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.
2014/02/19 22:53:03
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
2014/05/13 22:55:10
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.
And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.
The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.
It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
bang on dude.
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
2014/02/19 22:56:34
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/19 22:57:31
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2014/02/19 22:58:44
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
I am not a new Player, and I enjoy 40k in its current iteration. It's flawed, but largely enjoyable for me and countless others.
I think you mean uncounted rather than countless, after all invoking numbers in this debate is pointless as nobody knows how many people are for or against.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
I find passive aggressive messages in people's signatures quite amusing.
2014/02/19 23:01:48
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
Criticizing on forums will get far more attention than anything else. Because GW doesn't want potential customers from googling their game only to come up with a million results on it's poor quality.
And again, the "If you don't like it, leave" argument is hypocritical. If you don't like the forums not agreeing with you, leave. If you want an echo chamber go make your own.
2014/02/19 23:02:30
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
2014/02/19 23:11:37
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
I love my horses, even if they loose half their men on average to over watch haha.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/19 23:15:37
2014/02/19 23:32:01
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
What Azrael said.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
2014/02/20 00:33:45
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
And if I do any/all/some of those things (you also forgot not buying their products), do I then have your permission to write a gently worded complaint on a forum?
As to the rough riders want, remember that horses in modern warfare are really sucky. I have recently began to view them as a realistic unit in terms of ability.
I guess you could always model them as motorcycles?
Either way, it looks metal as feth.
There is an important distinction between voicing ones opinion and abusing/beating it to death.
I would never call someone out for stating their opinion in moderation- it just starts to look like legitimate trolling when the same names appear and complain about the same things, for literally years. YEARS.
If complaining to faceless people on the internet about a game you care so much about anonymously on a forum gives you the illusion that things will magically change for the better, by all means fire away. Just don't expect people to label you as anything less than a complainer.
You'd never call someone out for stating their opinion, as long as they do so within the confines of what you deem acceptable?
You have the stones to call players calling for improvements to make the game as accessible and enjoyable for as wide a range of attitudes and approaches as possible, and making it robust enough that people with different approaches can still play each other and have a positive experience entitled, and then post this gak?
Suggesting improvements is fine. I am pointing out that there is a difference between this and how a lot of people approach it- IE an endless cycle whining.
To clarify what you said, I have the stones to call people out for what they are. Crybabies. I agree the game would be better if it were literally PERFECT for every type of player, style of play, and arbitrary scenario you can come up with. Guess what? It isn't.
Allow me to illustrate my point.
Forum poster X posts how Army Y is better than Army Z in a specific way, or how a specific rule in the current edition of the rulebook favors said army.
Now, a perfectly reasonable conversation/debate could potentially come out of this.
If another poster commented and stated. for example: 'Yeah that army book is generally viewed as being overall more competitive, or favors the style of play the current rulebook was designed around'- this would be a perfectly reasonable comment. He could then talk about options, ways to approach or overcome obstacles, or overall just look for the positive, despite the fact they are faced with some challenges.
What generally happens?
'That book is gak' 'That army is gak' 'GW writes sloppy rules' 'This edition is garbage' 'GW only want your money', and many more.
Basically it boils down to jaded GW-hate/rage derailing what COULD be potentially valid or interesting conversations about ways to discuss or improve the hobby how it is. Some people honestly have nothing more to offer when people post about challenges with this hobby, often frustrated, than to be overly negative and do nothing constructive. At all.
2014/02/20 00:50:52
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
I'm not seeing that half as much as you seem to be, so I'm thinking you're projecting or suffering confirmation bias.
You have a wide age range, degree of intellect and articulation all posting here. I find a quick clink on the user name to view someone's profile often suggests what level of maturity you're looking at behind the posts, which often couches whatever they're posting in an appropriate context.
Regardless, you're still dismissing people's opinions because they're not expressing them in your preferred manner, which is perhaps human nature, but calling people crybabies for having strong opinions isn't going to gain you many friends.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
LeadLegion wrote: GW's target audience is clearly players from group number one.
