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.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 GuardStrider wrote:
Well I have nothing against Warmachine and risking throwing more fuel to the fire but from what I've seen from it's player base, they tend to be pretty....preachy about their game to say the least, to the point of putting me off when I was trying to choose what game I play.

I've seen that as well, I think it might be that a lot of Warmachine players now are ex-GW players so tend to extol its virtues nonstop.

While I really like what I see from Warmachine beyond the fluff feels a bit weak; like the game mechanics feels like a game and not a story, which is good from a balance perspective but not from a "Why are we fighting" perspective... it feels very MMO/MOBA-ish where you play a "match" just because there's a match, and while there's a story about who your guys are, you aren't really there for any reason; in fact if I had to describe Warmachine it'd pretty much be a tabletop MOBA (I guess just MBA then?). Compare that to Warhammer where it's a lot easier to give a battle a story, even a simple one, even if not for the game itself then for your own records. Warmachine doesn't have that feeling it's almost like randomly Stryker encountered Sorcha out in the field somewhere ("A Wild Kommander Sorcha appeared!"), rather than like Stryker doing a raid on a Khador military facility to capture some plans, with an actual narrative reason behind it. As much as I despise GW's pushing the narrative as an excuse to ignore game balance, I like at least in my own mind thinking that a battle has some meaning in a larger conflict, not basically a random encounter.

Have you actually read any Warmahordes fluff? Or are you just arriving to this conclusion because you are familiar with 40K's background and can therefore apply motivations to the forces on the table but because you don't know anything about Warmahordes background you have no idea of the actual motivations that would lead those factions to fight each other?

PhantomViper wrote:
Have you actually read any Warmahordes fluff? Or are you just arriving to this conclusion because you are familiar with 40K's background and can therefore apply motivations to the forces on the table but because you don't know anything about Warmahordes background you have no idea of the actual motivations that would lead those factions to fight each other?

I've read a little bit, but no players I've seen actually give the fluff any concern during the course of a game, compared to 40k where you have a lot of customization opportunities and people enjoy theming their armies and in general the fluff seems to come out more during a game as opposed to being just in the background. I don't see a lot of that in the Warmahordes area, if you can even do it at all (I know there are the "themed" armies based around a particular caster).

That said though, I am looking to read more into the Warmahordes fluff as some of it sounds really cool.

WayneTheGame wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Have you actually read any Warmahordes fluff? Or are you just arriving to this conclusion because you are familiar with 40K's background and can therefore apply motivations to the forces on the table but because you don't know anything about Warmahordes background you have no idea of the actual motivations that would lead those factions to fight each other?

I've read a little bit, but no players I've seen actually give the fluff any concern during the course of a game, compared to 40k where you have a lot of customization opportunities and people enjoy theming their armies and in general the fluff seems to come out more during a game as opposed to being just in the background. I don't see a lot of that in the Warmahordes area, if you can even do it at all (I know there are the "themed" armies based around a particular caster).

That said though, I am looking to read more into the Warmahordes fluff as some of it sounds really cool.

You have theme forces each with their own background for each of the casters (and some casters have more than one theme force depicting different battles that they've fought or moments in their lifes), you have campaigns and special scenarios in NQ, you have VERY detailed guides and instructions on how to convert and sometimes even sculpt conversions on miniatures, you have monthly showcases of actual player conversions on NQ and the main site.

Just because the players choose not to avail themselves of the resources that PP has made available (or even make their own), doesn't mean that the game doesn't support either conversions or narrative play, it just means that for some personal reason the players chose not to play that way.

And just to add my own personal anecdotal evidence, outside of narrative campaigns, I've never fought against or even saw someone apply any kind of "narrative" to a normal game of 40K or WHFB as well.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I don't see a lot of that in the Warmahordes area, if you can even do it at all (I know there are the "themed" armies based around a particular caster).

