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.

xruslanx wrote:

 malfred wrote:
I don't think you have to play all game systems, but you have to
be open to the possibility of other game systems or at least, I
don't know, read up on them before you outright dismiss them.

I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k, just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better". In no way does that impact my use and enjoyment of 40k rules, and I see no way that it should. My interest is 40k, not "all tabletop wargaming". Models are difference matter, since you can use 3rd party miniatures with your existing collection, so rule of cool applies.

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.

Except we've seen that person's movie and we've seen other movies, and the
next time these film studios, directors, actors make another film, we want them
to do a better job, and we want people to know what could have been better and
that there is room for improvement. That's not belittling an opinion. And if a person
with a strongly held opinion decides to stand in the conversation and become
obstinate, then why do they continue to have the conversation? Whom are they
trying to convince? They're unable or unwilling to see things from a broader
perspective, a world of other films, whereas it's more likely that someone with
a broader perspective is able to see films both from their perspective and the
perspective of someone who loves just the one film.

The trouble is, the two seem incapable of having a conversation about that difference.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Well, we have an answer in the copycat thread as to whether xruslanx has played other games. It's not pretty. I honestly don't know how to respond to an analogy like that...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/553737.page#6086759

Oh wow...

No words.

Just seeing it now, I had a feeling that it was going to be an answer like that around that ballpark.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Well, we have an answer in the copycat thread as to whether xruslanx has played other games. It's not pretty. I honestly don't know how to respond to an analogy like that...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/553737.page#6086759

Oh wow...

No words.

Just seeing it now, I had a feeling that it was going to be an answer like that around that ballpark.

So basically it's really like trying to explain how pain feels like to a person who can't feel pain when we try to talk to him. He can know everything there is to know biologically about pain and how people feel about it and it is generally bad, but he still wouldn't feel it. You wouldn't be able to see how GW rules sucks compared to other games WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THE OTHER GAMES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Really, defending something that is being compared to other things without knowledge of the other things it was being compared to in the first place is extremely stupid.

xruslanx wrote:
I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k, just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better".

And nobody is saying that you can't have fun with 40k. The subject of this thread is "how good are GW's rules", not "have you ever had fun playing a GW game".

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.

That's nice. But if you've only seen one movie in your entire life your opinion as a film critic is worthless even if you really like that one movie. And it would be an absolute joke if you started ranting about how it would be impossible to fix any of that movie's problems because no movie could ever be better.

What you're doing is the same. You don't have an informed opinion about the subject, but you keep making ridiculous claims about what is and isn't possible in game design. And just to dig your hole even deeper you keep ignoring every example people provide of games that have done what you claim is impossible.

Jeez anyone else feel like the dogpile on xruslanx is going from fun to mean in rather short order here? I think the various points have been well stated, repeated, and drill into everyone's head. What about a different approach?

@xruslanx: 40k can be a fun game, and it's great that you're enjoying it! Tabletop gaming is the best hobby after all. But 40k is also not your wife of 20 years, so it's okay to be a bit unfaithful at times. There is a wide world of other games out there to try in parallel with 40k, or as a change, or a breath of fresh air. Some will be good, some will be bad. But would you honestly play the same video game your whole life? Eat at the same restaurant? Variety is the spice of life!
In some ways other games will give you a larger appreciation for 40k, as well as a better understanding and footing to see flaws or problems you might have glossed over before. But the features you DO like in 40k will be sharper and more well defined because you will have some comparisons to draw from.

Plus aren't you SO TIRED of rolling D6s?! I love weird shaped dice so much that I can't imagine rolling the same cube forever and ever.

 bosky wrote:
Jeez anyone else feel like the dogpile on xruslanx is going from fun to mean in rather short order here? I think the various points have been well stated, repeated, and drill into everyone's head. What about a different approach?

@xruslanx: 40k can be a fun game, and it's great that you're enjoying it! Tabletop gaming is the best hobby after all. But 40k is also not your wife of 20 years, so it's okay to be a bit unfaithful at times. There is a wide world of other games out there to try in parallel with 40k, or as a change, or a breath of fresh air. Some will be good, some will be bad. But would you honestly play the same video game your whole life? Eat at the same restaurant? Variety is the spice of life!
In some ways other games will give you a larger appreciation for 40k, as well as a better understanding and footing to see flaws or problems you might have glossed over before. But the features you DO like in 40k will be sharper and more well defined because you will have some comparisons to draw from.