No, their target audience is clearly groups 3 and 4:
3: Young kids who beg their parents to buy space marines because that demo game looks so cool. Most of them will probably just throw their 40k stuff in the closet to gather dust until they go off to college and their parents get rid of it, because they aren't willing to invest the time and effort required to build an army. The actual rules of the game don't matter for this group, you just need to present the idea of a game to tempt them into that initial purchase. Designing for this group means minimizing costs to maximize profit: why bother playtesting or spending time writing good rules when none of it matters?
4: Dedicated collectors who want to buy a dozen copies of every new release no matter how awful it is. Again, they're going to buy stuff no matter how bad the rules are, so why invest money in making better rules?
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
LeadLegion wrote: I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.
I really don't want to see 40K go that way.
The point you keep missing is that this "barrier" only exists when you have a bad game. If the rules work properly and balance is good then the barrier is irrelevant because a "casual" player and a "competitive" player can sit down and play an enjoyable game without any problems. You only have to keep the two separate if the game is a complete mess like 40k, where how much you optimize your list to exploit the balance mistakes is the most important factor in whether you win or lose.
Also, think about what you're saying here: would you really rather have a version of 40k that is worse as a casual game just so the "competitive" players stay away? Wouldn't you rather have a better casual game instead of that kind of bizarre masochism?
Zweischneid wrote: But my, and other peoples, gaming experience with 40K is getting better, not to mention that it is far superiour (by a growing margin) to the game experience offered by other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc..
If people continue lobbying to make 40K more like the inferiour past editions, or the vastly inferior games like Warmachine, I have as much right to complain.
And once again you fail (or deliberately refuse) to understand a very simple concept: nobody here wants a clone of Warmachine. The things we want to see 40k learn from those other games are things that would make 40k a much better game while still being 40k. Better balance and rules that don't require extensive FAQs and multi-page YMDC threads are universally good things. The only reason to oppose them is out of some bizarre masochistic pride in how much abuse you can suffer and still give money to a company.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/02/20 01:23:25
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
I've been playing since RT days and I love 6th edition. For decades we've clamored for fortifications, baneblades in regular games, knights, faster codex releases, etc. And now that we finally get them I hear a great deal of complaining. Let me define complaining. Complaining is different than criticism. There's plenty of room for criticism when it comes to GW. But complaining (how I define it) is when it gets reactionary, toxic and just annoying. And the GW community is growing more toxic which in no way helps the hobby at all.
Also, saying "nothing's wrong and if you make any criticism you're just whining" doesn't help either.
Understand where the other poster is coming from and see if they have a valid argument first. If someone with criticism wants to make a change, start sending in letters. Get your friends to send in letters. Create open (polite and professional) letters on forums like this addressed to GW. But just going around saying "GW is Gak! I haven't played GW in twenty years because they suck so much!" That doesn't help in the slightest.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2014/02/20 01:28:43
Subject: Re:This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
For decades we've clamored for fortifications, baneblades in regular games, knights, faster codex releases, etc.
We have? I know that everybody and their brother wants faster codex updates (which were needed), but I can't remember a major push for any of these other items.
2014/02/20 09:37:45
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
As opposed to stating your opinion as indisputable fact, you don't like the game and aren't having fun, stop playing. You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think? What you think are good rules others will hate, such is life.
Suggesting someone stops doing something if they aren't enjoying it isn't hypocrisy, trolling, or apologism. It's simply the sensible solution. If I lose interest in say Rugby but I have a season ticket I don't keep going to games and suffering through because "well I paid money" and keep shouting that they should be allowed to pass the ball forward.
I write off the ticket as a bad investment, maybe try and flog it on at a loss and find something else I enjoy. Our time is finite, why waste it?
So understand that when someone says "If you don't like it leave" it's advice, not an ultimatum.
So harking back you have a couple of choices:
1. Stop playing, cut your loses and find something else you enjoy.
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
3. Say this is the game GW wants and I enjoy it and keep playing.
There are probably some grey areas in between like maybe put your stuff in storage and wait for 7th ed or somethign but I think that hits the main ones.
