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.

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
If you detatch the neckbeard rage and look at GW as an actual customer, there's no real reason to get angry over them.

And if people were actually getting angry, that might be a valid

I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

This is a hobby.
If it makes me angry I will drop it like a hot rock.
I have thousands invested in this IP.
I have some worry my supply might go out of buisness or produce less product I would want.
I give customer feedback hoping a correction is in the works.
I continue and find I get distracted by other product more than theirs.
No anger, just find it strange that I can get a fully decked out Xwing game with both factions for the price of a small 40k force and have more fun, less rules confusion, no proxies a "superior" product.

yeah that x-wing game looks cool, waiting for it to get more minis

 Monster Rain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
If you detatch the neckbeard rage and look at GW as an actual customer, there's no real reason to get angry over them.

And if people were actually getting angry, that might be a valid

I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

Indeed. There are a few haters on this website that are fully foaming with bearded fury. It's painfully obvious that they take the whole thing far too seriously.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
If you detatch the neckbeard rage and look at GW as an actual customer, there's no real reason to get angry over them.

And if people were actually getting angry, that might be a valid

I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

Indeed. There are a few haters on this website that are fully foaming with bearded fury. It's painfully obvious that they take the whole thing far too seriously.

Key word being few though.

My barometer is if I agree with some people on some subjects, then can disagree with them in other threads, I'm probably somewhere near the middle.

People occasionally seem to perceive me as being more annoyed/angry/upset than I am though. The truth is I seldom have any emotional involvement in what I'm writing in my posts, but perhaps seem to have emotive language choices.

Unless someone is apparently being wilfully ignorant though, then I do get irritated, but the that happens IRL too!

 azreal13 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
If you detatch the neckbeard rage and look at GW as an actual customer, there's no real reason to get angry over them.

And if people were actually getting angry, that might be a valid

I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

Indeed. There are a few haters on this website that are fully foaming with bearded fury. It's painfully obvious that they take the whole thing far too seriously.

Key word being few though.

My barometer is if I agree with some people on some subjects, then can disagree with them in other threads, I'm probably somewhere near the middle.

People occasionally seem to perceive me as being more annoyed/angry/upset than I am though. The truth is I seldom have any emotional involvement in what I'm writing in my posts, but perhaps seem to have emotive language choices.

Unless someone is apparently being wilfully ignorant though, then I do get irritated, but the that happens IRL too!

Oh yeah I agree with you. I reckon I can count on two hands the people I would say have let their hobby affect their sanity. You are a pretty vocal GW critic, but I certainly wouldn't put your posts up there with the wacky ones, feth, I agree with 50% of what you say, and thats my point! Some of the fethers rage at me for saying measured things in GWs defence, and call me a "white knight" despite the fact I spend just as much time slagging them off as praising them.

In fact, probably more. I like.. lets see.. about half of their models, about half of their fluff, and thats it.

I hate, all of their corporate gak, their advertising lunacy, their needless, unfair, incessant law-suits, their fething up of all the specialist games, their whole last edition of fantasy, their mental prices, and the worthless rag that we know as white dwarf, which is so bad I would feel ripped off if I shoplifted a copy.

And yet, say "Oh I like plenty of their models" and some of the freaks on here jump on me like they just caught me tugging Jervis off in their spare room.

Basically mate, a good way to tell if someone needs to start playing connect 4 instead, is if they are always arguing with me, because I am mega squared away and sensible.

Riight.

Thing is, you call me a vocal GW critic, but if I am, I am reluctantly.

I get no joy from putting the boot in, I'm not waiting to jump on the slightest foot wrong.

Its more like the sense of frustration/disappointment you'd feel if you popped out of your office for 10 minutes, only to return to find the promising young work experience lad had set fire to the photocopier and molested the secretary. By accident.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or possibly the other way round

Azreal I'm pretty sure he just said you aren't one of the lunatic fringe that he's referring to and that he agrees with a lot of your criticisms.

Didn't he just say he was going to set fire to a photo-copier and molest someone?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Azreal I'm pretty sure he just said you aren't one of the lunatic fringe that he's referring to and that he agrees with a lot of your criticisms.

You're correct.

I then replied that if I am critical I am critical reluctantly, not out of a desire to be critical

I then tried to explain in a humorous manner the feeling of frustration I get when GW do something I percieve as daft or counter productive.