My trollblood warband is heavily themed around the trolls' weaker caster. This guy, Captain Gunnbjorn, is a defector from Cygnar's trencher, he carries a bazooka and is pretty much the big reformist/modernist of the faction. He wants the troll to join together in a nation with an actual military, as opposed to the current, traditional system of warriors. Also, in the description of whatever unit, I guess the thumper crew (a small artillery piece) it is said that most trolls are not used to the discipline needed to use it, and like better old fashioned ways of fighting, but the younger trolls like them. So, I decided that it would only make sense for Gunnbjorn to assemble some embryo of an army consisting mainly of young, rebellious trolls attracted by dakka. Therefore the First Infantry Regiment of the United Kriels of Immoren, “The Bad Boys”, consisting only of unit and warbeasts using powder weapons. Along with Gunnbjorn, the warlock with a bazooka, there are a dire troll blitzer (i.e. big hungry troll with a small troll on top manning a big machinegun), a dire troll bomber (big hungry troll launching home-made grenades), a unit of sluggers (normal trolls with the same big machine-gun as the blitzer), one unit of burrowers (small trolls with very short range canons that advance under the ground, and pop out guns blazing), 2 thumper crew (artillery piece with three normal troll servants each) and one unit of bushwackers (small trolls snipers/ambushers). Almost all those models have been added a military cap matching (approximately, I am not a good sculptor) Gunnbjorn's cap, many models have received a cigar for style (Gunnbjorn himself, the two dire trolls, some of the whelps (small body part of big trolls that when cut off regenerate into small, disproportionate troll-things) and every unit leader), and currently three models have been converted to raise the middle finger (Gunnbjorn, a dire troll and a whelp).

That army is not really good because scenario play really force you to go forward, and the real heavy-hitters are mostly close combat, so I struggle with high ARM, but it is goddamn awesome, so I do not care. I would rather lose in style than sacrifice cool to the win ! And, the way the game is made, I can still win if I play good and use my opponent's mistake.

I find it funny that w40k players say that there is no narrative in warmahordes , when w40k has the same fluff for the last 25+years and warmahordes gets updated new fluff with each expansion.

Although interesting, this is rather off topic.

Makumba wrote:
I find it funny that w40k players say that there is no narrative in warmahordes , when w40k has the same fluff for the last 25+years and warmahordes gets updated new fluff with each expansion.

GW does add new fluff on a regular basis, just not to the "present". Warmahordes is telling a story, GW is establishing a setting. They're different approaches that do different things.

But how can there be any "forging of narrative" if everyone knows that in the end 13th crusade happens and either nids eat everything or necron blow up the galaxy to stop nids?
In warmahordes there is a storyline that moves forward , characters have growth and there is almost non of the w40k They had it all along type of updates.

One might have thought that the setting was pretty well established after 25 years of writing background for it.

However obviously one can "forge a narrative" in a fixed setting. Historical players do it all the time, either by refighting known battles and campaigns, or by doing "alternate history" type of things.

Just look at historical novels for inspiration -- Sharpe, Flashman, Hornblower and so on.

My favourite thing about 40K right now is that the majority of the threads in the general discussion forum are complaining about the game itself - by dudes who are still buying into the game. At least folks who buy Apple products don't complain about the rectal probing that they're receiving and just enjoy the kool-aid. Buck up guys, 7th is the way right?

 jawn wrote:
My favourite thing about 40K right now is that the majority of the threads in the general discussion forum are complaining about the game itself - by dudes who are still buying into the game. At least folks who buy Apple products don't complain about the rectal probing that they're receiving and just enjoy the kool-aid. Buck up guys, 7th is the way right?

This

 jawn wrote:
My favourite thing about 40K right now is that the majority of the threads in the general discussion forum are complaining about the game itself - by dudes who are still buying into the game. At least folks who buy Apple products don't complain about the rectal probing that they're receiving and just enjoy the kool-aid. Buck up guys, 7th is the way right?

Citation needed.

It's possible to a) play the game without giving GW's money and b) subsequently become dissatisfied after purchase (to take your Apple analogy, how many of those happily chugging the Kool Aid suddenly get all antsy when itunes v1123493.468 causes issues? The difference is, Apple listens, fixes problems, and remove the cause for complaint, this isn't happening here, the situation is just festering and being compounded with practically every release.)

 azreal13 wrote:

 jawn wrote:
My favourite thing about 40K right now is that the majority of the threads in the general discussion forum are complaining about the game itself - by dudes who are still buying into the game. At least folks who buy Apple products don't complain about the rectal probing that they're receiving and just enjoy the kool-aid. Buck up guys, 7th is the way right?