Oh and Blacksails, lets not kid ourselves that all those thousands of posts folks are all beacons of light for the community, many forums this one included are guilty of having a veteran forum Mafia. Just look at how many personal attacks get thrown around this forum when someone dares to state a contrary opinion, there are some good folks out there but there's also a lot of toxins.
Dunklezahn wrote: You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
No, you're not faking it, but I suspect you've had very little experience with other games. Once you've seen how things are done better in other games it takes some pretty rabid fanboyism to claim that 40k's rules are good.
Also, note the difference between "you're not having fun" and "you could be having more fun if GW didn't suck at game design". You might enjoy the game now, but if GW fixed the things that competitive players want fixed then you and all the other casual players would also have a much better game. And then you'd look back on 6th edition and wonder how anyone could suffer through such a horrible mess of a "game".
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think?
That's because those threads are arguing about fine points of balance. I don't think you'll find any real disagreement over whether GW should improve balance and rule clarity as a general principle, or invest more time in design and playtesting instead of throwing out unfinished garbage as fast as they can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I'm not going to dive into this mess too much, but I feel the need to ask;
What do you base this statement on?
Are there statistics on this somewhere?
I base this on the obvious evidence in the books GW publishes: they are clearly targeted primarily at an audience that either doesn't play the game at all (kids buying space marines) or doesn't care about the rules as long as they can keep collecting the awesome models. The only possible explanation, short of assuming that GW's game designers are utter incompetents who only have a job because GW is running a charity for people who aren't even qualified to flip burgers, is that GW is aiming for people with low standards and is unwilling to invest the effort required to make a better game when their target audience doesn't care. And my groups 3 and 4 are the two major elements of GW's customer base that have low enough standards.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/20 09:51:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/02/20 09:59:27
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.
And it continues.
How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?
Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.
Sixth edition. tau and eldar.
Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.
And there are solutions.
(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets
/slowclap
I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.
Well not quite true
2nd eldar
3rd eldar
4th eldar
5th ah.. Well they skipped this one
6th elderp, tauderp derpderp
Eldar have been pretty broken/powerfull in every ed, and people are shocked they are again... Really??
If your group 1 was the real target then the rules would be a lot better. Even casual players want good balance and straightforward rules, and 40k as it is now is absolute garbage as a casual game. There's just a loud group of "casual at all costs" players who have given themselves the role of white knights and post constantly about how GW's excuses for why they don't have to make a better game are really the sacred wisdom of the greatest casual game designers ever.
As opposed to stating your opinion as indisputable fact, you don't like the game and aren't having fun, stop playing. You speak like those of us still playing and enjoying the game and it's mechanics are idiots and that the idea we are still liking the rules is an impossibility so we must be faking it.
You don't pick up a game and then demand it changes to meet your expectations of rules, you look at a games rules and if you like it then you play it.
Look at any of these "Lets fix X threads" you can't get 5 people to agree on what something's stats should be but you want GW to balance their whole game on what you alone think? What you think are good rules others will hate, such is life.
Suggesting someone stops doing something if they aren't enjoying it isn't hypocrisy, trolling, or apologism. It's simply the sensible solution. If I lose interest in say Rugby but I have a season ticket I don't keep going to games and suffering through because "well I paid money" and keep shouting that they should be allowed to pass the ball forward.
I write off the ticket as a bad investment, maybe try and flog it on at a loss and find something else I enjoy. Our time is finite, why waste it?
So understand that when someone says "If you don't like it leave" it's advice, not an ultimatum.
So harking back you have a couple of choices:
1. Stop playing, cut your loses and find something else you enjoy.
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
3. Say this is the game GW wants and I enjoy it and keep playing.
There are probably some grey areas in between like maybe put your stuff in storage and wait for 7th ed or somethign but I think that hits the main ones.
