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.

You are taking this way too seriously. I know damn well GW's not going to do any of this. But I CAN use it illustrate why I'm not happy with them. Get it?

They'd be better off outsourcing the rules, but they are too stupid and stubborn over at GW.

Martel732 wrote:
You are taking this way too seriously. I know damn well GW's not going to do any of this. But I CAN use it illustrate why I'm not happy with them. Get it?

They'd be better off outsourcing the rules, but they are too stupid and stubborn over at GW.

Well, they'd be better off doing a lot of things, but realistically expecting them to do them is just silly. What we can do is compare current actions against previous actions and go from there. That's realistic.

Otherwise, we can just have one of those 'If I was CEO...' threads. Ugh.

 Zweischneid wrote:

??

Have you played X-Wing? The entire game (!) has less options than the Sternguard entry in the Space Marines Codex all by itself, only two factions, no hand-to-hand, no psionics, only one type of terrain, no variant deployment-options, no units-within-units transpors, only one type of terrain, and still it's pretty easy to break (e.g. Tie Swarms, Double Falcon), etc..

I love a little X-Wing bash, but the game is simplistic to the point of anorexia ... and ... well ... not very well balanced (not to mention full of obvious "Howl Runner"-style cash-grabs).

You mean a game far younger than 40k that is constantly being expanded upon? I get it Z, 40k is the shining beacon of greatness in a sea of awful miniature wargaming, but to claim X-Wing is awful because it isn't 40k is, well, disingenuous at best.

But that last thing I want to do is have another discussion with you about your ideas of game design.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Isnt it fairly easy to bog down an Imperial Knight by...say...a Templar blob? Okay they need to be in a transport to get there (preferably a Land Raider, which the Knight will have difficulty cracking from range, plus they can assault out of it) and with 2 powerfists (one on sarge, one on another initiate) and a melta and a combi-melta on the sarge, the squad could take one down as the Knight doesnt have an invulnerable save in CC.

Plus it only has a handful of attacks with its D weapon and it needs to roll to-hit, so it'll insta-kill 1-2 guys per cc-round? That's 28 points per round.

 Stormonu wrote:
If GW would cut prices by about 20% I think I'd be set. I'm not into competition gaming and the games I've been in ('round about 1250 pt battles) have been fine rule-wise. Even the recent game with Tyranids.

buy at 20% off discount stores

I do, but I want GW to discount THEIR stuff by 20% so combined with my FLGS, it'd be a respectable price.

When I can buy a $20 Pacific Rim painted & assembled "action figure" that's about the right size to proxy for a $140 plastic kit that you have to assemble and paint yourself, something's off.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

??

Have you played X-Wing? The entire game (!) has less options than the Sternguard entry in the Space Marines Codex all by itself, only two factions, no hand-to-hand, no psionics, only one type of terrain, no variant deployment-options, no units-within-units transpors, only one type of terrain, and still it's pretty easy to break (e.g. Tie Swarms, Double Falcon), etc..

I love a little X-Wing bash, but the game is simplistic to the point of anorexia ... and ... well ... not very well balanced (not to mention full of obvious "Howl Runner"-style cash-grabs).

You mean a game far younger than 40k that is constantly being expanded upon? I get it Z, 40k is the shining beacon of greatness in a sea of awful miniature wargaming, but to claim X-Wing is awful because it isn't 40k is, well, disingenuous at best.

But that last thing I want to do is have another discussion with you about your ideas of game design.

Hey, I love X-Wing.

Just saying that it is a very different, far simpler game.


If you want to play 40K X-Wing style, it's easy enough.

Pick two Codexes (e.g. Space Marines = Rebels vs. Chaos Space Marines = Imperials). All other books are banned.

Pick about 4 to 5 miniatures from each Codex (e.g. Tactical Marine = X-Wing, Assault Marine = A-Wing, etc..). All other units are banned.

Don't use psionics or hand-to-hand combat.

All weapons use the same range and do the same amount of damage.

Don't use terrain, except simple obstacles (no forests, buildings, etc..)