Plus aren't you SO TIRED of rolling D6s?! I love weird shaped dice so much that I can't imagine rolling the same cube forever and ever.

But, then he might as well sleep with a sheep if he tried a different game.

xruslanx wrote:

I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k, just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better". In no way does that impact my use and enjoyment of 40k rules, and I see no way that it should. My interest is 40k, not "all tabletop wargaming". Models are difference matter, since you can use 3rd party miniatures with your existing collection, so rule of cool applies.

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.

Someone might refer to you as a troll, when your analogy displays a massive ignorance towards other games (which you've never played or touched, fearful of their disgusting genetic impurity), which you seem to refer to as subhuman compared to THE GLORIOUS GAMES WORKSHOP MASTER RACE.

Oh, and here's the analogy;

xruslanx wrote:

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.

But surely you can understand though that the opinion of a person who has only seen a single film might not be as valid as the opinion of a person who has seen several, and can therefore make a value judgement by way of comparison?

I agree with you in the sense that if you're having fun with something, then far be it from anyone else to tell you otherwise! But, it shouldn't be used as some kind of objective yardstick for miniature wargaming in general. "Perfectly good enough from what I have played" would have been a good enough comment, without seeming to try and head-butt anyone else in the thread who has disparaged the rules.

Sadly, I think the flak you're receiving in this thread concerning other games is probably going to push you up against a wall so that you are less likely to want to try anything else in future. Which I think would be a shame, they're all just games and there is no need for this kind of false/artificial, "I own a SNES, Megadrives are rubbish!" type attitude in such a niche hobby. And that so many other games are designed by ex-GW guys, sculptors move around and do different things, there are a few centres of game development where the rule writers often know each other.. really we are all wearing the same football shirt, and singing the same chart for better games..

xruslanx wrote:
But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but when it has been formed in a near vaccum it is worth far, far less than the opinion of someone who is knowledgable about the subject at hand.

Read the Epic:Armaggedon rules. They were a GW publication (although you may well have to resort to piratebay and the like now that Specalist games have finally been killed off) which are tightly written and concise. Ideally play a few games as well.
Once you have done so contrast them with the 40K rules and you will see just how bloated and inprecise they are.

I think some people who don't play other games have a bit of a misinformed opinion about exactly what a 'tight' ruleset means. It doesn't have to be overly wordy or bloated - the writers just have to be careful with the exact words that they use.

For example, in Warmachine, there is a precise difference between 'Target' and 'Select'. Target requires Line of SIght, Select doesn't. So you can instantly tell if an ability requires LOS due to the wording - unlike many 40k rules which are significantly harder.
Another WMH example is the words for movement. Push, Move, Run, Advance and Place are all very specific terms to let you know exactly when they function. If a unit in 40k was allowed to 'move an additional D6" ' it would be confusing whether they could run or assault that extra distance.
If you read through a WMH special rule or ability, you'll see that nearly every word has been precisely chosen for a given function - and it works really well.

40k has been getting progressively better at this, as the Universal Special Rules section increases. Another great example of 40k getting 'tighter' is in the consolidation of psychic powers in to Witchfire, Blessing, Nova etc. By having all powers be able to be grouped under the same heading saves a lot of time for players, but it also allows them to write more interesting rules because they know mostly how they will interact with all other aspects.

From wrote:
This is why GW is garbage in the rules department. Their players find the discrepancies in the rules within the first 2 weeks, they write one small FAQ on day 2, and do nothing about all the other problems for months to follow.

In the first 2 weeks? Most of us had found errors within the first 20 minutes of skimming through the rule book. Maybe it's because I do a lot of document reviews at work, but typos and poor phrasing just jump out at me these days. There was definitely a thread on here on launch with people pointing out issues that a proof reader should have caught before print.

Trasvi wrote:

40k has been getting progressively better at this, as the Universal Special Rules section increases. Another great example of 40k getting 'tighter' is in the consolidation of psychic powers in to Witchfire, Blessing, Nova etc. By having all powers be able to be grouped under the same heading saves a lot of time for players, but it also allows them to write more interesting rules because they know mostly how they will interact with all other aspects.

