have no idea where you're getting this absurd idea about giving up on basic necessities to feed your GW addiction, or what your point even is with that.

What actual evidence do you have?

Which is more likely:

1) GW somehow thought that the WD demon update was a balanced and reasonable thing to do.

or

2) GW used a WD update to sell models by deliberately making them overpowered tournament winners knowing perfectly well that they'd be nerfed in the upcoming codex.

In fact with the rising cost, and rising quality (of rulebooks anyway) of GW in recent years, I'd say they've been moving away from kids towards more mature adults. Certainly I'd bet that most kids who're into 40k won't have more than the starter set and a few boxes of troops.

*shrug*

I won't bother with this little tangent. Whether or not GW markets more to kids than adults the main point I was making is still true: GW's management doesn't care about poor rule quality as long as short-term sales don't suffer.

I'm going to let other people respond to this. I intuitively regard the notion of anything as "perfect" with a fair bit of reservation, but I know nothing about M:TG.

I don't mean perfect in some ideal philosophical sense, I mean perfect as in settling on a final, stable set of rules. WOTC isn't constantly putting out FAQs and updates because the rules are complete, there's nothing left to update and all possible questions can be answered by reading the relevant rules. MTG may or may not be your ideal game, but it's long past the point where you're having cases of "oops, we'd better fix this asap" every few weeks.

Contrast this to GW where every edition brings dramatic changes, and every release is followed by FAQs and errata to make it work properly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
What? Unless people are willing to skimp on rent to buy GW products, I think that's bollocks.

Where are you getting "skimp on rent to buy GW products" from? I'm talking about a case of "buy $50 of GW now and $50 of Infinity later" vs. "buy $50 of GW now and $50 of GW later". I have no idea where you're getting this absurd idea about giving up on basic necessities to feed your GW addiction, or what your point even is with that.

I think people who collect other minatures are in the minority. Most people in the hobby are exclusively GW.

Interestingly, what you're saying is that GW knowingly compete with other miniature companies - doesn't that break one of the tenants of your anti-GW creed? Regardless, most people buy GW based on how cool the model looks - I think rules aren't so important in peoples' choices, otherwise we'd see every single Imperial Guard army chock full of Vendettas (one of the few units we know GW specifically released to make money).

 Peregrine wrote:

Which is more likely:

1) GW somehow thought that the WD demon update was a balanced and reasonable thing to do.

or

2) GW used a WD update to sell models by deliberately making them overpowered tournament winners knowing perfectly well that they'd be nerfed in the upcoming codex.

3)GW wanted to release new models and didn't want to wait for the new 'dex. Unless the new models, which were cheaper than the old ones, had a higher profit margin than everything else, then what you've said can't be true. Why would GW want people to buy the new, cheaper models? Surely they'd just release new rules so that people would stock up on the old finecast models?

 Peregrine wrote:

*shrug*

I won't bother with this little tangent. Whether or not GW markets more to kids than adults the main point I was making is still true: GW's management doesn't care about poor rule quality as long as short-term sales don't suffer.

GW management also don't care about famine in Africa. What's the point of making little statements like this? It just makes you seem petty and vengeful.

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't mean perfect in some ideal philosophical sense, I mean perfect as in settling on a final, stable set of rules. WOTC isn't constantly putting out FAQs and updates because the rules are complete, there's nothing left to update and all possible questions can be answered by reading the relevant rules. MTG may or may not be your ideal game, but it's long past the point where you're having cases of "oops, we'd better fix this asap" every few weeks.

Contrast this to GW where every edition brings dramatic changes, and every release is followed by FAQs and errata to make it work properly.

As I say I've never been into Magic The Gathering, but going by what I've read on these boards, they're no better than GW.

 BryllCream wrote:
I think people who collect other minatures are in the minority. Most people in the hobby are exclusively GW.

Fine, replace "Infinity" with "buying more beer" or whatever. We're still talking about hobby spending, not whatever ridiculous idea you had about sacrificing rent payments to buy GW stuff.

Interestingly, what you're saying is that GW knowingly compete with other miniature companies - doesn't that break one of the tenants of your anti-GW creed?

Of course they knowingly compete with other miniature companies. They put up a nice public face about the Hobby (tm) and all that, but even GW's current management can't possibly be stupid enough to think that they have no competition.

Regardless, most people buy GW based on how cool the model looks - I think rules aren't so important in peoples' choices, otherwise we'd see every single Imperial Guard army chock full of Vendettas (one of the few units we know GW specifically released to make money).

Where are you playing that Vendettas aren't spammed?

3)GW wanted to release new models and didn't want to wait for the new 'dex. Unless the new models, which were cheaper than the old ones, had a higher profit margin than everything else, then what you've said can't be true. Why would GW want people to buy the new, cheaper models? Surely they'd just release new rules so that people would stock up on the old finecast models?