Don't use any missions or objectives or VP/Kill Points for standard games.

No vehicles, walkers, transports, flyers, etc.. .

Don't use more than 4 or 5 Miniatures each side.

All models start on the board, no reserves, deep-strike, infiltrate, etc..

And go.... Warhammer 40K FFG-style.

-----

Now, in my experience, X-Wing isn't well balanced. I don't care, to be honest. I love X-Wing as much as I love (almost) any unbalanced game.

But if you are looking for a balanced game, how can you pick one so obviously dominated by a few choice builds (e.g. Tie Swarms, Advanced Sensor/B-wing combos, etc..), even though the entirety of the game-pieces/rules in the game that the FFG-designers would need to balance (but don't) amount to about 0.0001% of the units and equipment combinations available in 40K?

 pretre wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Blind positivity isnt better than blind negativity. Just saying, "Oh, everything is good about 40k" is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. In addition, writing off people who have complaints as "whiners" or "haters" is silly. I also liked the post that basically said "If dont agree with us you do not belong here".

You must have missed all the times that the original poster said 'I know GW screws up' and such then. You're applying your own filter.

Hmm, maybe I was little off the mark there but I do notice such a attitude in other posters. Weasel words, I know, but its there.

 streamdragon wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
They're giving us something, but I'm not certain I'd call it "what we've said we wanted for years now". We want clear and concise rules, but haven't had even a FAQ update in almost a year. We wanted a balanced game, we have Taudar vs Nids. I'm not sure we asked for D strength weapons in 40k games, but we have Escalation and now Knights. We wanted some sort of communication, but it's all entirely one sided: GW telling us what is new while ignoring anything the player base actually says.

I mean, if you ignore the actual issues and say that getting Imperial Knights is in fact a "rules update", then sure, it sounds like GW is giving us "what we said we wanted", then sure, it might seem that way. Reality is, however, that many of the long term requests from players have gone, and continue to go, unanswered.

To be clear, I meant "What we want from a product standpoint". GW probably has no desire to give us what we want from a communications or corporate governance standpoint. They do have a vested interest in giving us what we want from a product standpoint though.

GW has never had clear and concise rules and has never been balanced, so I doubt you're going to get that anytime soon.

Ask them to produce a model that's really cool? Sure, that's possible.
A tight, concise ruleset? You're dreaming.

If GW was giving us the models we've been saying we wanted for years, you and I would be assembling plastic Sisters right now.

But yes, I agree that their actual model releases have been pretty good to great lately.

And I don't need perfect rules, but devoting time to small FAQ updates more than once a year should not be outside the realm of reality for a company like GW. Their silence, as they say, is deafening.

Well, I wouldn't be assembling Sisters...

To your point about FAQs though, I do agree there. There are a few oversights that really kind of suck, and I do wish they would fix them.

To play Devil's Advocate just a bit though, by not releasing FAQs they do keep things simpler for everybody. Not more effective, mind, but simpler. There are actually a lot of players that don't check forums or GW news sites etc., and its not exactly like FAQs were released with fanfare sufficient to reach these groups. It makes it so that if you buy the codex, you're good.

Now, the other thing here is that a lot of people looked forward to the FAQs because they buffed their armies a little bit. GW probably recognized that, and has decided to buff armies outside of the FAQ structure with dataslates, supplements and the like. (And yes, yes I know they charge for these. GW will always take money where it can. Moral or not, I do feel like the majority of these updates hold significant enough value to justify their purchase if you play the relevant armies.)

I'm not saying that's how it is, but it's something I've thought about. Regardless, yes, I would like more FAQs and rules clarifications. Right now RAW my Deathwing Sergeants have to all have powerswords...le sigh.

themadlbb wrote:


To play Devil's Advocate just a bit though, by not releasing FAQs they do keep things simpler for everybody. Not more effective, mind, but simpler. There are actually a lot of players that don't check forums or GW news sites etc., and its not exactly like FAQs were released with fanfare sufficient to reach these groups. It makes it so that if you buy the codex, you're good.