That's a good example but unfortunately GW haven't got it right with fantasy, which is the more important of the two when it comes to that considering magic is it's own phase in that game.
As of the 8th BRB and all army books after it all spells have types which are clearly listed in the BRB and there is even a nice table telling you when what type can be used and on what target but they STILL haven't FAQed the pre 8th books to add spell types.

xruslanx wrote:
I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k, just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better". In no way does that impact my use and enjoyment of 40k rules, and I see no way that it should. My interest is 40k, not "all tabletop wargaming". Models are difference matter, since you can use 3rd party miniatures with your existing collection, so rule of cool applies.

No one is saying anything about your enjoyment of 40K. What everyone is saying is that when you've played other games, the terribly written nature of GW's rules becomes obvious. We can still enjoy the game (I do) whilst being aware that the design and publication quality is shocking for a company of it's size (yes, it's shiny and well produced, but it's riddled with badly phrased sentences, rambling and typos - stuff that any decent editor would be fixing). And it only seems to be getting worse since they dropped external playtesting.

Many flaws in 40K are apparent of themselves. It isn't necessary to have played other games to spot typos and ambiguities in the rules -- that's basic English.

xruslanx wrote:
I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k,

It shouldn't detract from your opinion of 40k, but you're being willfully obtuse about this matter. Your world view is that 40k is the only game for you, and that may be true, but unlike your awkward sex analogy, you can't be certain that you wouldn't enjoy other game systems, nor can you speak upon these other game systems without actually reading a little bit into the game.

just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better". In no way does that impact my use and enjoyment of 40k rules, and I see no way that it should. My interest is 40k, not "all tabletop wargaming". Models are difference matter, since you can use 3rd party miniatures with your existing collection, so rule of cool applies.

It might not impact your use and enjoyment of 40k rules, but there are plenty of us in this thread that have mentioned that they've played these other games, and hey, they're fething better than a company that's been at this for 30 years!

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.

But we've asked you to tell us why GW's games are better than game x, y, and z because we are aware of these games existence, just like you as a 'film expert' would be able to say why The Godfather part 1 is one of the greatest films in history as compared something like The Departed, On the Waterfront, etc... You've not once provided us with reasons why GW is a better game.

Two things before I finish this post, the first please go out and get demos for other games. Head to a club, grab a demo of Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Bolt Action, Battlegroup Krusk, Flames of War, Brushfire, Endless Fantasty: Tactics, X-Wing, etc... See what these games offer and see how they compare to your idea of fun with 40k. As an amateur game designer, I've put forth more effort into editing and developing rules to get them as clear and consistent as I can (with the help of the leader writer) so that ambiguity doesn't exist. It's a rough process I know, but if 3 people in a google doc can churn out a clearer wargame than a company that's been doing this for years, then that's fething sad.

Also, please, please, please stop assuming only hardcore tournament players want good, clear, concise rules. I haven't played in a tournament in months, and I'm a casual gamer that plays for the fun of putting the models on the table and hanging out with my friends as we crush each other into oblivion. 40k doesn't offer that level of fun for us anymore because of how crappy their rules are and how little effort it seems that goes into them.

 Palindrome wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but when it has been formed in a near vaccum it is worth far, far less than the opinion of someone who is knowledgable about the subject at hand.

Read the Epic:Armaggedon rules. They were a GW publication (although you may well have to resort to piratebay and the like now that Specalist games have finally been killed off) which are tightly written and concise. Ideally play a few games as well.
Once you have done so contrast them with the 40K rules and you will see just how bloated and inprecise they are.

This is a good point. A variety of the older, discontinued games and "specialist" games that were originally created by GW had much stronger rules sets than 40K and WHFB have. The frustrating thing is that this proves GW has the capacity to write good, solid rules, but for some reason chooses not to do so for their two main game systems.

Edit: grammar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

40k has been getting progressively better at this, as the Universal Special Rules section increases. Another great example of 40k getting 'tighter' is in the consolidation of psychic powers in to Witchfire, Blessing, Nova etc. By having all powers be able to be grouped under the same heading saves a lot of time for players, but it also allows them to write more interesting rules because they know mostly how they will interact with all other aspects.

