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.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Woop-dee-doo, you tried out the bike and it ran along fine. You happily bought it.

It falls apart after a week, and apparently there's no refund for you. Apparently it had bad internal quality that would not be visible without actually picking apart the bike by someone much more experienced in the matter. You, being a common man rather than a bike expert, did not predict this.

Your fault obviously, you should check what you buy better.

Nope, the bike has a grantee that it will not break. I also have warranties and so forth. So if it falls apart within reason I legally have a replacement. Part of doing good shopping.

If GW sneds you a box of sand instead of a model, then thats GW fault. Not if you buy rules and dont like them.

If someone has been playing for a few editions and owns a bunch of models and then notices a huge drop off in rules quality with the new edition, then it is GW's fault

No, the next edition phone came out and I dont like it as much as my current phone. I invested money and phone credit in my current phone. Am I allowed to go nuts at the company for not making the second phone perfect for my needs. No. You can keep using the old one if thats what you like.

Dont like the new rules? Dont buy them or use them.

Not with WH40K, any competitive environment in the Hobby requires you stay current with the rules (heck even most casual games will expect you to be using current rules)

It would be as if the phone provider forced you to upgrade to the new crappy phone in order to have any service

A pointless analogy is kind of like comparing a frog to an airplane, it's kind of pointless.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I was wavering between naivety, lack of comprehension or trolling, I'm beginning to suspect a combination of all three.

We're done here kid, once you start trying to use goat gak in your arguments, its time for me to leave.

Your world view is breathtakingly narrow and idealised, I really hope the next few years broaden your perspective without kicking your arse.

Experience tells me that won't be the case.

Uhuh, you are just angry because you are wrong. GW is a product like any other. Dont like it done buy it.

The blame is on you as a customer. If the rule book fell a part then you have a right to complain unless it broke because you where being stupid with it. But if you dont like the content then you cant complain.

There's no anger here.

Maybe a hint of frustration that I can't really say what I think because I'm respecting Rule #1, but however you dress it, "don't like it, don't buy it" is a Primary school level argument.

Congrats on drawing out one more post from me, really got to go now.

Its basic, but its the first rule of having money. Dont like it dont buy it. Both buying and not buying have consequence. Choose the better consequence and move on.

Grow up buddy, gotta learn from your purchases. Cant keep wishing. take action. Rules arent for you? Move on. Cant have everything sometimes. Someone who claims to be experienced in life should know this.

Sorry, but thats how it is. Do research before committing next time. It may save you from a similar situation in the future.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:
If someone has been playing for a few editions and owns a bunch of models and then notices a huge drop off in rules quality with the new edition, then it is GW's fault

They need more devs, and I mean ones with different views about the game, to help spread the workload out and balance things better. I've recently heard from a friend that Phil Kelly apparently looks pretty haggard. They're working the devs pretty much around the clock right now and unless the situation is fixed for them I don't think rules will get better, I think they'll stay in this holding pattern we're already seeing.

There are a huge number of players who would be happy to help them design new rules, models and features.

They've chosen to not take advantage of their fanbase in this regard

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Woop-dee-doo, you tried out the bike and it ran along fine. You happily bought it.

It falls apart after a week, and apparently there's no refund for you. Apparently it had bad internal quality that would not be visible without actually picking apart the bike by someone much more experienced in the matter. You, being a common man rather than a bike expert, did not predict this.

Your fault obviously, you should check what you buy better.

Nope, the bike has a grantee that it will not break. I also have warranties and so forth. So if it falls apart within reason I legally have a replacement. Part of doing good shopping.

If GW sneds you a box of sand instead of a model, then thats GW fault. Not if you buy rules and dont like them.

If someone has been playing for a few editions and owns a bunch of models and then notices a huge drop off in rules quality with the new edition, then it is GW's fault

No, the next edition phone came out and I dont like it as much as my current phone. I invested money and phone credit in my current phone. Am I allowed to go nuts at the company for not making the second phone perfect for my needs. No. You can keep using the old one if thats what you like.