LOL. That's right. GW is keeping things simple for us. They don't want to confuse us. Having to go to their website to see if there was a clarification about their poor quality rules is just too onerous. You know, were up to 38 different sources of rules between the supplements, expansions, and dataslates not including Forgeworld. GW keeping it simple for the little guy!

Now, the other thing here is that a lot of people looked forward to the FAQs because they buffed their armies a little bit. GW probably recognized that, and has decided to buff armies outside of the FAQ structure with dataslates, supplements and the like. (And yes, yes I know they charge for these. GW will always take money where it can. Moral or not, I do feel like the majority of these updates hold significant enough value to justify their purchase if you play the relevant armies.)

You touch on it, but you are afraid to really go there. The reason we don't get FAQs anymore is because FAQs don't bring in any revenue. Dataslates that change rules and revised rulebooks (see persistent rumors of a version 6.5/7 of the rules coming this year) do.

I find it interesting that while GW is vaunted for their customer service when it comes to physical product issues (broken models, missing sprues, and finecast miscasts) they take absolutely no responsibility for the quality of their rules. And for a "model" company they sure do sell a lot of rules.

themadlbb wrote:
I would never argue that GW is perfect, but they do seem to be actively giving the playerbase what we've said we wanted for years now.

Yes and no.

People have been clamouring for faster rules updates, yes. As in, when a new edition is released, they want the codexes updated in a reasonable time. At the same time as the core rules, preferably, IMO.

What players haven't wanted for years is hardcover, 64 page codexes containing 2 pages of rules. Or rules for one particular company of the Iron Hands Chapter. We went down the supplemental codex road once before, and people hated it. Why GW thought it was a good idea to revisit that is anyone's guess.

But this is why people are still complaining ... because GW isn't giving the players what they wanted. They're just throwing new rules out there to see what sticks. And in the meantime, some armies are still using 4th edition codexes, and the FAQs (which leave out an awful lot of problems currently) haven't been updated in over a year.

Keeping it simple, yeah, sure. Having a 10 minute rules debate is so much simpler than "let's check the FAQ".

 insaniak wrote:

themadlbb wrote:
I would never argue that GW is perfect, but they do seem to be actively giving the playerbase what we've said we wanted for years now.

Yes and no.

People have been clamouring for faster rules updates, yes. As in, when a new edition is released, they want the codexes updated in a reasonable time. At the same time as the core rules, preferably, IMO.

What players haven't wanted for years is hardcover, 64 page codexes containing 2 pages of rules. Or rules for one particular company of the Iron Hands Chapter. We went down the supplemental codex road once before, and people hated it. Why GW thought it was a good idea to revisit that is anyone's guess.

But this is why people are still complaining ... because GW isn't giving the players what they wanted. They're just throwing new rules out there to see what sticks. And in the meantime, some armies are still using 4th edition codexes, and the FAQs (which leave out an awful lot of problems currently) haven't been updated in over a year.

Well, it would definitely be awesome if all codexes were updated as soon as a new edition was released. Given the fact that GW likes to use those rules updates to also present new models, new feel, and sometimes a reboot to army lore, they will probably never do that.

Like I mentioned above, FAQs are definitely useful as clarifying tools, but I'm never really super excited about an FAQ. They are valuable, but hell, they oftentimes present more trouble than before they were released.

In any case, I don't want this thread to devolve into a debate about FAQ updates. What I'm more saying is that people have, for years, been wanting fresh new rules, fresh new models, and fresh new ways to play the game. I think that we are not anywhere near the pinnacle of what 40K can be, but I would definitely argue that we are closer now than we have ever been before. I sincerely hope that GW continues to go in this direction, I love the allies system, the dataslates and rules supplements that let us play with diverse new rules and formations.

I also hope that players will quit resisting everything that GW is trying to do, particularly when it comes to outright banning things and shaming players for using their cool new toys. It's a form of reverse elitism that encourages players to nerf themselves rather than adopt new tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arschbombe wrote:

themadlbb wrote:


To play Devil's Advocate just a bit though, by not releasing FAQs they do keep things simpler for everybody. Not more effective, mind, but simpler. There are actually a lot of players that don't check forums or GW news sites etc., and its not exactly like FAQs were released with fanfare sufficient to reach these groups. It makes it so that if you buy the codex, you're good.