Oh and Blacksails, lets not kid ourselves that all those thousands of posts folks are all beacons of light for the community, many forums this one included are guilty of having a veteran forum Mafia. Just look at how many personal attacks get thrown around this forum when someone dares to state a contrary opinion, there are some good folks out there but there's also a lot of toxins.
Heh well said
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 10:04:03
2014/02/20 10:21:32
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
2. Mod the rules yourself to be something you and your group enjoy more, keep the basic framework, no sense reinventing the wheel, but mod it.
Best choice, in my experience. Just remember to not buy anything rule-related from GW. Use the free market and don't pay for what you don't really want to use dammit!
My armies:
14000 points
2014/02/20 10:24:08
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
No, their target audience is clearly groups 3 and 4:
I'm not going to dive into this mess too much, but I feel the need to ask;
What do you base this statement on?
Are there statistics on this somewhere?
GW themselves have stated that the majority of the people buying their models never play the game. That's disputable but that's their words.
They also told a court that at Gamesday GWs fans get to participate in their favourite part of the hobby, buying things from Games Workshop.
They also stated in an investors report (a few years back now I think) that they were in the busness of selling toys to kids.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2014/02/20 11:27:22
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
No, you're not faking it, but I suspect you've had very little experience with other games. Once you've seen how things are done better in other games it takes some pretty rabid fanboyism to claim that 40k's rules are good.
Nope, your suspicion is pretty far off the mark, I haven't played Flames of War but the rest of the list I've either played or own an army for. I find 40k to be the most fun of the systems which is why I keep playing it. "Good" is purely subjective, I find Warmachine for example dull as all getout and would rather 40k stayed as far away from it as possible if that's what a balanced ruleset looks like. Dystopian Wars is good but hoo-boy was that first rules draft a mess.
Peregrine wrote: Also, note the difference between "you're not having fun" and "you could be having more fun if GW didn't suck at game design". You might enjoy the game now, but if GW fixed the things that competitive players want fixed then you and all the other casual players would also have a much better game. And then you'd look back on 6th edition and wonder how anyone could suffer through such a horrible mess of a "game".
Your opinion, list some of the specific changes you'd make to make it better and watch as people hate them. Competitive players can agree what should be changed any more than anyone else unless the criteria is as vague as "The rules should be better". GW have said "This is our game" and what you are saying is "I don't like it, they should change it" If that's the case just make the mods you and your group want and move on, GW cannot possibly appease everyone, that's not fanboyism, that's simple fact.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
How are GW dominating the market? Warmachine, Infinty, the new Dystopian Wars range, Historical rulesets, Flames of War. The wargaming market has plenty of options, many of which can transfer models directly or whose rule systems can be adapted to use those beloved Warhammer models. People have even said how GW's profits are down but others are up, no-one is trying anyone to 40k, if people stay they have chosen to stay.
That's because those threads are arguing about fine points of balance. I don't think you'll find any real disagreement over whether GW should improve balance and rule clarity as a general principle, or invest more time in design and playtesting instead of throwing out unfinished garbage as fast as they can.
Except it's the same with rules, X should be stronger so this should happen, X should work like this, no it shouldn't. You have absolutely no chance of producing a ruleset everyone is happy with, 0. Hell, I doubt you could produce a ruleset you could get a dozen folks on here all happy with the changes. Changing core rules leads to changes in fine balance being required, everything is interlinked.
I base this on the obvious evidence in the books GW publishes: they are clearly targeted primarily at an audience that either doesn't play the game at all (kids buying space marines) or doesn't care about the rules as long as they can keep collecting the awesome models. The only possible explanation, short of assuming that GW's game designers are utter incompetents who only have a job because GW is running a charity for people who aren't even qualified to flip burgers, is that GW is aiming for people with low standards and is unwilling to invest the effort required to make a better game when their target audience doesn't care. And my groups 3 and 4 are the two major elements of GW's customer base that have low enough standards.
Huge assumption that works on the principle that everyone who sees the rules for Riptides or whatever and proceeds to jam as many in their list as possible, that's not everyone. Clearly *to you*, once again, far divorced from fact.