Honestly, I'm wasted on you lot.

I thought your post was pretty funny, and I got what you meant about being a reluctant critic.

I understood mate.. but leave the fething funnies to me Az eh?

 Monster Rain wrote:
I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

'Seem to be' would seem to be the key here.

It's very easy to read the written word and imbue it with more emotion than is actually there. I see very, very little on this site, at least outside of YMDC or OT, that look like people being genuinely angry.

What I do see a lot of is people seeing a post that disagrees with their point of view and just writing it off as mindless 'hating'. Apparently on the internet, it's next to impossible to disagree with someone without being angry about it.


Spend more time responding to the actual words on the page and less time trying to ascribe motives to them, and suddenly the internet becomes a much less confrontational place.

There are posts in this very thread that really couldn't be interpreted any other way than angry.

But you already knew that. Nice straw man though!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
I understood mate.. but leave the fething funnies to me Az eh?

There may have been some sort of UK conversational subtext that I didn't pick up on.

 Peregrine wrote:

NickOnwezen wrote:
The tiny little gamers edition hard cover rule book was made entirely because GW actually listened to what we as gamers want.

I disagree. This is an example of GW's failure to understand their market. We wanted the option to buy the starter set rulebook separately, not an expensive and bulky hardcover book. But instead of providing the product people want to buy GW produced a new book that is worse than the cheaper (at ebay prices) starter rulebook for the sole purpose of being able to sell it at a higher price.

May I humbly disagree with your disagreeance! In my personal opinion the small hardback book is not much larger then the booklet that comes with dark vengeqance nor much thicker then a codex. They succesfully took the hardback tome that might aswell have the symbol of khorne on its cover to accurately represent its true function, namely crushing the skulls of your opponents when a rules disp[ute comes up. And made a portable, stylish and space saving version of the book with a superior print quality and the resilience of a hardback book. The price tag, like that of the codexes is indeed a bit high for my tastes, but in an edition where they are moving away from softcover books to all hardback codexes this honestly should have been what they included into the dark vengeance set to begin with. I personally stll prefer the larger price tag on codici and this new small hardback rulebook over softcover books that just dont survive the rigors of frequent gaming very well. But I must admit this is me speaking from a standpoint that i feel that a hardcover full colour codex is 3 times the value of the old codici for 1.5* times the price

*(its 26 euros for old soft cover codexes and 39 for the new hard backs so thats 2x13 vs 3x13 and I am not sure how the price ratio's in other currencies are.)

 insaniak wrote:


Spend more time responding to the actual words on the page and less time trying to ascribe motives to them, and suddenly the internet becomes a much less confrontational place.

That is as much of a generalisation as all the ones addressing "haters".

Check out the GW in financial trouble thread for an example. People posting fantasy figures, then shouting " "pull your head out of the dirt," or" you're not paying attention" - when you correct their dodgy figures.

I think it was azreal who posted that, positive views, or rather, quoting correct statistics, about GW are a "minority viewpoint" that challenge the groupthink - which seems to mean that it's OK to insult anyone who suggest the sky ain't falling.

NickOnwezen wrote:
...And made a portable, stylish and space saving version of the book with a superior print quality and the resilience of a hardback book.

Sorry, what are you basing the 'superior print quality' on?

The resilience of a hard cover is only a good thing if you actually want a hard cover. Personally, for toting around to games, I would prefer the lighter softcover any day. And would certainly prefer the price tag...

That's the big issue with the hardcovers, I think. GW missed a trick by going to hardcover exclusively for 6th edition. The benefits and extra prettiness of the hardcover are outweighed by the price tag and the lesser portability for many gamers ... releasing a cheaper softcover alongside the hardcover would have kept those players happier.


In just over 15 years of playing 40K, and the purchase of every book released from 2nd ed to the end of 5th, the 5th ed marine codex and the notoriously bad 3rd ed rulebook are the only softcovers that I have had issues with for durability... And that's due to the pages falling out, rather than the durability of the cover. Being in a hard cover isn't going to change the quality of GW's binding glue.

 insaniak wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I don't think this is accurate.

One needn't look far for people who seem to be beside themselves with beard-rage.

'Seem to be' would seem to be the key here.