LOL. That's right. GW is keeping things simple for us. They don't want to confuse us. Having to go to their website to see if there was a clarification about their poor quality rules is just too onerous. You know, were up to 38 different sources of rules between the supplements, expansions, and dataslates not including Forgeworld. GW keeping it simple for the little guy!

Now, the other thing here is that a lot of people looked forward to the FAQs because they buffed their armies a little bit. GW probably recognized that, and has decided to buff armies outside of the FAQ structure with dataslates, supplements and the like. (And yes, yes I know they charge for these. GW will always take money where it can. Moral or not, I do feel like the majority of these updates hold significant enough value to justify their purchase if you play the relevant armies.)

You touch on it, but you are afraid to really go there. The reason we don't get FAQs anymore is because FAQs don't bring in any revenue. Dataslates that change rules and revised rulebooks (see persistent rumors of a version 6.5/7 of the rules coming this year) do.

I find it interesting that while GW is vaunted for their customer service when it comes to physical product issues (broken models, missing sprues, and finecast miscasts) they take absolutely no responsibility for the quality of their rules. And for a "model" company they sure do sell a lot of rules.

I'm certainly not "afraid to go there"

I don't work for GW. It would be super awesome if all models were reduced in price by 50% or more and if we received all rules options for free, with the option to buy fluffy full-colored hardcover books if we wanted to. But let's call a spade a spade here, GW is a corporation that is built to survive and make money. I don't want to be screwed, but I also hope that they continue to survive well into the future. I would be very disappointed if GW went under. Maybe there are some here who would enjoy seeing them take some serious licks, but I think we should reward their attempts to diversify and enrich the game (even if they do charge a premium price for doing it).

Is surviving and making money exclusive to reducing price increases/freezing them and publishing a portion of suitable rules for free though, faqs and the like.

 Elgrun wrote:
Is surviving and making money exclusive to reducing price increases/freezing them and publishing a portion of suitable rules for free though, faqs and the like.

Nope, it sure isn't. I think they could potentially make significantly more money if they made cost to entry into the hobby cheaper. And FAQs should absolutely continue to come out to clarify rules issues.

I wholeheartedly agree that GW should do some things very, very differently. But what I don't agree with is pouncing all over them for the good things they have done and are currently doing. I see a person in nearly every thread about new releases etc. claiming that they are jumping ship from the hobby.

I personally just see them power creeping and increasing the stakes.

They just want to make the scene more epic. This is something a lot of people fall into. They want to make it so OTT that they lose what is at its very core. But eh thats just me and seeing it as a upcoming game designer.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I personally just see them power creeping and increasing the stakes.

They just want to make the scene more epic. This is something a lot of people fall into. They want to make it so OTT that they lose what is at its very core. But eh thats just me and seeing it as a upcoming game designer.

I agree that they are giving you the option to increase the stakes. I don't think that stops you from playing how you want to.

And in all seriousness, good luck on your career as a Games Designer. I imagine it is very difficult to make a game that is simultaneously incredibly diverse yet perfectly balanced and reasonably costed. If you can do that you will have tremendous success.

themadlbb wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I personally just see them power creeping and increasing the stakes.

They just want to make the scene more epic. This is something a lot of people fall into. They want to make it so OTT that they lose what is at its very core. But eh thats just me and seeing it as a upcoming game designer.

I agree that they are giving you the option to increase the stakes. I don't think that stops you from playing how you want to.

And in all seriousness, good luck on your career as a Games Designer. I imagine it is very difficult to make a game that is simultaneously incredibly diverse yet perfectly balanced and reasonably costed. If you can do that you will have tremendous success.

Well they are trying to increase interest in the game by making the stakes higher. They are basically insinuating that you need these models to make your army better.