Dont like the new rules? Dont buy them or use them.

Not with WH40K, any competitive environment in the Hobby requires you stay current with the rules (heck even most casual games will expect you to be using current rules)

It would be as if the phone provider forced you to upgrade to the new crappy phone in order to have any service

They have every right to. They will legally warn you long in advance and then cut off service.


And to the guy who mentioned frogs. A product is a product. Each product needs to be looked at and judged. If you see a product worth buying then buy it. But the company ever made you buy the product whatever it was. So no need to complain. All products are the same when it comes to choosing if you need to buy it or not.

Which still gives us the right to complain if it is below par, does it not?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Which still gives us the right to complain if it is below par, does it not?

No, because you had every opportunity to decide if it was not suitable for your needs.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Ok, I was wavering between naivety, lack of comprehension or trolling, I'm beginning to suspect a combination of all three.

We're done here kid, once you start trying to use goat gak in your arguments, its time for me to leave.

Your world view is breathtakingly narrow and idealised, I really hope the next few years broaden your perspective without kicking your arse.

Experience tells me that won't be the case.

Uhuh, you are just angry because you are wrong. GW is a product like any other. Dont like it done buy it.

The blame is on you as a customer. If the rule book fell a part then you have a right to complain unless it broke because you where being stupid with it. But if you dont like the content then you cant complain.

There's no anger here.

Maybe a hint of frustration that I can't really say what I think because I'm respecting Rule #1, but however you dress it, "don't like it, don't buy it" is a Primary school level argument.

Congrats on drawing out one more post from me, really got to go now.

Its basic, but its the first rule of having money. Dont like it dont buy it. Both buying and not buying have consequence. Choose the better consequence and move on.

Grow up buddy, gotta learn from your purchases. Cant keep wishing. take action. Rules arent for you? Move on. Cant have everything sometimes. Someone who claims to be experienced in life should know this.

Sorry, but thats how it is. Do research before committing next time. It may save you from a similar situation in the future.

Kind of a patronising post from a teenager who didn't know what an assault cannon looked like. Do you have goldfish memory syndrome or something? I told you, directly, less than 24 hours ago, that I heavily bias my wargaming spending away from GW for exactly the reasons under discussion, and that I still enjoy aspects of the game, but also enjoy discussing how it could be improved.

I appreciate when your slightly half baked arguments are under attack because they hold less water than a colander it can be difficult to keep track of everything that's said, but do me the courtesy of not having to retread old ground in order to refute comments aimed at me that I've already explained don't apply.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Which still gives us the right to complain if it is below par, does it not?

No, because you had every opportunity to decide if it was not suitable for your needs.

No no, I am not talking about if it meets my unique preferences. That is one thing.

I am talking about if it fails to meet the expected standards of the product.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Dont like it dont buy it.

Who ever said we don't like 40k? We are here on a 40k forum talking about 40k, we obviously like 40k, if not 40k then wargaming in general of which 40k is a subtopic. Many of the people complaining about GW either do like 40k and still buy it OR they don't like 40k and have stopped buying it.

Just because you like something doesn't make you blind to how it could be better, it doesn't mean you have to like the company that makes it, it doesn't mean you can't complain about how aspects of it are crap and when you've invested thousands of hours and dollars in to something it's totally fine to state you don't like the way things are changing.

40k is not a phone or a car or whatever other stupid analogy we want to come up with. As someone who has been using the same phone for about 4 generations of upgrades and someone who drives a 34yo car as a daily and a 43yo car as a weekender... GW updating the 40k rules and bringing out new releases it totally not the same as a car company bringing out the new model or Apple/Samsung bringing out their new phone.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
No no, I am not talking about if it meets my unique preferences.

I am talking about if it fails to meet the expected standards of the product.

What are these standards? The standards are what the government or the company decides they are. Not what you think they are. You choose a product that has standards right for you.