Citation needed.

It's possible to a) play the game without giving GW's money and b) subsequently become dissatisfied after purchase (to take your Apple analogy, how many of those happily chugging the Kool Aid suddenly get all antsy when itunes v1123493.468 causes issues? The difference is, Apple listens, fixes problems, and remove the cause for complaint, this isn't happening here, the situation is just festering and being compounded with practically every release.)

Festering is a very apt description. GW is letting things get out of hand because they refuse to aknowedge that problems exist. The longer the problems remain without being addressed the worse the players frustration grows. Even players who love the game and GW could grow frustrated eventually.

As long as they keep acting like it's still 2002 when things were golden nothing will change, another bad quarter though will have the shareholders worried.

No one's going to buy into a 30 year old company who's profits drop every year.

There have been lots of suggestions on what steps could be taken to reverse things but they just ignore the community totally, not just the negative but the constructive too.

I love the game personally, can not wait to play, have a great time (even in defeat) doing it! Love the fluff, love the models, don't mind the prices, don't have an issue with DLC codex's or the "content hose"

Im all good

I would love to see someone produce a well written list (like a long blog) of exactly what they believe the problems with the game system are at the moment and why they actually cause an issue.

@bodazoka.
You have been sold the idea of a cool game that will be fun to play .And you are all excited .
And the inspiring background and sculpts have got you all motivated to collect build and paint your own exciting and cool army , right?

This is as good as it gets...
UNLESS.

You can manage to pick units that will not be seen as 'WAAC choices ', so people who focus on 'narrative/cinematic' will refuse to play you.
And you can avoid all the 'fluffy choices', that will get all the more competitive players telling you your units are crap and you should replace them with their optimized choices.

If you manage this , which can be difficult if playing pick up games...

Assuming a group of friends or FLGS /club that agrees to play the basic rules with the same intent and interpretation.

Then you have to negotiate with your opponents what 'added extras' they are comfortable with you using.
'..Oh so just because you can afford this , you just want to pay to win, I can not afford that, so you are being unfair!...'

Lack of game balance internal and external has an effect of ALL 40k players.
Some do not mind negotiating what rules to use, how to interpret them , before they even agree on game size and play style preference.

The people that think the process of conveying intent of the rules , and clearly defined instructions to play the game are the job of the game developer.Often get fed up with having to do all this negotiation before they play.
And often just assume their own interpretation is the ONLY valid one and accuse everyone else of playing the game' wrong'.

The GW plc game developers write a 'guide line ' of ideas you can use to play game with.And a 'rough guide ' to how armies could be organized.
That they personally can use to get fun games of 40k.

And I am SURE if the GW game devs were in direct control of sales.
They would just promote their work as 'guide lines' ' a collection of cool ideas' for co-operative narrative play with cinematic resolution.

But GW plc corporate management want to sell 40k as suitable for everyone .
Hence the inclusion of PV and the hint of force organisation that implies 40k is suitable for pick up games, and even more competative play styles.

This is the core problem with the 40k rules system.it is being mis-sold by GW plc.

Now the problems with the actual rules as written are mainly due to years of trying to make them backward compatible with 'WHFB skirmish in space'.
A can list ALL these problems /issues separately if you want ?

bodazoka wrote:
I would love to see someone produce a well written list (like a long blog) of exactly what they believe the problems with the game system are at the moment and why they actually cause an issue.

It would probably be shorter if you listed the things that aren't wrong with the game. But here's some broad categories with examples:

1) Poor internal balance (units within an army).

2) Poor external balance (between armies).

3) Lack of an overall concept for the game (small hero-focused skirmish or huge tank battle?).

4) Lack of clarity and functionality in rules (the entire YMDC forum).

5) A bloated mess of rules where each new edition just adds random stuff to the pile (adding the fearless USR and then having everyone who cares ignore it, adding fancy new characters and then letting Basilisks snipe them out of squads).