Except in the case of 40k (or other similar "hobby" games) you have a lot of people who play the game because of the fluff/models and have to put up with whatever rules allow them to use the things they care about. And then, thanks to GW's dominance of the market, there are a lot of people who only have 40k/WHFB available. If it's a choice between a bad miniatures game and no game at all then many of them will settle for a GW game even if the rules are terrible.
How are GW dominating the market? Warmachine, Infinty, the new Dystopian Wars range, Historical rulesets, Flames of War. The wargaming market has plenty of options, many of which can transfer models directly or whose rule systems can be adapted to use those beloved Warhammer models. People have even said how GW's profits are down but others are up, no-one is trying anyone to 40k, if people stay they have chosen to stay.
Um... have you joined the hobby within the last year and have no idea what it was like 5 years ago? GWs competition is growing and they are shrinking but for the past 20-30 years they have been almost always the only game in town. People aren't staying with 40k because they like it better, people are finally leaving 40k (and that's showing in the financial reports, not anecdotal) because they are discovering other options. GW are still the biggest by a wide margin though. They are shrinking but they still dominate the market, to say anything else is either a sign that in your local area they have shrunk a lot more than in others recently or complete and utter ignorance.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2014/02/20 12:06:10
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
@Peregrine: This is semantics I know, but I'm going into this for the sake of clarification. You're group 3 (while it exists) isn't exactly going to be on DakkaDakka and hence is not one of the three groups we have "here". "Here" being on this particular thread. Probably my fault for not being specific enough in my comments.
You're group 4 pretty much falls into my group 3.
Of the three groups here on Dakka, group 1 is the target audience.
I also think you're in danger of maginalizing anyone who has an opinion that clashes with your own as either a "GW fanboy" or a moron. On the contrary, the posters who are debating your points don't come across that way to me. No one here is denying that the game has flaws.
That being said, I'll introduce myself a bit so that you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.
I'm 34
I started gaming when I was eight with WFB 3rd ed, red box D&D and 40K Rogue Trader.
My favorite edition remains Rogue Trader (which was also a very flawed system in terms of the holy grail of balance, but downright fun to play for all that).
Of editions 2-6, 6 has been my favorite. That being said, I only played about 4 games of 4th in total before rage quitting (not at the rules, but at the costs) and coming back for the tail end of 5th.
I have played (or currently play): Infinity, Malifaux, Blasters and Bulkheads, Warmachine, Hordes, Starship Troopers, In the Emperor's Name, WAB, Wastelands, Noble Armada, Judge Dredd, Void, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, Mutant Chronicles, AT. And that's just the non-GW, non Fantasy Genre Games.
I'm a former TO.
I'm a former pod-caster.
I'm reliant on the wargames hobby for my livelihood and as such, keep up to date with as many new releases and rules-sets as possible.
I get my biggest kick out of gaming when it's viewed as a "co-operative" experience where neither player cares who wins, rather than a competitive one where the goal is winning.
But I am also a tournament player, because I enjoy that style of play as well.
And yet, despite all these varied experiences, I keep coming back to 40K. Because it's the game I most enjoy.
None of the dozens of games I have ever played have ever had "perfect balance" where there weren't at least some broken units or combinations.
Warmachine, the holy grail many 40K players look up to as the "Holy Grail" of game balance has just as many over-powered lists and units and just as many units that no-body uses. There's a reason that Cryx and Legion currently dominate the tournament seasons all over the world, cloself followed by Cygnar and Circle.
It's because: WARMACHINE ISN'T BALANCED EITHER.
Because it's impossible to create a perfectly balanced game. Ever hear of the theory of perfect imbalance? That's the design philosophy that Warmachine uses, and it's only possible because they release updates for every army at the same time, rather than a separate codex for each. (In other words, you still need to buy every damn book in order to play). Incidently, 40K also employs the "perfect imbalance" design theory. Albiet not as well, due to a longer period between faction updates (five years for a new codex as oppossed to every faction getting new stuff in every update for Warmachine and Hordes).