Try again here? I really don't understand what you're saying. Why would there be any doubt that a new model would have better profit margins than the one it replaces?

GW management also don't care about famine in Africa. What's the point of making little statements like this? It just makes you seem petty and vengeful.

Yeah, how petty of me to expect a company to put out a high-quality project instead of just shoving any random garbage out the door knowing the dedicated fans will still buy it long enough for the CEO to retire. I should stop being so vengeful and be content with whatever GW feels that I deserve.

 Peregrine wrote:


Fine, replace "Infinity" with "buying more beer" or whatever. We're still talking about hobby spending, not whatever ridiculous idea you had about sacrificing rent payments to buy GW stuff.

Hmm. That sort of behaiviour seems odd to me. I'd have thought most people spend a set amount of money on the hobby, before I had a gf I was buying about two boxes a month, maybe a bit less if I was struggling with the painting. If something new game out that I thought was awesome, I'd think "man I can't wait to buy that", I wouldn't cancel a night out, or prevent myself spending money on other things. Certainly this is the same pattern amongst friends - my friend who collects DA didn't go out and spend eight billion pounds when the new stuff came, he stopped buying GW a month before it came out, then bought the codex and a box on the weekend.

Certainly I think there are few people who will make a huge financial purchase because of a model's rules. Are you talking explicitly about the tournament scene? If so you could have the courtesy to mention that you are, as far as I'm concerned it's a blemish on the hobby's good name (no offense to anyone personally of course).

 Peregrine wrote:

Of course they knowingly compete with other miniature companies. They put up a nice public face about the Hobby (tm) and all that, but even GW's current management can't possibly be stupid enough to think that they have no competition.

YMMV. Like many dakka-ites, I'd never heard of Mantic or Warmahordes before I came to dakka. And when I ordered some Mantic Marines, I was shocked at how poor the quality was. They're half the price of Cadians for a reason but that's rather OT. Regardless, I'd be surprised if GW management have heard of what are essentially very small niche games, but I doubt it's important. I suppose the design team probably have.

 Peregrine wrote:


Where are you playing that Vendettas aren't spammed?

Warhammer 40,000. With people who don't play specifically to piss me off. Similarly my necron friend only runs one flier (though still manages to win pretty much every damn game).

 Peregrine wrote:

Try again here? I really don't understand what you're saying. Why would there be any doubt that a new model would have better profit margins than the one it replaces?

Probably because it costs less?

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, how petty of me to expect a company to put out a high-quality project instead of just shoving any random garbage out the door knowing the dedicated fans will still buy it long enough for the CEO to retire. I should stop being so vengeful and be content with whatever GW feels that I deserve.

...you've lost me here. I'm going to ignore everything else that you post in this thread if you insist that GW are "shoving any random garbage out the door". It's fine if people don't like GW but with that sort of attitude you really do sound like the sort of person that it would be fruitless to engage in conversation with. You sound like me when I was 16, except replace GW with The Labour Party

 BryllCream wrote:
I'd have thought most people spend a set amount of money on the hobby

Fixed amount of hobby spending in general: yes.

Fixed amount of spending for a particular hobby: no. In my experience people have a total hobby budget which gets divided up between 40k, other miniature games, video games, airplane rentals, etc. If GW releases something interesting and I still have money left, great, off to the FLGS. If it's great weather and I have money left, great, off to the airport. Every hobby is competing for the same limited pool of money, so things like "I need to get this new unit if I want to keep up" are a factor in deciding which hobby gets first pick out of the pool.

Certainly I think there are few people who will make a huge financial purchase because of a model's rules. Are you talking explicitly about the tournament scene? If so you could have the courtesy to mention that you are, as far as I'm concerned it's a blemish on the hobby's good name (no offense to anyone personally of course).

Not specifically the tournament scene, though they certainly act like that. Even "casual" players can be driven by powerful rules.

And it's not about huge purchases, it's about the sum of lots of individual purchases. You don't need one player buying $500 worth of overpowered models, you're happy to sell a $50 overpowered model to each of ten different players.

Regardless, I'd be surprised if GW management have heard of what are essentially very small niche games, but I doubt it's important. I suppose the design team probably have.

I'd be very surprised if they haven't. You didn't hear about them because you're just a customer. Higher management's job is to keep track of things like "who are we competing with, what is our strategy, and how well is it working". If GW's management really aren't even aware of other games then the shareholders need to replace them with someone who isn't going to be suicidally stupid with their money.

Warhammer 40,000. With people who don't play specifically to piss me off. Similarly my necron friend only runs one flier (though still manages to win pretty much every damn game).