6) Use of obsolete 1980s fantasy mechanics in a scifi game long past the point where they need to be replaced (basic stat line, IGOUGO turn structure, etc).

7) Use of random tables and as a replacement for player choices, making the game much worse for narrative play (psykers, warlord traits)..

8) Use of "forge the narrative" and "4+ it" as a replacement for quality rules, making the game much worse for casual play (the entire game, pretty much).

9) Inability to grasp basic strategy concepts or understand that the game as played by the majority of the customers is not the one the developers play (continued over-valuing of melee units in a shooting-heavy game).

10) Continued destruction of the concept of each army having its own unique identity instead of simply being a list of GW's recent balance mistakes (allies, special no-FOC allies).


And that's just the rules. You could write an entire textbook on GW's business practices, questionable model decisions, etc.

The things that are wrong with 40K now.

First I will set out my stall, so you can understand my perspective.

1st and 2nd edition 40K were skirmish RPG games with a lot of detail, aimed at replicating the experience of Laser Burn (written by Bryan Ansell) in which small numbers of heroes could fight each other and grunt level troops.

The rules got too complex to allow big games, and GW rewrote the system to streamline play, reduce the role of hero characters, and increase the use of ordinary troops, thus allowing the use of larger forces and more vehicles. (Which sold more models, of course.) This was 3rd edition.


From 3rd to 5th edition, 40K was a decent platoon to company level skirmish game in which you could complete a good sized battle in a reasonable time. The sweet spot was probably around 1,500 points, which allowed a player to build a fairly flexible list that wasn’t all conquering.

The USR system added for a lot of SF flavour without extreme complication. Overall there was a lack of clarity, which was solved for serious tournament players by the INAT FAQ.

While there were always problems with balance, the codexes all had strengths and weaknesses that made each army different and interesting to play with or against.

Optional expansion rulebooks allowed players to add more detail for skirmishes (Cityfight/Cities of Death), or increase the size of battles to include special units and fortifications (Apocalypse, Planetary Assault.)


By 6th edition, GW had to change strategy. The business was not going well -- for reasons we can discuss separately. GW needed to increase sales and did not want to take the risk of producing different games, especially following the Dread Fleet disaster. By rewriting the 40K rules, they would be able to launch new units, to sell to veteran players who already had complete armies, as well as new recruits.

Thus, Allies, Fortifications and Fliers were added, and Super Heavies were included in standard games by the Escalation and Knight Titan codex rules. All these are designed to promote new models.

There are various arguments around other rules changes -- overwatch fire, etc -- however I am not going to address those as I do not think they are serious flaws.

The things that are badly wrong are, in no particular order:

Codexes and Dataslates, Fortifications, Flyers, Super Heavies, Allies


Codexes are now too expensive. Although they are coming out much quicker, the quality of rules has declined, causing more complexity and imbalances by the amount of special rules for individual units, which often overlap. This is compounded by the dataslates, which ought to be part of the main codex for £30, and are not available to all players because of being extra expense and not available as paper.

The sub-army codexes like Imperial Knights and Tempstuous Milites are a worse sign of the same problem. Also they are adding to the problems with Allies.

Allies
Each army has certain strengths and weaknesses. This is part of what makes the game challenging. Allies allows you to cover up weaknesses, or to double up on strengths. This reduces the interest of the game, and leads to more imbalance. In the worst case, Tyranids cannot take allies at all, putting them at a severe disadvantage.

Fortifications
I actually think forts are a fine idea, however they should not be part of standard battles, they should be included as an option for special games, in a separate “Siege Warfare” rulebook.

Aircraft
The problem here is firstly that the game is too small to allow the use of aircraft. It makes no sense to have aircraft flying 36 inches a turn when a standard table is 48 inches maximum across. The models are too big as well. The next thing is that not all the armies have aircraft and/or AA units -- these can be introduced later, of course. However, the need to included AA within a small army that might have only eight units dilutes the interest of the core game. They could work all right as a option for large games on big tables.