The video below explains it very well.
Moreover, Warmachine is about as dull a game as you'll ever come across (in my opinion at least) it's so damn bland and I keep seeing the same lists again and again (just like 40K but more so) every time I sit down to play.
Oh look, another Hayley and Collossal themed army. What a surprise. Hey there Mr Cryx player, is that Gaspy and Deneghra I see you playing in your lists. Wow. That was unexpected.
Of all the other games I've listed, there's not one that doesn't have issues with balance. The only difference I can see is that 40K has a larger player pool, and therefore a much larger vocal minority to whinge and moan about the things they don't like. I'm not talking about GW business practices here. I'm just referring to the players that constantly harp on about game balance and how much they hate the game but keep playing anyway.
Playing a game you hate? That's masochism. Playing a game you love even when other gamers hate it? That is not masochism. That's a hobby.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 12:19:01
2014/02/20 12:14:09
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
Now that I am on a keyboard and not a tablet let me address this.
Deadnight wrote: (1) ie they like the idea of 40k more than the reality. If you don't like it, leave is an argument. I've got 2000pts of tau, and a whole bunch of mArines sitting in boxes. They've not gained in ages. Didn't stop me embracing warmachine, infinity, dystopian wars, drop zone commander, flanges of war etc. maybe it's just me, but I'm quite happy being a mercenary in terms of who/what I give my support to. Gw won't reward me for my loyalty.
Tell me more what other people do and do not like.
Deadnight wrote: (2) different rules don't make it 'not' 40k. There have been six incarnations of 40k, all being different. There are other rules sets (Andy chambers' starship troopers) that were 'almost' 40k. There are other media describing 40k in terms if rules, via computer games, books and RPGs. Saying 40k is only 40k because of a bunch of rules from gw is extremely short sighted. 40k is 40k because of space marines, orks, chainswords, bolter pornand so on. Rules are an abstract. Rules are a mechanism. Rules dont necessarily define ip's. You can inhabit the 40k verse in an infinite number of ways. Don't assume the rules from gw are the only proper way.
And here is the thing, most gAmes of 40k are played by small handfuls of friends, or clubs. Having their own rules is t necessarily exclusionary - 'we do the game a bit differently here mate. Have a look, and see what you think'.
In my own 'casual Friday' group, we normally do flames of war. But we don't use the 'proper' lists for armies - we put down what looks cool. We're also quite happy to add/remove things if we feel they'll add or subtract from the game. Fir example, rather than igoyougo, we've tried alternative activations, which was great, and have added bolt action's random unit activation to our games and it's immensely enjoyable. Sure, it's not 'proper' but who cares - we have fun. And that's the point.
Of course changing the rules makes it exclusionary. "I am sorry little timmy, you can't play with your 3 riptides, even though you only bought them because you love the model." BAM you just excluded someone from your group. Having a set of house rules makes for a bad game. Take Monopoly for example. That has a set of rules that makes the game over pretty quickly. Unfortunately, people don't like losing quickly, so pretty much everyone has their house rules (a common one is putting taxes and fees into "Free Parking") and those make the game go on for hours. The funny thing about the Monopoly example, is the game was initially created to show the horrors of true capitalism. I have played Monopoly with about 5 different households and all of them had different rules. And none of them were fun because the games dragged on for 8 hours.
No ones stopping you from using your own home made rules. But saying "I play 40k" because you use the models doesn't make it true. I can't really claim I am playing Warmachine, because I am using the models for it in 40k rules.
All of those 6 official versions of 40k ARE 40k. Because those are the rules for the game as published by the company. I don't see how that supports your argument of "Blacksail's 40k" is 40k.
Deadnight wrote: I've heRd people saying the rules are crap for ten years now, they're still crap. Gw won't listen jpong. Go on, tell them exactly what you want, and they'll still go off and do their one thing. Constructive criticism using really constructive when nothing gets done by the company in question! They're 'model making company'. Get their stuff, but make the game your own if how they do it bothers you.