It's very easy to read the written word and imbue it with more emotion than is actually there. I see very, very little on this site, at least outside of YMDC or OT, that look like people being genuinely angry.

What I do see a lot of is people seeing a post that disagrees with their point of view and just writing it off as mindless 'hating'. Apparently on the internet, it's next to impossible to disagree with someone without being angry about it.


Spend more time responding to the actual words on the page and less time trying to ascribe motives to them, and suddenly the internet becomes a much less confrontational place.

The problem is that most posts that "bash" GW are, while emotive and apparently structured as sensible, reasoned arguments, actually rather void. Yes the person who wrote them has clearly read the Guardian extensively...that doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't absolute rubbish. The fact is that most of the arguments that come out are simply nonsense, mainly:

*Decline in quality of recent releases. Completely subjective and honestly, complete bs. GW consistantly release amazing models (I specifically exclude the assault centurians from this), yet people see a flying baby and cry "bad sculpt". Just look at the recent sternguard/vanguard release, or anything in the lizardmen release - pure gold.

*Tinfoil conspiracy theories, usually involving GW releasing things in a certain way, crashing their own website, releasing things in a certain order. GW make money by making models and books for £x, then selling them for £x + margin. In fifth edition, the most over-powered army by far was grey knights. Now guess what the cheapest army was by a *very* large margin? Yep, Draigo + paladins. Outside of one or two units (*cough* vendetta *cough*) that are clearly undercosted to sell expensive models, the devs do not release codexes with model sales in mind.

*complaining about amateurish quality of GW's ruleset, often exagerated to claims like "GW cannot write the rules for wargames", or "this simply was not playtested". Yes their rules are not perfect, but they are clearly playable. I think it reeks of jealousy that a game they hate is still by far the most popular in the world.

*Impending doom of GW. People have been saying that GW is doomed for years, but recently they've been phrasing it in such a way that even if GW post growth/profit, it still fits into their narrative of GW declining.

*Price whinging. If you don't like it, don't buy it. There, that was hard.

Occasionally people do say valid or insightful things about GW. Some things that spring to mind are power creep, certain armies being abandoned (SOB, thinking of you). But these are the minority of a minority. The "arguments" I outlined above are presant across the entire internet, and were present back when GW had their own (crappy) forums.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


Spend more time responding to the actual words on the page and less time trying to ascribe motives to them, and suddenly the internet becomes a much less confrontational place.

That is as much of a generalisation as all the ones addressing "haters".

Check out the GW in financial trouble thread for an example. People posting fantasy figures, then shouting " "pull your head out of the dirt," or" you're not paying attention" - when you correct their dodgy figures.

I think it was azreal who posted that, positive views, or rather, quoting correct statistics, about GW are a "minority viewpoint" that challenge the groupthink - which seems to mean that it's OK to insult anyone who suggest the sky ain't falling.

It might have been me, yes, there is an awful lot of "received wisdom" that floats around, and while often it is grounded in some form of truth, it doesn't behoove anyone to go around spouting it without a little fact checking now and again, now matter what side of the great divide one finds oneself on. Sometimes that received wisdom can differ quite substantially from the facts... Some people don't always get on well with that. I don't mind being wrong, as long as someone can show me why, and just doesn't effectively shout you're wrong in my face.

One thing that thread you've linked, from three months ago has reminded that you are guilty of perhaps being a tad over sensitive sometimes, which is often a criticism that could be levelled at the "pros" shall we say, as much as the shouting down of contrary viewpoints could be of "cons"

xruslanx wrote:
*Decline in quality of recent releases. Completely subjective and honestly, complete bs. GW consistantly release amazing models (I specifically exclude the assault centurians from this), yet people see a flying baby and cry "bad sculpt". Just look at the recent sternguard/vanguard release, or anything in the lizardmen release - pure gold.

So you admit that it is subjective, and then go on to claim that anyone who doesn't like GW's latest releases is wrong?

That's an interesting way to go at it.


GW's 6th edition releases have by and large left me cold. There has been some good stuff in there... but an awful lot of dogs. If you like them, that's great for you. Others don't. They're not saying that just to start an argument... Sometimes, some people just won't like the same things you like.