Lucky you. In my experience it didn't take long for necron players to figure out that flyers win games and even just random pickup games have at least 2-3 of them.

...you've lost me here. I'm going to ignore everything else that you post in this thread if you insist that GW are "shoving any random garbage out the door". It's fine if people don't like GW but with that sort of attitude you really do sound like the sort of person that it would be fruitless to engage in conversation with. You sound like me when I was 16, except replace GW with The Labour Party

Sorry, but GW's rules ARE "any random garbage". They're appallingly low quality. Forget game balance even (which is awful, but let's be 'beer and pretzels' players) the rules are full of ambiguous situations, poorly defined terms, careless wording, obvious typos, etc. We're talking about stuff that even minimal playtesting would catch, so the only conclusion is that GW just doesn't care enough to put out a better product. They're blatantly shoveling out half-finished products because they know people will still buy the models.

Now, maybe I'm just used to MTG where rule changes are pretty much nonexistent and you never have to have a long forum debate about how the game works, but it's just shocking to me that supposedly professional game designers working for the industry leader would produce such a minimal-effort product and still have a job.

I've said I'm not going to respond to your trolling. Let's just let the OP get his thread back eh.

@Peregrine I'm usually on the opposite of your POV on some issues but what you've said so far in this thread about how ambigious GW rules are. It's all on point.

I've play MTG hardcore for awhile and moving from that to 40k, the massive grey area that is their rules in comparison is shocking. GW doesn't even have keywords that span all books. Something as simple as "target" shouldn't be confused with another meaning when going from a codex to the BRB.

@OP I do not believe they change rules to make profit, they don't even know how their rules interact with each other. It's all a shot in the dark. However, I did think they change/make rules for profit but than the DA release proved that wrong. My meta is fairly competitive and 0 DA flyers have been sold at my LGS. I've talked to the owner about it.

That's why rules should be free and put online.

Books can be renewed once in a while with the amendments and stuff or basically more fluff instead.

The BRB changes so much from edition to edition and not really addressing problems that were originally there.
They should improve the BRB by integrating FAQs into it for the "next edition" instead of revamping majority of the stuff.

It's like infinity essentially.


Codexes makes the least sense, you're playing a game where you have to guess your opponents army's rules if you don't buy their book or have to pull some tricks off to get a hold of the rules.

I think changing rules and selling models just happens to be a coincidence, and to be honest card games are waaaay severe than that.

Just throwing this out there, but saying that M:TG has a better ruleset than 40k is like saying a child doing paint by numbers is better than Picasso. Its a very simple ruleset, therefor, easy to "perfect" (just using everyones favorite word here) I think the flyer rules alone in 40k take longer to learn then that whole game.

And as far as competition goes.. GW blows any other tabletop game out of the water. Really the only hobby that even remotely comes close (that appeals to the same kind of people) is in fact M:TG. But those two games are so different, they'll never rob sales from one another.

rbacus wrote:
Just throwing this out there, but saying that M:TG has a better ruleset than 40k is like saying a child doing paint by numbers is better than Picasso. Its a very simple ruleset, therefor, easy to "perfect" (just using everyones favorite word here) I think the flyer rules alone in 40k take longer to learn then that whole game.

And as far as competition goes.. GW blows any other tabletop game out of the water. Really the only hobby that even remotely comes close (that appeals to the same kind of people) is in fact M:TG. But those two games are so different, they'll never rob sales from one another.

When is the next competition hosted by GW taking place? Next week? Oh...

The rules for 40k and MTG are not compairable because they are for different game types. They are simple to learn the general game, but if you went into a tournement you'd be eaten alive for all the missed triggers and card resolutions. Where 40k is "beer and pretzels". "Do I have cover?" "I dunno, do you? Heck... I'll give it to you buddy."

And the thought that new releases are for new customers is kinda crazy. When someone walks into a GW for the first time, everything is new. The intent (however poorly executed) is for the returning customers, us.

I do agree that they need a bit more stability though. They need to stop coming out with new editions and codexes, and balance the existing ones. The tournemant scene could be utalized as a tool. Basically the biggest play-testing group possible. If anything is over or under powered, then it will show. And at the same time that they are balancing that stuff, listen to the "beer & pretzle" guys. Because ultimately, thats how they want the game played. Tournemants will let you know if the rules work, and everyone else lets you know if the rules are fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know they aren't compareable. I was trying to point that out cuz everyone else on the thread seemed to be trying to compare them. But I definitely agree that M:TG has a much higher learning curve. I'll tell you right now that I'd be eaten alive in that scene. (I know this, because I was crushed by a person previously eaten alive in a tournemant. lol) However, I hope we can agree that they havn't needed the rules adjustments because of a simpler base ruleset.