And that doesn't mean people can't voice their opinion. And just because the company doesn't listen, doesn't mean it isn't constructive criticism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XenosTerminus wrote: It is still an argument, and a solution. You can't always get what you want- it's a lesson we learn very early in life, and people stomping their feet and vocalizing/whining until the polar caps melt is akin to a selfish child demanding they get what they want and throwing tantrums. It's one thing to wish things were better,but accept something you seemingly enjoy for all its flaws- it's another thing entirely to vocalize it as if it's the 'cool' thing to do.
Except, again, we have established these people like 40k. Not to mention the hypocrisy in complaining about people complaining and telling them if they don't like it to go away. No one has addressed the hypocrisy.
XenosTerminus wrote: If you don't like the vanilla 40k ruleset, and you aren't willing to play homebrew or houseruled variations (which is encouraged)- what do you have left? You are complaining that the rules are bad, but also complaining that you don't want to limit yourself to a specific group or ruleset.
Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
XenosTerminus wrote: To your last point- people ARE saying the rules are gak. While some people provide examples of how things could be improved, it's not uncommon around here for someone to simply sneak in, hijack a discussion, insert their contrived 'GW is gak and their rules are bad' tripe, then scurry off to the next post to repeat the same thing.
Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
XenosTerminus wrote: If you, as a consumer, want to voice your opinion about your distaste with the direction GW is going- write them a letter. Call corporate. Do anything but complain about the state of things on a forum. That accomplishes nothing.
It hits their bottom line.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 12:22:37
2014/02/20 12:29:25
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
Jpong, I think you may be overstating the case for house rules changing a game into a different game entirely.
Just about every RPG group I've ever played in had it's own house rules for every single system they used. Yet I've never had any problem sliding into a new group whenever I've moved area, because house rules generally have such a minor impact on a game. (Anecdotal evidence I know, but show me how to find stats for this and I'll use them too).
For example. Here's our groups informal house-rules for 40K. So simple, none of us have ever seen the need to write them down. They just evolved naturally.
No Strength D weapons unless you're opponent has one too.
Escalation and Stronghold Assault are allowed (but see above)
If you want to use a non-GW codex, check with your opponent first.
Now, if the house rules involved changes as complex as alternate unit activation then I'd agree that they become fundamentally different from 40K. Such a house rule would change the meta and completely throw any new player coming into the group. A new player would have to re-think all his old assumptions. In fact, such a change is so drastic that, unless the rest of the rules was re-written as well, it would completely destroy the existing balance altogether. At that point, more house rules would be needed and in time the rules that resulted would bear little resemblance to 40K.
Unless I've greatly mis-interpreted this thread, no-one is suggesting anything so drastic here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 12:30:39
2014/02/20 12:34:11
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
Um... have you joined the hobby within the last year and have no idea what it was like 5 years ago? GWs competition is growing and they are shrinking but for the past 20-30 years they have been almost always the only game in town. People aren't staying with 40k because they like it better, people are finally leaving 40k (and that's showing in the financial reports, not anecdotal) because they are discovering other options. GW are still the biggest by a wide margin though. They are shrinking but they still dominate the market, to say anything else is either a sign that in your local area they have shrunk a lot more than in others recently or complete and utter ignorance.
More than 20 years actually, you'll also notice you responded to a comment I didn't make, notice I said:
"if people stay they have chosen to stay"
Not that the majority of people are staying. The comment was in reference to the idea being bandied around that players are somehow trapped in 40k like a junkie, if people have stayed playing 40k the simplest assumption is they want to stay.
JPong wrote: Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
That's why it's a group discussion among folks willing to discuss and compromise. Yes it can make a smaller group but if it improves the quality of the game it's not a bad thing. Plus nothing stops a new person joining the group, seeing how that group plays and making their own suggestions.
JPong wrote: Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
Oh come now, I wouldn't because it's naming and shaming and just not nice but I think we can all name a number of people who swing by almost every discussion to make those kinds of statements and sometimes even take a swing at the posters. You are very lucky if you've managed to not see them.