Outside of one or two units (*cough* vendetta *cough*) that are clearly undercosted to sell expensive models, the devs do not release codexes with model sales in mind.

Tell that to anyone looking for a Sisters of Battle codex...

*complaining about amateurish quality of GW's ruleset, often exagerated to claims like "GW cannot write the rules for wargames", or "this simply was not playtested". Yes their rules are not perfect, but they are clearly playable. I think it reeks of jealousy that a game they hate is still by far the most popular in the world.

Sure, they're 'playable'... if you're happy to fill in the gaps yourself.

The thing is, GW constantly blow their own trumpet as the market leader in this field. As such, is it really unreasonable to expect a ruleset that is actually finished before it is released?

6th edition saw some fairly significant rules changes 3 and a half minutes after release, including some that just break the game (Battlements work how exactly?). There are issues that were corrected in errata last edition that have become broken again in this one (Shrike, anyone?) and great gaping holes that they just haven't bothered to address.

By contrast, I have just been getting back into Warmachine, which is written with rules much more like a TCG. Keywords matter, and rules disputes are far fewer as a result. Star Wars Miniatures, which I played to death while it was alive, was written with a similar ethos. These games were written to be fun, but also with the idea that a ruleset should be tight to prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

GW have had 6 editions now to perfect the 40K ruleset... and every edition just comes with its own batch of new problems caused by fuzzy writing or oversights that should have been caught in playtesting.

The claims about a lack of playtesting aren't just made up out of whole cloth. They're based on actual comments from the studio over the years, along with the canning of external playtesting that, while often ignored by the studio, did at least make some difference, once upon a time.

*Impending doom of GW. People have been saying that GW is doomed for years, but recently they've been phrasing it in such a way that even if GW post growth/profit, it still fits into their narrative of GW declining.

Growth has to be sustainable. And to many, the fact that growth that is accompanies by a drop in unit sales is not sustainable. Yes, GW might be making more profit... but if that profit is coming from an increasingly small customer base, it's les sustainable.

I'm not one to predict GW's demise... but I can accept the idea that posting a profit doesn't automatically mean that a company is healthy.

*Price whinging. If you don't like it, don't buy it. There, that was hard.

And for many, it is indeed that easy. but on a forum dedicated to discussing the game, it's not exactly surprising that some people might want to mention being disappointed about something they like becoming too expensive for them to continue buying.

The "arguments" I outlined above are presant across the entire internet, and were present back when GW had their own (crappy) forums.

As someone else said, the fact that so many people keep making the same complaints should really say something in itself...

You won't stop them by claiming that they are trivial or incorrect. If you really want to make a difference, as I said earlier in the thread - Make a difference.

 insaniak wrote:

NickOnwezen wrote:
...And made a portable, stylish and space saving version of the book with a superior print quality and the resilience of a hardback book.

Sorry, what are you basing the 'superior print quality' on?

The resilience of a hard cover is only a good thing if you actually want a hard cover. Personally, for toting around to games, I would prefer the lighter softcover any day. And would certainly prefer the price tag...

That's the big issue with the hardcovers, I think. GW missed a trick by going to hardcover exclusively for 6th edition. The benefits and extra prettiness of the hardcover are outweighed by the price tag and the lesser portability for many gamers ... releasing a cheaper softcover alongside the hardcover would have kept those players happier.


In just over 15 years of playing 40K, and the purchase of every book released from 2nd ed to the end of 5th, the 5th ed marine codex and the notoriously bad 3rd ed rulebook are the only softcovers that I have had issues with for durability... And that's due to the pages falling out, rather than the durability of the cover. Being in a hard cover isn't going to change the quality of GW's binding glue.

The small rulebook has more vibrant colours because of them using a better quality of paper then the small book that comes with Dark Vengeance. I consider this to be the print quality. And While i do digress that the hard backs do nothing to improve the quality of the binding glue. all of the hardback are bound. Asin actually bound with thread. Which does improve pages not falling out. And the hard backs do prevent pages and the cover itself from folding over so easily while its on the table top. I do not deny that all my issues with having had to replace 3 codici over the last 2 editions are likely caused by me not handling the codici as carefully as the next person might who did not have issues with the sofcovers. But hence why i said that in my opinion the hardbacks are a great Improvement. While I cannot speak on the part of you or anyone else WANTING the increase in quality of the harbacks at the indeed increased costs or even needing it. I would hardly say that they aren't of better quality from an objective standpoint.