Super Heavies
Too powerful for standard games. The models also are literally too large for a normal table. It is another idea that would work OK in larger games played on larger tables, which is what it used to be with Apocalypse.


Summary
GW have to some extent combined the detailed, lots of special rules approach of early editions with the big battle approach of Apocalypse, and produced a monster of a game that players need to dip into to pick the things that work best for them.

At the same time, the inclusion of lots of special items as standard, means that many players don’t see them as options and want to use them as standard, resulting in arguments about what you should or should not play with.

The huge variability of army lists because of the new special units makes the game more of a Paper/Scissors/Stone. “Takes All Comers” lists are weaker because they are too diluted with new units to counter new threats.

A game is a series of interesting problems. In modern 40K, the problems are less interesting, because they tend to have pretty obvious solutions or no solutions, depending on the match-up at hand.

KK, I wish I could sig that whole post, have a rare exalt instead!!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Codexes are now too expensive. Although they are coming out much quicker, the quality of rules has declined, causing more complexity and imbalances by the amount of special rules for individual units, which often overlap. This is compounded by the dataslates, which ought to be part of the main codex for £30, and are not available to all players because of being extra expense and not available as paper.

The sub-army codexes like Imperial Knights and Tempstuous Milites are a worse sign of the same problem. Also they are adding to the problems with Allies.

Allies
Each army has certain strengths and weaknesses. This is part of what makes the game challenging. Allies allows you to cover up weaknesses, or to double up on strengths. This reduces the interest of the game, and leads to more imbalance. In the worst case, Tyranids cannot take allies at all, putting them at a severe disadvantage.

Fortifications
I actually think forts are a fine idea, however they should not be part of standard battles, they should be included as an option for special games, in a separate “Siege Warfare” rulebook.

Aircraft
The problem here is firstly that the game is too small to allow the use of aircraft. It makes no sense to have aircraft flying 36 inches a turn when a standard table is 48 inches maximum across. The models are too big as well. The next thing is that not all the armies have aircraft and/or AA units -- these can be introduced later, of course. However, the need to included AA within a small army that might have only eight units dilutes the interest of the core game. They could work all right as a option for large games on big tables.

Super Heavies
Too powerful for standard games. The models also are literally too large for a normal table. It is another idea that would work OK in larger games played on larger tables, which is what it used to be with Apocalypse.


Summary
GW have to some extent combined the detailed, lots of special rules approach of early editions with the big battle approach of Apocalypse, and produced a monster of a game that players need to dip into to pick the things that work best for them.

At the same time, the inclusion of lots of special items as standard, means that many players don’t see them as options and want to use them as standard, resulting in arguments about what you should or should not play with.

The huge variability of army lists because of the new special units makes the game more of a Paper/Scissors/Stone. “Takes All Comers” lists are weaker because they are too diluted with new units to counter new threats.

A game is a series of interesting problems. In modern 40K, the problems are less interesting, because they tend to have pretty obvious solutions or no solutions, depending on the match-up at hand.

As someone who loves the current game I will retort with the below:

1. Codicies - You cover cost, complexity and sprawl here.

1a - Cost is relative, what I think is cheap you may think is expensive and there is no right or wrong to that but I can agree that the game overall can be expensive. I have no problem with people mitigating costs by proxy, 3rd party suppliers, downloadable PDF's, budgets etc.. however people do need to get out of the 5th ed mind set of having to buy everything GW release!
1b - Complexity is an interesting one, why is that a bad thing? why is not knowing what unit X across the table can or cant do good or bad? sure it helps you win a game but if you are asking for "interesting problems" is this not one?
1c - Sprawl - Don't buy everything that GW release and don't feel the need to know what everyone else's army contains down to the range of a unit's weapons. Availability I have to laugh at really.. if your army has a dataslate and you live in any first world country you have zero excuse not to be able to access that. There are literally a dozen different ways I can come up with to get a copy!

2. Allies - I completely agree! I think allies are a fantastic concept but has been poorly implemented. I also don't think people would have a problem with allies if the matrix was modified and the consequences of having allies was slightly more severe. We would still have the issue with army strength and weakness being covered up or multiplied though, but we are too far gone to remove them now!