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:
If someone has been playing for a few editions and owns a bunch of models and then notices a huge drop off in rules quality with the new edition, then it is GW's fault

They need more devs, and I mean ones with different views about the game, to help spread the workload out and balance things better. I've recently heard from a friend that Phil Kelly apparently looks pretty haggard. They're working the devs pretty much around the clock right now and unless the situation is fixed for them I don't think rules will get better, I think they'll stay in this holding pattern we're already seeing.

There are a huge number of players who would be happy to help them design new rules, models and features.

They've chosen to not take advantage of their fanbase in this regard

That I blame on Kirby and the other board members. I'm positive they don't have (or want) the understanding to deal with an online community, or build the company to interact with them better.

My wishlisting of what I'd like GW to do:
Release Chapter Approved stuff in the WD (say: "Here's a new unit for Tau" or "Here's a new unit for Daemons") or as a free download from the BL and iTunes to go with new model releases. Have a means (such as email, or a message board) to accept feedback on the Chapter Approved rules. Take that feedback (especially anything about how players found ways to abuse it), and yes you'll need a team for this, organize it, clean it up and submit it back to the main dev team who reworks it and then puts the improved version into the rules.

This does 4 things everyone would like: it gives us free rules (1) which in turn gets us to buy new models (2) and it helps balance the game better (3) while taking the burden of playtesting new stuff off the dev's shoulders (4). Plus it'd open them to receive notes on other things in the codexes as well.

I'd also want a team of like 4 people per army working on all the armies at once, and then trading projects with other teams once the initial draft is done so they feel less inclined to defend their work when changes come in (plus it helps clear up rules wording as now people who have never seen the rules can get them clarified instead of being in a position where they just know where the rules are going because everyone is in on the same project and they never notice any ambiguity).

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
No no, I am not talking about if it meets my unique preferences.

I am talking about if it fails to meet the expected standards of the product.

What are these standards? The standards are what the government or the company decides they are. Not what you think they are. You choose a product that has standards right for you.

I am not interested in debating your definition of standard.

But when a ruleset:

1. Is above the average in price

2. Is, according to the majority of those who post informed opinions, below the average in quality

3. Is unable to provide a pleasant contribution from the rules proportional to the cost

Then I define this as bad.

You are free to say that you think the rules are OK and I am all wrong.

But I am not here to argue semantics.

And if I see a bad ruleset, you can damn well expect me to point out that it is bad.

We must assume that there are some kind of standards, otherwise judging the actual quality of sold items is literally impossible.

To give perhaps the most equivalent situation I can think of:

A spoon may be badly designed and difficult to eat with. You see this, and happily do not buy it, pointing it out to those who do that it is their own fault.

However, this fact does not mean that the spoon isn't bad. It also does not mean that the poor design of the spoon is a fault on the side of the manufacturer.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
No no, I am not talking about if it meets my unique preferences.

I am talking about if it fails to meet the expected standards of the product.

What are these standards? The standards are what the government or the company decides they are. Not what you think they are. You choose a product that has standards right for you.

I am not interested in debating your definition of standard.

But when a ruleset:

1. Is above the average in price

2. Is, according to the majority of those who post informed opinions, below the average in quality

3. Is unable to provide a pleasant contribution from the rules proportional to the cost

Then I define this as bad.

You are free to say that you think the rules are OK and I am all wrong.

But I am not here to argue semantics.

And if I see a bad ruleset, you can damn well expect me to point out that it is bad.

Then say you dont like it and move on. Easy.


So everyone who throws criticism at GW near daily, remember you guys are the ones who were dumb enough to buy into something that doesnt satisfy you fully. There is nothing that cant be improved. And thats fine. So say so. But if its at the point where you admit the books you willingly keep buying is subpar, rubbish or that everyone in the company needs to be fired. Then clearly you where to dumb to buy something worth your while. Or you didnt learn from your previous purchases. If the older ones are better then play those. If the newer ones are better. Play those.

But the constant hate and negativity is directed at the wrong place. They make a product. If they dont listen to us and suffer from it. Thats their fault. But if they feel they dont need to listen to some of you, but you still linger and proclaim your hate, then thats your fault.