Personally I am in the camp of I know that there are problems but I am not in a position to do anything about them so complaining on an internet forum is going to do nothing but reduce my enjoyment of the hobby and potentially reduce someone elses.

For that reason I try to do my best and paint things in a positive light. No matter how upset about something I am, I am not so selfish as to try and ruin someone elses fun.

And if you say something like "Well that is the internet" You are right but it doesnt mean that I have to actively contribute to it.

NickOnwezen wrote:
.... all of the hardback are bound. Asin actually bound with thread. Which does improve pages not falling out.

Fair enough. I hadn't noticed that.

And the hard backs do prevent pages and the cover itself from folding over so easily while its on the table top.

Can't say I've ever had that problem, to be honest.

 insaniak wrote:

NickOnwezen wrote:
.... all of the hardback are bound. Asin actually bound with thread. Which does improve pages not falling out.

Fair enough. I hadn't noticed that.

I actually had to check the codici/army books i have on hand to be sure myself XD (Eldar, Tau, Vampire Counts, Dark Angels)

And the hard backs do prevent pages and the cover itself from folding over so easily while its on the table top

Can't say I've ever had that problem, to be honest..

well, I do game quite regularly both in the GW store and at my club and there is really not a lot of room on the tables, so my books are either on the gaming table and then need to be moved when i want to postion models where my books/dice were or on chairs that occasionally get knocked over by customers who aren't quite as carefull as they should be in a store full of small easily breakable minatures (My store tends to have a lot of people walking in thinking GW sells computer games and then hurrying out after taking a quick look or playing a demo game, or just younger gamers who are quite excitable) so my books take a bit of a beating. As such the hardback have generally been a very good experience for me.

In addition the pages of the small rulebook are printed on the same paper that they use for the codexes which are slightly more matt then the ones in the DV book and a bit sturdier which i personally greatly prefer. But again thats entirely personal preference. Its size also is very good. While its about one and a half times, at most twice as thick (including the cover) and about half an inch bigger then the dark vengeance booklet its really an elegant gamers edition that fits twenty times more readily into my gaming case then the big whopping book. And the 3 page marker strings are universally on the special rules, the psychic powers and the vehicle refrence section for ease of looking things up. And its still a good option for people who have no need for any of the dark vengeance models even at the price tag its at. Starting with Tau or Eldar with a battlebox and the mini rule book still is more convenient then buying the DV booklet off ebay in my opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
*Decline in quality of recent releases. Completely subjective and honestly, complete bs. GW consistantly release amazing models (I specifically exclude the assault centurians from this), yet people see a flying baby and cry "bad sculpt". Just look at the recent sternguard/vanguard release, or anything in the lizardmen release - pure gold.

So you admit that it is subjective, and then go on to claim that anyone who doesn't like GW's latest releases is wrong?

That's an interesting way to go at it.


GW's 6th edition releases have by and large left me cold. There has been some good stuff in there... but an awful lot of dogs. If you like them, that's great for you. Others don't. They're not saying that just to start an argument... Sometimes, some people just won't like the same things you like.

Right, but you'd agree that claiming that the new sculps are simply worse than the old ones, is untrue? What exactly do you mean that the new releases have left you cold? I don't actually understand that...as far as I can see, the quality of releases is better than it's ever been. Why do you think the opposite? Why do you think it's worse?

Sure, they're 'playable'... if you're happy to fill in the gaps yourself.

Only if you insist on reading everything as though it were a logical binary operation. I had no idea there were so many flaws in the 40k ruleset until I stepped into YMDC. I find it hard to believe that people could take such an attitude without a fair amount of beardyness...my friends and I just get on with the game. It turns out that we can't even play it

The thing is, GW constantly blow their own trumpet as the market leader in this field. As such, is it really unreasonable to expect a ruleset that is actually finished before it is released?

This is a facetious point. Claiming that 40k is not finished is both untrue and inflammatory. It is exageration like this that leads to people dismissing critism against GW as butthurt/beardrage. I was playing 6th edition 40k with my friends for weeks just fine, I won't allow someone on the internet to tell me that the rules we used didn't work.