They are increasing stats of these creatures so that they are viable, and then it will increase the amount of stat wants by the player base, and they are alienated if they do not buy a certain model that can counter that model...

That is what I am talking about. They way they are handling it is how most designers and developers handle things they make something so overpowered that they realize they have to balance it by making another overpowered unit to counter that other overpowered unit. Its something prevalvent in board games and video games.

 Asherian Command wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I personally just see them power creeping and increasing the stakes.

They just want to make the scene more epic. This is something a lot of people fall into. They want to make it so OTT that they lose what is at its very core. But eh thats just me and seeing it as a upcoming game designer.

I agree that they are giving you the option to increase the stakes. I don't think that stops you from playing how you want to.

And in all seriousness, good luck on your career as a Games Designer. I imagine it is very difficult to make a game that is simultaneously incredibly diverse yet perfectly balanced and reasonably costed. If you can do that you will have tremendous success.

Well they are trying to increase interest in the game by making the stakes higher. They are basically insinuating that you need these models to make your army better.

They are increasing stats of these creatures so that they are viable, and then it will increase the amount of stat wants by the player base, and they are alienated if they do not buy a certain model that can counter that model...

That is what I am talking about. They way they are handling it is how most designers and developers handle things they make something so overpowered that they realize they have to balance it by making another overpowered unit to counter that other overpowered unit. Its something prevalvent in board games and video games.

I understand that to an extent, but I guess I still find that 40k, except perhaps at the highest levels, is still primarily a game that uses the same models with similar (though evolving) tactics that they have for years. When we talk about these types of escalating goodies, we're talking about a relatively small number of units in the game. of those, the only big new baddies that I hear are constantly described as OP are Riptides. Even Wraithknights are generally not considered too broken. The jury is out on Imperial Knights, though people still seem to want to ban them without ever having played them.

The other broken units are things that have been around for a long time, but just currently have their rules updated in such a way that they become significantly greater threats. Temporally broken units like these arise every game cycle, and yes it is almost always the result of oversight by GW. Actually, in the entirety of the game right now, the only thing that seems like a blaring and ludicrous oversight to me is the Wave Serpent. Not because they are powerful, mind, but because a near infinite range Serpent Shield that ignores cover just doesn't make any sense at all. Riptides are tough, but it makes sense that they would be. Maybe adjust their points up a bit.

I'm afraid even the non competitives like I are beginning to suffer this mass stupidity.

themadlbb wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:
Is surviving and making money exclusive to reducing price increases/freezing them and publishing a portion of suitable rules for free though, faqs and the like.

Nope, it sure isn't. I think they could potentially make significantly more money if they made cost to entry into the hobby cheaper.

Aren't the Dark Vengeance box set as well as most Battleforces very cost efficient?

 Sir Arun wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:
Is surviving and making money exclusive to reducing price increases/freezing them and publishing a portion of suitable rules for free though, faqs and the like.

Nope, it sure isn't. I think they could potentially make significantly more money if they made cost to entry into the hobby cheaper.

Aren't the Dark Vengeance box set as well as most Battleforces very cost efficient?

Not really, but part of that is the fact you have to spend $125 on the rules alone (rulebook + Codex). IMO the ideal way to do a starter army box is to give a solid starting army, say 750 or 1,000 points, for about $150 and throw the Codex in for free, and make the small paperback rules available for like $20-25 as well. Take a loss on that if you have to in order to make it more accessible so somebody just starting or starting a new army spends under $200 and has a basic starter army they can work with. You then have the boxed game that has two of the army boxes included (well one technically since there's always Space Marines) for maybe a little more than they currently are, but you get two full 750 point armies. Hell even 500 points, just something to let people start armies relatively cheaply without a huge investment up front.

They basically need the equivalent of Warmahordes' Battlegroup boxes, where you can easily pick up an army or start a new one that YOU want, rather than what two they randomly pick to be the ones in the boxed set. With Warmachine if I don't want Khador or Menoth, I can pick up a Cygnar Battleforce box and have a core to my army to get some games in without much investment. 40k basically punishes you for not wanting to play the stuff in the latest boxed set by having it be that much more expensive to get what you need for the army you do want, and part of that is how expensive the rules are.