Edit, Didn't notice JPongs post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 12:41:01
LeadLegion wrote: Jpong, I think you may be overstating the case for house rules changing a game into a different game entirely.
Just about every RPG group I've ever played in had it's own house rules for every single system they used. Yet I've never had any problem sliding into a new group whenever I've moved area, because house rules generally have such a minor impact on a game. (Anecdotal evidence I know, but show me how to find stats for this and I'll use them too).
For example. Here's our groups informal house-rules for 40K. So simple, none of us have ever seen the need to write them down. They just evolved naturally.
No Strength D weapons unless you're opponent has one too.
Escalation and Stronghold Assault are allowed (but see above)
If you want to use a non-GW codex, check with your opponent first.
Now, if the house rules involved changes as complex as alternate unit activation then I'd agree that they become fundamentally different from 40K. Such a house rule would change the meta and completely throw any new player coming into the group. A new player would have to re-think all his old assumptions. In fact, such a change is so drastic that, unless the rest of the rules was re-written as well, it would completely destroy the existing balance altogether. At that point, more house rules would be needed and in time the rules that resulted would bear little resemblance to 40K.
Unless I've greatly mis-interpreted this thread, no-one is suggesting anything so drastic here.
Just about every RPG also has a DM that tells you what the rules are. And no one can argue with him. His interests aren't counter to the interests of everyone else playing.
No StrD weapons sounds reasonable, but what do you say to the guy that likes that new Knight model coming out and buys it and really wants to play it. All of a sudden you are turning away a gamer because you don't like something. This is especially a problem in smaller areas with less players.
And then why bother going through the trouble of making non-GW codexes? I wouldn't play against one. I couldn't take one I created anywhere and expect people to play against it. It is probably worse in every way than a GW one anyways. Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned.
Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful.
JPong wrote:
Why should people play homebrewed 40k rules? That's just asking for your group to get smaller and smaller. You are excluding people from playing in your group, simply because you don't like some rules.
That's why it's a group discussion among folks willing to discuss and compromise. Yes it can make a smaller group but if it improves the quality of the game it's not a bad thing. Plus nothing stops a new person joining the group, seeing how that group plays and making their own suggestions.
So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).
JPong wrote:
Selection bias. You want to read something so you are reading it.
Oh come now, I wouldn't because it's naming and shaming and just not nice but I think we can all name a number of people who swing by almost every discussion to make those kinds of statements and sometimes even take a swing at the posters. You are very lucky if you've managed to not see them.
Point them out.
Seriously, if you are just going to continue to claim this, and not bother with context, then what's the point in arguing this.
You might see someone who says "I agree these rules are dumb and something needs to be done about them" in a thread filled with people who have said "Yeah, I don't like random charge lengths, fixed ones were so much better", in which case, the first quote there might just not have anything to add that hasn't already been said.
It's selection bias. You are reading what you want to read because it agrees with your own preconceived notions. It doesn't matter if some people who say it are the same people as who have said it before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 12:52:49
2014/02/20 13:06:10
Subject: This ain't a game it's a god damn arms race
"Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned. "
Which, to me sounds as though you're saying non_GW codixes shouldn't be allowed because you want to play the same game as everyone else. But then you say:
"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."
Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?
I'm not trolling you here. I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint, but that last post of yours has very confused. If I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.
Anyway, in answer to your other points:
If a member of our group has a D Weapon model and wants to play it, the solution in our group is simple: another players brings out his own D-Weapon list and both players get a game.
The reason we allow non-GW codices in friendly games is because GW doesn't have a Codice for every model in the current range. We allow fan-made Squat codices because it means that a player who spent a ton of money on the models still gets to use them. We allow the fan made Genestealer cult and Arbiters codeces for the same reason. We haven't come across any others yet, but if someone turned up with a fan made Ad-Mech codex, we'd allow that too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 13:16:39
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
14000 points 