6th edition saw some fairly significant rules changes 3 and a half minutes after release, including some that just break the game (Battlements work how exactly?). There are issues that were corrected in errata last edition that have become broken again in this one (Shrike, anyone?) and great gaping holes that they just haven't bothered to address.

You say fairly significant...no one plays with fortifications. Even the game testers. Yes it sucks if you want to play with one but then, they seem broken anyway so it doesn't concern me, or 99.9% of people who play. The fact that someone, somewhere on the internet has found this, and this information has been publicly posted, does not make it relevant or important.

I don't know who Shrike is, but I bet you I could play him in a game with some friends and we'd have no problems at all.

By contrast, I have just been getting back into Warmachine, which is written with rules much more like a TCG. Keywords matter, and rules disputes are far fewer as a result. Star Wars Miniatures, which I played to death while it was alive, was written with a similar ethos. These games were written to be fun, but also with the idea that a ruleset should be tight to prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Since I have no experience with those rulesets, it's pointless you bringing them up. Unless we operate under the philosophy of "whoever has the most experience in wargames automatically wins any and all arguments", I have nothing to add here.

GW have had 6 editions now to perfect the 40K ruleset... and every edition just comes with its own batch of new problems caused by fuzzy writing or oversights that should have been caught in playtesting.

Yet more beardy rhetoric - arbitrarily knocking 40k for not being perfect. Nothing is perfect, that's life. 6th edition 40k is eminantly playable, the only people who don't think so seem to have very...strong opinions on the matter. As I say, I play it with my friends just fine. I know other people who play 40k with friends just fine. Only on the internet is 40k unnacceptably bad, 2/10 would not bang.

The claims about a lack of playtesting aren't just made up out of whole cloth. They're based on actual comments from the studio over the years, along with the canning of external playtesting that, while often ignored by the studio, did at least make some difference, once upon a time.

Is that why 2nd and 3rd edition 40k were so well balanced? Give me a break.

Growth has to be sustainable. And to many, the fact that growth that is accompanies by a drop in unit sales is not sustainable. Yes, GW might be making more profit... but if that profit is coming from an increasingly small customer base, it's les sustainable.

I'm not one to predict GW's demise... but I can accept the idea that posting a profit doesn't automatically mean that a company is healthy.

Armchair CEO training. We actually have no idea how popular (or not) 40k is, people are simply twisting the financial report to suit their own doomsaying.

And for many, it is indeed that easy. but on a forum dedicated to discussing the game, it's not exactly surprising that some people might want to mention being disappointed about something they like becoming too expensive for them to continue buying.

I regard about 75% of 40k as being too expensive for me, yet I manage to hold my tongue because I have no particular desire to spontaneously ejaculate this fact to strangers. Saying that something is too expensive for you adds nothing whatsoever to any discussion, ever.

As someone else said, the fact that so many people keep making the same complaints should really say something in itself...

Nerdrage. Nerdrage never changes.

xruslanx wrote:
Right, but you'd agree that claiming that the new sculps are simply worse than the old ones, is untrue? What exactly do you mean that the new releases have left you cold? I don't actually understand that...as far as I can see, the quality of releases is better than it's ever been. Why do you think the opposite? Why do you think it's worse?

Taking 15 year old models and adding extra detail to them doesn't automatically make them better. It makes them the same models with extra detail added to them. That's only a good thing if you like that extra detail.

There have been a number of recent releases that I would call a step backwards in model design... The Centurians, the Storm Talon, the Dark Angels Fantasticar, the Khorne thing for Apocalypse... 40K has always been a little silly and over-the-top, but these models just go a little too far into the ridiculous side for me.

And there's the problem that I mentioned earlier (although it may have been in a different thread) - GW are stuck with a nearly 20-year-old aesthetic, while most of the rest of the industry has moved on. So yes, GW are producing some models that are better than what they replace in terms of detail... but still in the same, tired, 'gigantic heads, hands, feet and weapons' style that was all the rage in the '90s, and just looks dated and cartoony now.