The interesting thing is that it's taken 40K some 20-odd years to do this even though they've been doing this for magic in WHFB since at least 3rd edition.

Saldiven wrote:
The frustrating thing is that this proves GW has the capacity to write good, solid rules, but for some reason chooses not to do so for their two main game systems.

Maybe because most of the people responsible for those good rules are now working for GW's competition.

I don't think it is so much that GW choose not to write balanced and tight rulesets but rather that the corporate driver for doing so has changed. The mentality at GW always used to be that the games drove the model sales but increasingly these days it seems that GW see the game systems as an adjunct or an afterthought to the model sales. There basically isn't the direction coming from the top down at corporate GW that says 'make this game the best you can' but rather things like 'lets make fantasy involve loads of big monsters so we can push bigger and more expensive kits' and 'lets make 6th edition 40K full of flyers so we can sell these new kits'. Where the games drove the model sales, it is now the other way round.

The first page of Warhammer Fantasy 'You make da call' has three at page 2, another at page 4 and one whopper at page 13.
922 replies total.

40k has five on page 2, one on page 6, two on page 7 and another on page 10.
1480 replies total.

Warmachine and Hordes has a grand total of two threads that made it to page 2.
319 replies total.
(Knowing that Dakka is a more warhammer focused forum I even checked out the PP forms themselves, out of the first 40 threads in their rules questions subforum, the average number of replies was about 3, with the most number of replies I saw being 14.)

I couldn't even find any real threads about rules discussion for X wing, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, etc. All that was there were 'hey I'm new how does X work' threads.



I think it's fairly reasonable to say, as a fact not opinion, that recent editions of GWs core games are not nearly as well written as their competitors.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The first page of Warhammer Fantasy 'You make da call' has three at page 2, another at page 4 and one whopper at page 13.
922 replies total.

40k has five on page 2, one on page 6, two on page 7 and another on page 10.
1480 replies total.

Warmachine and Hordes has a grand total of two threads that made it to page 2.
319 replies total.
(Knowing that Dakka is a more warhammer focused forum I even checked out the PP forms themselves, out of the first 40 threads in their rules questions subforum, the average number of replies was about 3, with the most number of replies I saw being 14.)

I couldn't even find any real threads about rules discussion for X wing, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, etc. All that was there were 'hey I'm new how does X work' threads.

I think it's fairly reasonable to say, as a fact not opinion, that recent editions of GWs core games are not nearly as well written as their competitors.

The 40k forum has 436, 153 army list posts.

Warmachine has 9, 226 army list posts.

Warmachine rules queries might be a fifth as long, but it looks like it only has around 1/40 the number of armies in play.

AS it is, I agree that Warmachine rules are simpler and in many cases better written than 40k, but your 'statistics' throw absolutely no light on the debate.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The first page of Warhammer Fantasy 'You make da call' has three at page 2, another at page 4 and one whopper at page 13.
922 replies total.

40k has five on page 2, one on page 6, two on page 7 and another on page 10.
1480 replies total.

Warmachine and Hordes has a grand total of two threads that made it to page 2.
319 replies total.
(Knowing that Dakka is a more warhammer focused forum I even checked out the PP forms themselves, out of the first 40 threads in their rules questions subforum, the average number of replies was about 3, with the most number of replies I saw being 14.)

I couldn't even find any real threads about rules discussion for X wing, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, etc. All that was there were 'hey I'm new how does X work' threads.



I think it's fairly reasonable to say, as a fact not opinion, that recent editions of GWs core games are not nearly as well written as their competitors.

You also have to remember that they regularly lock rules threads on pp boards either because
the question has been answered or because an infernal is checking the answer. The system
is set up to avoid big large arguments over rules, and any such arguments over why x, y or
z should function as a.b. or c takes place elsewhere, if at all.

Though I guess it helps to have a company just come in and say, "Do it this way."

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
The first page of Warhammer Fantasy 'You make da call' has three at page 2, another at page 4 and one whopper at page 13.
922 replies total.

40k has five on page 2, one on page 6, two on page 7 and another on page 10.
1480 replies total.