Choose carefully before you buy, so you dont end up with a sub-par product. Or so you wont be disappointed. Its just a book. Its not a tax that you have to pay. Its a choice and if you are unhappy with the choice, make sure the person who chose is at fault. Not the one who gave the opportunity. So shift the blame all you want. But at the end of the day it comes down on you.

So the solution is simple. Try make your money back, try make the "sub par" product work for you" or put up with it. You have to do the same with any product you buy. In a small or large way.

I will go now, simply to keep the piece. But if you where my customer, I could count your cash and say sorry, no returns if you have changed your mind on my product. (I wont as there are ways to profit from that situation) But legally I can. Which is exactly what GW is doing.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I am not a director, I can still see if movies are bad or not.

I am not a rulewriter, I can still see if rules are bad or not.

GW rules cost an above average amount of money that are below average in quality. However, because they are official and widespread, they are effectively the standard and are effectively necessary if you do not only play with those who trust you enough to and you spend enough time with to make custom rules.

This is not always a common situation.

Cool dont buy the DVD if the movie sucks.

Dont buy the rules if they suck.

Dont pay for over priced items. Clearly they are out of your value for money range. The blame does not fall on GW.

He explains to you why buying the rules is necessary to play, and your response is "well then don't buy the rules if they suck!".

Wat


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:



So everyone who throws criticism at GW near daily, remember you guys are the ones who were dumb enough to buy into something that doesnt satisfy you fully. [Blah blah blah]

Oh! Don't you dare critique the product you have payed for ! You have absolutely no right !

 Swastakowey wrote:
So everyone who throws criticism at GW near daily, remember you guys are the ones who were dumb enough to buy into something that doesnt satisfy you fully. There is nothing that cant be improved. And thats fine. So say so. But if its at the point where you admit the books you willingly keep buying is subpar, rubbish or that everyone in the company needs to be fired. Then clearly you where to dumb to buy something worth your while. Or you didnt learn from your previous purchases. If the older ones are better then play those. If the newer ones are better. Play those.

That's a rather drastic over-simplification.

I dislike the current state of the game. But the current state of the game isn't what I 'bought into'. What I bought into was the game as it was 20 years ago. In that time, I have invested god knows how much into the game... certainly well in excess of $10000. I've seen 5 editions now, and all bar two of them I have thoroughly enjoyed, despite their flaws.

The problem is, unless you're playing with a stable group who all want to play the same game you do, if you want to be able to reliably get in a game you really don't have a choice but to keep up with the current rules. Sure, I can choose to stick with 5th edition, or dust off 2nd edition... but my chances of wandering into a gaming club and actually finding an opponent are fairly slim.

What I did learn from those previous 20 years of playing this game is that it's a game of swings and roundabouts. So I can persevere with the game in the hope that 7th edition will reverse some of the things that particularly ruin the current edition, as 5th edition did for 4th. And in the meantime, I'll point out those things that I dislike about this edition, because as much as it doesn't seem like it sometimes, the design studio does pay attention to what their customers are saying.

I love playing 40k with my buddies and really enjoy painting my Orks, but sometimes the internet makes me sad that I actually enjoy some of the changes that GW has made and while I'll readily admit the stuff they are putting out now is cash-grabby, I am not forced to buy anything I don't want. Hell, I would throw my money at them if any of this digital release stuff and dataslates and the like would be for my orks. Please god, GW, give me a reason to bury you in money.


I've always found that any hobby you can enjoy casually or "for fun", is increasingly frustrating and anger inducing when it gets to be "for competition". Tabletop is the same as anything else in that regard.

 Swastakowey wrote:


They have every right to. They will legally warn you long in advance and then cut off service.


And to the guy who mentioned frogs. A product is a product. Each product needs to be looked at and judged. If you see a product worth buying then buy it. But the company ever made you buy the product whatever it was. So no need to complain. All products are the same when it comes to choosing if you need to buy it or not.