Only if you insist on reading everything as though it were a logical binary operation. I had no idea there were so many flaws in the 40k ruleset until I stepped into YMDC. I find it hard to believe that people could take such an attitude without a fair amount of beardyness...my friends and I just get on with the game. It turns out that we can't even play it

No, what it means is that you and your friends are filling in the gaps with house rules, or not noticing those gaps. That's fine when you're playing predominantly with friends... but annoying when you're playing a pick-up game, and discover that they have a completely different interpretation to a key rule than what you have always used. It can make a big difference in the middle of a game.

A loose ruleset is fine in groups that don't mind filling in the gaps, not so good for competitive or pick-up play. A tight ruleset is good for everybody.

This is a facetious point. Claiming that 40k is not finished is both untrue and inflammatory. It is exageration like this that leads to people dismissing critism against GW as butthurt/beardrage. I was playing 6th edition 40k with my friends for weeks just fine, I won't allow someone on the internet to tell me that the rules we used didn't work.

A finished rulebook wouldn't have had Look out Sir completely changed 3 and a half minutes after release. And would have had complete rules detailing how Fortifications work. And would have addressed ICs joining units pre-game.

Again, yes, the book is usable in friendly play. But it was rushed out without enough time taken for proofing and editing.

You say fairly significant...no one plays with fortifications.

And in many cases, that's solely because they don't have functional rules. I've spoken to a lot of people who want to play with fortifications, but don't because they're too much of a headache as is.

Aside from the ADL, which for some players is seen as more or less compulsory in competitive play if you're still stuck with a 4th or 5th ed Codex...

I don't know who Shrike is, but I bet you I could play him in a game with some friends and we'd have no problems at all.

Shrike is a Space Marine Captain, who grants Infiltrate to a unit he deploys with. The problem being that he can't deploy with a unit that doesn't already have Infiltrate.

They fixed this in 5th edition Errata, by changing the IC rules to allow them to be joined to a unit pre-game. Then they left that out of the 6th ed rules, which reverts Shrike back to not being able to deploy with a non-infiltrating unit.

Yes, most players ignore the gap in the rules here... but that's not the point. From the self-proclaimed market leader of miniature wargaming, this is a basic oversight that should have been caught prior to publishing the book. Instead, it was missed. 4 times, now, since it's been a problem for various characters since 3rd edition..

Since I have no experience with those rulesets, it's pointless you bringing them up. Unless we operate under the philosophy of "whoever has the most experience in wargames automatically wins any and all arguments", I have nothing to add here.

If you think this is an argument, you have misunderstood. I am presenting an opinion, not trying to 'win' the discussion.

Yet more beardy rhetoric - arbitrarily knocking 40k for not being perfect. Nothing is perfect, that's life. 6th edition 40k is eminantly playable, the only people who don't think so seem to have very...strong opinions on the matter. As I say, I play it with my friends just fine. I know other people who play 40k with friends just fine. Only on the internet is 40k unnacceptably bad, 2/10 would not bang.

Again, falling tournament attendance and gaming clubs switching to other systems disagree with you.

You're absolutely correct that no system is perfect. But people are starting to find other systems that are better. And for the supposed best on the market, that is a problem.

Is that why 2nd and 3rd edition 40k were so well balanced? Give me a break.

I didn't claim that playtesting fixed everything. I said it made a difference.

Every edition has had its fair share of problems. Which, again, comes back to the fact that GW have had 6 editions now to get it right, and 6th edition is instead for many players a big step backwards.

Armchair CEO training. We actually have no idea how popular (or not) 40k is, people are simply twisting the financial report to suit their own doomsaying.

We do have an idea of how many boxes GW sells, though... because that information is published in GW's financial reports. Increased sales value and decreased quantity of sales has been a recurring theme in GW's financials for some time now.

I regard about 75% of 40k as being too expensive for me, yet I manage to hold my tongue because I have no particular desire to spontaneously ejaculate this fact to strangers. Saying that something is too expensive for you adds nothing whatsoever to any discussion, ever.

Pointing out that you're enjoying the sunny weather doesn't exactly bring about world peace, either... but in a discussion of the weather, I might still point that out. Presenting your opinion on the topic at hand is how discussion works.

Nerdrage. Nerdrage never changes.

And so we come back once more to just dismissing dissenting opinions as trivial raging. What was that about things that don't add anything to a discussion?

I'm sure if they deserved it, you'd find it.