Warmachine and Hordes has a grand total of two threads that made it to page 2.
319 replies total.
(Knowing that Dakka is a more warhammer focused forum I even checked out the PP forms themselves, out of the first 40 threads in their rules questions subforum, the average number of replies was about 3, with the most number of replies I saw being 14.)

I couldn't even find any real threads about rules discussion for X wing, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, etc. All that was there were 'hey I'm new how does X work' threads.

I think it's fairly reasonable to say, as a fact not opinion, that recent editions of GWs core games are not nearly as well written as their competitors.

The 40k forum has 436, 153 army list posts.

Warmachine has 9, 226 army list posts.

Warmachine rules queries might be a fifth as long, but it looks like it only has around 1/40 the number of armies in play.

AS it is, I agree that Warmachine rules are simpler and in many cases better written than 40k, but your 'statistics' throw absolutely no light on the debate.

Alright, warmachine and hordes sees less traffic than 40k but you still can't justify 10+ page threads.

Herzlos wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
The frustrating thing is that this proves GW has the capacity to write good, solid rules, but for some reason chooses not to do so for their two main game systems.

Maybe because most of the people responsible for those good rules are now working for GW's competition.

It's the other way round, IMO. The good designers left because GW didn't have anything interesting for them to do any more.

Without a major overhaul, a new edition of the rules is a minor evolution. Even a major codex revision, like Dark Eldar, Necron or Tau (2-3- editions out of date before they got replaced) does not offer a lot of scope for clever, fun design work, because you are locked into the existing system of rules.

Looking at 40K, there aren't massive differences between 3rd edition and 6th edition. We even find that Opportunity Fire, which was dropped for 4th and 5th, is back. Someone could have stopped playing in 3rd, and started again in 6th, without much trouble.

I dont play 40k, not since 2nd Ed., but I have seen Arguehammer 40k in action to know it has its limits.

What I can interject though is with regards the design process, having worked with Warwick Kinrade (designer of Aeronautica Imperialis) for the last two years on the Battlegroup system.

Our first release was nearly a year ago, with Battlegroup Kursk. Before release we spent around 12 to 18 months toying with the rule mechanisms as we evolved his previous game, Kampfgruppe Normandy, into Battlegroup. We played one or two games a week for most of this period, at varying size of game, with a variety of force compositions. We had plenty of low points before the game sorted itself out.

It was then proofed by four people, and yet its not until release, and a wider audience that you find the ambiguities arise as often designers and playtesters miss something. Luckily for us these were easily remedied in an FAQ alongvwith some errata as proofers always miss something.

My point is that often a new game or system may be interpreted differently by players in a way that the designers have not forseen. It happens. For us we tried hard to produce a game that stays the same and wont need a new edition every few years... we think we have done that and made a fun game wiyh historical feel and flavour.

We now run three playtest teams for each new supplement, have historical 'consultants' to proof lists, several proof readers and great community feedback that we filter into books or our free fanzine.

Its alot of work for two guys, one of whom is part time. Warwick knows GWs resources better than anyone and we can only wush to have such resources available.

Big P's experiences with what I would call 'independent game publishing' are not unlike my experiences working with On the Lamb Games and our development of Endless Fantasy Tactics and Brushfire 2nd Edition

If small groups can do it right, why can't larger companies?

Herzlos wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
The frustrating thing is that this proves GW has the capacity to write good, solid rules, but for some reason chooses not to do so for their two main game systems.

Maybe because most of the people responsible for those good rules are now working for GW's competition.

Yeah, good point.

Big P wrote:

What I can interject though is with regards the design process, having worked with Warwick Kinrade (designer of Aeronautica Imperialis) for the last two years on the Battlegroup system.

Tell them he made a great job with the Aeronautica Imperialis rules! I have a squadron of Lightnings, a squadron of Thunderbolts and even 2 Marauders!

Too bad that GW once again dropped the ball and didn't give that game the support it deserved...

Big P wrote:
I dont play 40k, not since 2nd Ed., but I have seen Arguehammer 40k in action to know it has its limits.

What I can interject though is with regards the design process, having worked with Warwick Kinrade (designer of Aeronautica Imperialis) for the last two years on the Battlegroup system.