And we have every right to complain about them and blame them for forcing a bad product on us


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:
If someone has been playing for a few editions and owns a bunch of models and then notices a huge drop off in rules quality with the new edition, then it is GW's fault

They need more devs, and I mean ones with different views about the game, to help spread the workload out and balance things better. I've recently heard from a friend that Phil Kelly apparently looks pretty haggard. They're working the devs pretty much around the clock right now and unless the situation is fixed for them I don't think rules will get better, I think they'll stay in this holding pattern we're already seeing.

There are a huge number of players who would be happy to help them design new rules, models and features.

They've chosen to not take advantage of their fanbase in this regard

That I blame on Kirby and the other board members. I'm positive they don't have (or want) the understanding to deal with an online community, or build the company to interact with them better.

My wishlisting of what I'd like GW to do:
Release Chapter Approved stuff in the WD (say: "Here's a new unit for Tau" or "Here's a new unit for Daemons") or as a free download from the BL and iTunes to go with new model releases. Have a means (such as email, or a message board) to accept feedback on the Chapter Approved rules. Take that feedback (especially anything about how players found ways to abuse it), and yes you'll need a team for this, organize it, clean it up and submit it back to the main dev team who reworks it and then puts the improved version into the rules.

This does 4 things everyone would like: it gives us free rules (1) which in turn gets us to buy new models (2) and it helps balance the game better (3) while taking the burden of playtesting new stuff off the dev's shoulders (4). Plus it'd open them to receive notes on other things in the codexes as well.

I'd also want a team of like 4 people per army working on all the armies at once, and then trading projects with other teams once the initial draft is done so they feel less inclined to defend their work when changes come in (plus it helps clear up rules wording as now people who have never seen the rules can get them clarified instead of being in a position where they just know where the rules are going because everyone is in on the same project and they never notice any ambiguity).

Those ideas have merit

And if I only had a few million pounds I could buy out GW and put those ideas into action!

But I don't. Mostly because between GW and college I'm broke.

 Saevus wrote:
I've always found that any hobby you can enjoy casually or "for fun", is increasingly frustrating and anger inducing when it gets to be "for competition". Tabletop is the same as anything else in that regard.

The problem with 40K right now though is that it's getting increasingly frustrating to play casually as well.

The simple fact that players feel that they can't put the army that they want to use on the table in a casual game for fear of people assuming that they are some sort of WAAC TFG is a sign that something is awry.

And releasing codexes for a single unit? That's no less annoying for the casual player as it is for the tournament goer. As is the current complete lack of FAQ support.

 Swastakowey wrote:
And to the guy who mentioned frogs. A product is a product. Each product needs to be looked at and judged.

Each product needs to be looked at and judged... so why are we drawing pointless analogies with products that aren't wargames.

But the company ever made you buy the product whatever it was. So no need to complain.

I'm sorry but this is just crazy. Just because you had a choice in buying a product does not preclude you from complaining about it.

All products are the same when it comes to choosing if you need to buy it or not.

No, all products are the same in that you have to choose whether or not you but it or not, however all products are not the same when it comes to choosing whether or not you need to buy it.

Pointless analogy is pointless.

 Swastakowey wrote:
But if its at the point where you admit the books you willingly keep buying is subpar

Who said anything about buying GW books? I have made a deliberate choice not to buy GW books for the previously mentioned reasons. Don't just assume that all of us who are criticizing GW keep throwing money at them for the products we hate.

Also, I love this ridiculous "argument" that the fact that we can choose not to buy GW rules has anything to do with whether or not those rules are a good product.

Best part he keep say find out if it sucks first. Guess what all the bitching online is, a review. Without it how is anyone new going to know how much 40K and GW suck, if we stop saying how bad they are. Or should we just let other buy blind too. Don't like, here is a broom handle start spinning, what dosen't like sound of that, don't do it just like you don't need to keep reading. See I can be a dismissive of other views too it's easy.

This is a great suggestion. Everyone should completely leave the hobby rather than criticizing GW's policies on the internet.

I should take a break, but actually I should have never bothered in the first place.