They could even offer those "Starter Armies" as mail order only deals like they used to have long ago.

I like the pace GW is releasing stuff now. Thing for me, is I would have bought most of the 40K hard cover books, but being $25 bucks to much per book, I only buy what I play. So Tyranids and Dark Angles for me.

Just too expensive to buy everything. I just wonder if the prices were $25 cheaper for the books, I wonder if we as a community would buy more if not all the books, and if that would mean more sales for GW. You wold think, the codex in more hands would mean more buys or impulse buys for the people who bought them. More people buy the book, more minis sold.

I wonder now, is GW really a miniature company? They seem to be more a book company now than miniatures.

Well they make more money selling an $80 book than an $80 model kit because of how much cheaper it is to produce the book. And, of course, digital copies don't even cost them printing or shipping.

 pretre wrote:
People will gak themselves with how angry it makes them that GW is forcing super heavy flyers or women on their games.

I have no idea why I find this incredibly funny, but it is.
Bring on the women and heavy fliers, I will welcome them (can we combine them somehow?).

A quote springs to mind:
"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

It will all never be the same.

Not personally, but I haven't since 2nd. I won't bother being too negative on that front.

What I did want to post about is I feel that 40k used to be an okay "gateway game" to tabletop wargaming, because it was popular, looked neat, and played well enough. Whereas now I feel the latest GW direction could discourage new players when you consider the cost of entry and possible frustrations involved. And I'd hate to see people being turned off of wargaming in general just because of a bad 40k experience:
"Ugh these Knights are SO expensive and SO powerful that I can't compete with my starter set. What a stupid game! I'm going back to my X-Box!"

Nope - not happy with GW. Yes I wanted GW to increase its dex release rate from 2-3 dexes a year so that all the armies are updated in an edition and in a timely fashion to play that army in the addition.

So yes, I was glad to see in 6th a quicker release rate, however, when the prices go up so fast so regularly and making hardcover books (that few wanted IMO) to charge more money, and poor quality dexes ,such as tyranids, no I'm not happy.

Ref model kits - GW does make some wonderful models, but they also jerk the customer around with some kits.

For example, when the tyranid hive tyrant was made in plastic - asked for by many players (myself included) we got it and plastic wings - great! - but GW also decided not to include devourers - not even one pair when THEY made that build practically the goto build - no excuse. And to top it off I cannot make many legal builds with say a flying tyrant because of the way the kit is done, so with wings and legs you only have one arm socket to put two sets of weapons in. I shouldn't have to convert a model out of the box to make legal builds.

How many other kits do not include all the parts - war gear that has been on those units for years and years. For the money they charge that is not acceptable.

When i started in 4th edition I had hoped that these kinds of problems would be fixed over time (as common comments were GW is getting better and you should have seen how it used to be) - better kits with all the parts as they converted to plastic and/or made new molds; put more effort to at least try to balance things when releasing dexes; and put out errata to correct problems.

So I find GW business practices overall clearly lean into that not happy camp. If releasing a 40K dex every two months means they don't have time to do it right and we end up with the nid dex - another rushed nid product like 5th, than I would rather they take 2 1/2 - 3 months per dex. Even better would be to contract out rules to a company that knows how to make games and cares about the quality of their game.

I really appreciate the faster codex releases. The codexes themselves are a bit hit and miss. Codex space marines in particular is one of the best GW has ever put out and the benchmark on which I judge the other 6th edition codexes, and I'm personally rather fond of Eldar.

GW is amongst the best in sci-fi and fantasy miniatures in terms of 25mm figures. The sternguard kit set a new standard in 40k imo. WFB seems to benefit even more, beautiful infantry and cavalry models all over the place, Dark Elves and Dwarfs look stunning. I'm not that keen on most of the big 40K models (except monstrous creatures), as I don't find the vehicles, walkers, flyers very impressive (or good value). I'm first and foremost in to modelbuilding and GW can't really compete with actual model kit manufacturers.