You know, three posts up I was still arguing with insaniak, but I cannot deny that he brings up very valid counterpoints about the rules. Despite all the praise i just sang about the small rulebook, for something that was released a year after date it would have been nice if they ACTUALLY added the eratta into the new book... which they totally neglected to do. GW is still under the impression that if they build it, we will come. And while i have seen a lot of things improve over the last year or so since 6th edition hit, most of that praise goes to the new codexes offering a variety of competitive play styles instead of one end all be all list per codex and then one codex to rule them all. Which still sort of happens with codex creep. The fact is that the 6th edition core is a gigantic mess of conflicting and vague rules that have done little to adress the balance and above all clarity issues that 40k has ALWAYS struggled with.

NickOnwezen wrote:
The small rulebook has more vibrant colours because of them using a better quality of paper then the small book that comes with Dark Vengeance.

Honestly, who cares? If I'm buying a rules-only book I care about exactly two things:

1) A legible and correct copy of the rules.

2) Lightweight and portable format.

Anything else is paying extra for something I don't care about. Pretty paper is irrelevant, if I want a pretty book I'll buy the full $75 rulebook with all of the fluff/pictures/etc.

xruslanx wrote:
What exactly do you mean that the new releases have left you cold?

It means just what it says. Most of the new releases either look completely stupid (DA flyers, centurions, the entire Apocalypse release) or look like someone took a normal model, covered it in glue, and rolled it around in a box of purity seals (all the marine infantry). At best they're the kind of average model that I'd buy if I need it for my army, but otherwise feel apathetic towards. Compare this to, say, my DKoK where I have an endless list of ideas I want to do with them.

Only if you insist on reading everything as though it were a logical binary operation. I had no idea there were so many flaws in the 40k ruleset until I stepped into YMDC. I find it hard to believe that people could take such an attitude without a fair amount of beardyness...my friends and I just get on with the game. It turns out that we can't even play it

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Before 40k I played MTG, where all the rules are perfectly clear and there is no question that can not be answered by simply reading the appropriate section of the rulebook. And yet it still has a thriving casual community and "too serious" rules never got in the way of playing. So yes, I expect that when I pay a lot of money for a set of rules they will be professional work, not a bunch of clumsy nonsense thrown together with a "4+ it if you find one of the problems we didn't bother to fix".

This is a facetious point. Claiming that 40k is not finished is both untrue and inflammatory. It is exageration like this that leads to people dismissing critism against GW as butthurt/beardrage. I was playing 6th edition 40k with my friends for weeks just fine, I won't allow someone on the internet to tell me that the rules we used didn't work.

No, it's entirely true. 40k is blatantly unfinished. Balance is nonexistent, rules are inconsistent and full of loopholes. It only looks finished to you because you've lowered your expectations to the point that an unfinished product will satisfy them.

You say fairly significant...no one plays with fortifications.

Lol, seriously? People play with fortifications all the time. And it's just insane that you'd say it's ok for their rules to be broken because nobody likes playing with broken rules so they don't buy a fortification.

Since I have no experience with those rulesets, it's pointless you bringing them up. Unless we operate under the philosophy of "whoever has the most experience in wargames automatically wins any and all arguments", I have nothing to add here.

You can't just dismiss other games like that. Whether you've played them or not MTG/Warmachine/etc have much more professional rules, and it has nothing to do with "I've played more games than you".

Armchair CEO training. We actually have no idea how popular (or not) 40k is, people are simply twisting the financial report to suit their own doomsaying.

Nonsense. We have numbers from GW's own report, and they clearly show growth barely above inflation even though they're increasing prices. And that means declining sales volume. And since other games are experiencing growth in sales volume that also means GW's market share is declining. Whether you like it or not this trend is supported by both sales numbers reported by non-GW stores and anecdotal evidence about what is popular.

The little rulebook is actually a higher quality? But I don't think I've ever heard of people having issue with the starter set ones. Additionally since they already printed them the cost of producing more to sell individually would have been a very minor cost to them for a decent amount of sales they'd see coming in.

Sure I like the portability of the small book, but in general its also more affordable as a quick launch into the game. As it is I have never seen a book like this for such a high price and I have bought hardback novels for $50 at times... I suppose that's not to say they couldn't get away with this book, but it is fairly overpriced for what it is and I still think it'd make a better limited edition with them moving onto the DV books going on sale.