I just think it's a very dishonest approach to tell everyone to hide their opinions of the game and avoid telling new players of those opinions of the state of the game and what they should be wary of.

The mistake is that certain people are thinking that any comment that isn't good is just a negative comment and is only made because the person is a negative person..... It's just so silly. If you honestly, and I mean really honestly, believe this then I under what situation would you consider GW to be at fault.

To be fair I can give a situation in which it I would consider it the consumer's fault: Not having any involvement in Army "X", not doing any reviews, and pre-ordering anything. Now I will state that I also place partial blame on GW since they will go out of their way to make a false advertisement (Look at the majority of Battle Reports and how they deviate from rules), not having any actual previews of their product, and encouraging pre-orders when they know the costumer knows nothing on the product. The majority of the fault lies in the consumer, I will admit that.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
No no, I am not talking about if it meets my unique preferences.

I am talking about if it fails to meet the expected standards of the product.

What are these standards? The standards are what the government or the company decides they are. Not what you think they are. You choose a product that has standards right for you.

I am not interested in debating your definition of standard.

But when a ruleset:

1. Is above the average in price

2. Is, according to the majority of those who post informed opinions, below the average in quality

3. Is unable to provide a pleasant contribution from the rules proportional to the cost

Then I define this as bad.

You are free to say that you think the rules are OK and I am all wrong.

But I am not here to argue semantics.

And if I see a bad ruleset, you can damn well expect me to point out that it is bad.

Then say you dont like it and move on. Easy.


So everyone who throws criticism at GW near daily, remember you guys are the ones who were dumb enough to buy into something that doesnt satisfy you fully.

So it turns out that Brother H and I agree on something. Weird.

Anyhow, as a consumer of a product, I reserve the right to:

A) Change my opinion on a product upon further analysis and when presented with new information (i.e. even if I do not want to play, and therefore do not buy flyers, Knights, Escalation, etc, there is nothing to stop my opponent).

And this is becoming apparent in casual play too.

"Sorry, I don't want to play your x unit."
"Well crap, I don't have anything else."
"Well I can't do jack gak to three knight Titans. This is my TAC list."
"Well this is my TAC list."

So, I can decline the game of course. But the core issue here is that even in casual games, we're getting ridiculous things like that.

TL;DR: Despite its flaws, I like 6th edition. But, I don't like the additions made as of late - Escalation, Knights, certain dataslates - and that's not something Ianyone save GW could have predicted. Am I "dumb" for not anticipating Superheavy armies in casual games, outside of Apoc?

The kicker, for me, is that I get pushed out of actually playing 40K, because my opponents can call Escalation, bring dataslates, Knights, and there's nothing I can do with my fun or fluffy lists. I have no control, over it apart from buying the things that are breaking the game in the first place. These additions are turning 40K into an arms race at even casual levels, and that's not something I'm cool with.

Maybe GW does get a bad rap, but a lot of it is justified, just as some of it isn't. Frankly, I see both points of view.

TL;DR version: It's not my fault GW added things to 6th (Escalation et al) that people can use from outside the core rules, as if they were a part of those core rules. My fluffy list can't fight an army of superheavies. I decline the game or set up and take units off the board. I don't see how GW adding things from the outside is my fault (Answer: it isn't.)

 liquidjoshi wrote:


So it turns out that Brother H and I agree on something. Weird.

Not that weird. We've agreed on lots of stuff in the past. It's just that of late our opinions seem to have taken different routes.

Sorry for my rudeness in my thread there a while back. Should really not post when pissed, lol.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:


So it turns out that Brother H and I agree on something. Weird.

Not that weird. We've agreed on lots of stuff in the past. It's just that of late our opinions seem to have taken different routes.

Sorry for my rudeness in my thread there a while back. Should really not post when pissed, lol.

Ah, 'tis fine I was probably being a bit of a prick, so yeah. Sorry about that.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I just think it's a very dishonest approach to tell everyone to hide their opinions of the game and avoid telling new players of those opinions of the state of the game and what they should be wary of.