Our first release was nearly a year ago, with Battlegroup Kursk. Before release we spent around 12 to 18 months toying with the rule mechanisms as we evolved his previous game, Kampfgruppe Normandy, into Battlegroup. We played one or two games a week for most of this period, at varying size of game, with a variety of force compositions. We had plenty of low points before the game sorted itself out.

It was then proofed by four people, and yet its not until release, and a wider audience that you find the ambiguities arise as often designers and playtesters miss something. Luckily for us these were easily remedied in an FAQ alongvwith some errata as proofers always miss something.

My point is that often a new game or system may be interpreted differently by players in a way that the designers have not forseen. It happens. For us we tried hard to produce a game that stays the same and wont need a new edition every few years... we think we have done that and made a fun game wiyh historical feel and flavour.

We now run three playtest teams for each new supplement, have historical 'consultants' to proof lists, several proof readers and great community feedback that we filter into books or our free fanzine.

Its alot of work for two guys, one of whom is part time. Warwick knows GWs resources better than anyone and we can only wush to have such resources available.

I absolutely understand that no plan survives first contact with the enemy, but what you, perhaps unwittingly, touched on was what I don't excuse GW for, which is a lack of errata or FAQ.

Mistakes will happen, things will be overlooked, this is understandable. However, GW have no apparent desire to fix things. I point to the Burning Chariot of Tzeentch, which, some 6 or more months later is still unplayable as written. That isn't a matter of interpretation, that is an unambiguous, flat out Does Not Work, unless you make certain assumptions as to the codex authors intent, where you immediately run into a massive grey area where nobody but the author can really say for sure.

Let's not forget that the DA book made it to press missing a whole special character, and that several 6th codexes have had to have an immediate update to correct fairly obvious oversights.

Yet, I think we are still awaiting any significant update to the FAQs in 2013?

These are not the actions of a company that cares about making a playable game.

Well for any game company, especially one with an associated model range, you want good rules and you should listen to the gamer feedback.

I dont swallow the line that GW is a 'model' company, and a game company as an after thought.

The models are bought by people playing a game. Make a good game, you get more players and sell more models. Make a poor games and your player base, and sales, begin to decrease.

I spend as much time on our game forum talking to our players as working on the system. Its vital to have that relationship. While we may not do all thats asked, I can think of several good ideas or comments that have filtered into the game.

Such a relationship also gives gamers a sense of ownership of a system and involvement with the games evolution.

 Peregrine wrote:
If GW puts out low-quality products a significant number of their customers will loudly praise them for making low-quality products because it's a sign of how "beer and pretzels" the game is when nobody really cares too strongly about the rules. People like you brag about how "casual" the game is because you can still have fun pushing your models around the table, and demanding better rules would be a sign that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who doesn't understand that the rules don't matter and you should just push your models around and "have fun".
Needless to say GW loves this situation because they don't have to spend money on making better products.

Ouch, sounds like a quote from my post a bit out of context.
I would definitely not "praise" or "brag" about the rules for being loose, making it an acceptable "beer and pretzels" game <edit: more like a statement of fact>.

I have accepted what has been handed down because there is no means to bring about change except house rules or fluff that the OP has disallowed (which we have compensated in slight ways that make it acceptable).

GW has more than adequately shown they are not interested in receiving our feedback or demands to better improve the game.
Only reducing their sales to a point they cannot juggle the books enough to show profit will they hunt around for a reason why.

This is how the "beating a dead horse" is raised; this discussion will not result in action by GW so is somewhat pointless.
GW has pulled out of the tournament scene so you can see there is no corporate will to nail down the fine details of their rules.

The voting choices were well written to guard against bias which deserves some credit.

The comments by the OP are pretty obvious in motivation;
1) To put us into a headlock and get us to admit the rules are rubbish.
2) To make us believe that the rules could be changed based on our input so acceptance = complacency = sheep, rather than accepting what you cannot change = pragmatic.
3) But it can only happen if the Dakka army would only stop drinking the GW cool-aid and unite!!!!!

By the fairly pointed, bordering on snide comments it can be seen that frustration is pretty high.
The responses are passionate at the very least, so I can respect that <edit: to a point...>.