The mistake is that certain people are thinking that any comment that isn't good is just a negative comment and is only made because the person is a negative person..... It's just so silly. If you honestly, and I mean really honestly, believe this then I under what situation would you consider GW to be at fault.

To be fair I can give a situation in which it I would consider it the consumer's fault: Not having any involvement in Army "X", not doing any reviews, and pre-ordering anything. Now I will state that I also place partial blame on GW since they will go out of their way to make a false advertisement (Look at the majority of Battle Reports and how they deviate from rules), not having any actual previews of their product, and encouraging pre-orders when they know the costumer knows nothing on the product. The majority of the fault lies in the consumer, I will admit that.

Exactly^

Lots of us like a lot of aspects of the game and want to like it, but GWs practices have eroded that in many ways. The game has huge potential and could be a great GAME - not just model hobby, but GW needs to put effort into trying to make much tighter, balanced rules (or contract this out to a company that knows and cares how to make a good game). The negative comments are there because we want the game to be better.

I have played since 4th edition and hoped that GWs poor practices would be corrected as I routinely heard things like "I know this rule is a mess but you should have seen the game before, things are getting better". As a tyranid player I am still waiting. When new players show up and want to get into the game I will warn them about GW, about the high cost of the product, the low quality of rules and dexes, the problems with some of their kits, the likelihood that you could spend a bunch of money on an army and then GW rleases new rules that invalidates or makes those units very subpar and you will need to buy lots more to stay competitive, even in casual enviroments - and that this will happen again whether BRB or dex releases. I want to be sure that I don't mislead any new player so that when these things happen they aren't angry and disappointed because nobody said anything about these types of things, just that the models are "cool" and its a "fun game" without any context.

I have played wargames for over 35 years and have never run into a company that makes such subpar rules, fails to take responsibility for said rules (and with the internet it is so easy to correct many problems with a proper errata), and routinely kicks their customers in the nads (after purchasing their product it gets invalidated or you are forced to break the model apart to build it so that it isn't useless/overcosted or encourages converting and hobby-work when they include units with no models in dexes only to remove those units in the next release, etc, etc).

As I said, a lot of potential in this game but the bulk of the negative comments are on GWs head. If they cared about their customers and the quality of their product more the negative comments would diminsh.

My big issue is the assumption that all players of 40k dislike Escalation and Knight Titans in 'normal' games of 40k. I love having the option to have huge god machines on the battlefield. Knight Titans and their bigger brothers are the most awesome models in the game imo. I remember seeing pictures of a table at Warhammer World years ago with an Emperor Titan on it and thinking "I would love to play games with titans" - and now I can. Surely I'm not alone - all of the pictures of painted Knight Titans floating around suggest I'm not alone, as well as threads on here.

I also have an issue with people pretending that having all of these different options makes it impossible to find a game they're comfortable with. If you play with a group of mates, you can agree beforehand, either face to face or on Facebook or whatever you talk to your mates on. If you are part of a club, you can discuss it the week beforehand, or on forums. If you play at a FLGS, you can discuss it beforehand,. If someone refuses to compromise then just don't play them.

Another thing is that many of the people complaining about the direction 40k is taking haven't actually played Escalation, Stronghold Assault etc. How can you criticise something until you have tried it out? Who knows, maybe you'll have fun.

Finally, those talking about how broken the rules are because they allow cheese lists, and also the fact that there are a number of sub-optimal units in the codexes, perhaps the problem is your approach to the game? Recently I enjoyed reading through a series of reports from a guy that went to Throne of Skulls with a Sisters list with Repentia and Penitent Engines. He had a blast against the other [mostly fluffyish] lists, the supposedly useless units did ok, and the only really bad match-up came when he faced someone who went with Serpent Spam and Wraithknights. Should everyone else change their lists because a few people want to stomp everyone else into the ground?

In 30 years of 40k this game has never been balanced. For me, insisting on rigid balance would limit the opportunity for 'fluffy' or narrative games, would narrow the scope of which models could be produced, and would turn it into another game entirely.