3. Fortifications - I don't understand why you have no problem with fortifications but believe they should be a stand alone thing? This makes me assume that it is a personal preference you have rather than something that is specifically wrong with the game. I understand there are a couple of rules around Forts which are dodgy however.

4. Aircraft - This is an interesting one! I only see this dislike among the long time players (general statement is general). Once again that is surely a personal preference? If the game made perfect sense everyone's gun would fire allot further than 12-24" and no HQ model would ever bring a power sword to a gun fight! Have you seen a marine leading a squad choosing not to take the assault rifle and instead picking up his sword and pistol? I don't see any actual "mechanic" that is making the game worse by having flyers exist.

5. Super Heavies - Once again I completely agree! However my caveat to that is I think people blow the "need for a conversation before battle" statement out of the water a little when it comes too these. I do not think people should have the right to show up with a LOW in a 2000 or less game and think its ok. In my gaming group it is an unspoken rule that you would need to ask permission before showing up to a battle with a LOW list however it's not like we sit around a table and debate the issue for an hour before every game. Generally it goes, mate wanna play a 2000 point LOW battle, na id prefer just a straight game, no worries then 2000 points it is no LOW, ok cool.

Thank you for the reply also, please don't take my response as a negative attitude towards your opinions. I genuinely am interested to understand what people perceive is wrong with the game to such an extent as they do now. Once again Ill re-iterate that I love the game and whilst its not perfect Im sure it never has been! (people do allot of romanticizing of the past) and I will never expect it too be..

40K(GW) is a great game(Hobby, I know...cringe, get over it) with a fantastic model depth and range. I think there's defiantly resistance to change from players that have been around for a few editions.

New players think its all good. Old players just need to accept or not accept and keep it moving. No reason to hate if the game is leaving players behind.

I hear Risk comes out with all kinds of special editions and I'm pretty sure those rules don't change much. Shall I provide a link?

bodazoka wrote:
1b - Complexity is an interesting one, why is that a bad thing? why is not knowing what unit X across the table can or cant do good or bad? sure it helps you win a game but if you are asking for "interesting problems" is this not one?

It's bad for several reasons:

1) It acts as a huge barrier to entry for new players. The more complexity you have the longer it takes for a new player to move past the stage of trying to figure out what is going on and start enjoying the game. It's an acceptable tradeoff when the complexity is adding legitimate depth to the game, but GW's complexity tends to add little more than additional rules to keep track of.

2) It's not an interesting problem. Interesting gameplay depends on tough strategic decisions, not just trying to figure out what a unit does. This goes back to GW adding complexity without adding much depth: you aren't judging subtle interactions and trying to figure out your opponent's plan, you're trying to keep track of which USRs your opponent's model has because you don't have enough time and money to learn their rulebooks. It feels less like a game and more like studying for a math exam.

3) It's frustrating and makes the game a lot less fun. When you can't keep up with all of the different rules it makes things feel like gimmicks rather than interesting strategies. It's incredibly frustrating when you have a situation like finishing the game and having your opponent declare that they win, because half of their army is Farsight Tau, not normal Tau, and you forgot that some of their battlesuits are scoring despite being exactly identical to the non-scoring ones next to them. As GW increases the quantity of rules they make these kind of things a lot more common, and not just for "casual" players who don't even attempt to keep up with the game.

4) It makes winning less enjoyable for the other player. Not only do you have to deal with the knowledge that you didn't really earn that win, you may have to deal with an annoyed opponent who thinks you're trying to trick them by making up rules.

2. Allies - I completely agree! I think allies are a fantastic concept but has been poorly implemented. I also don't think people would have a problem with allies if the matrix was modified and the consequences of having allies was slightly more severe. We would still have the issue with army strength and weakness being covered up or multiplied though, but we are too far gone to remove them now!

The problem with allies is that you only need rules for them when you're going to abuse them. If you wanted to use a very fluffy list from two codices in 5th you could probably just say "hey, can I take some IG allies with my space marines" and most people would be happy to let you do it. So the only thing 6th added with formal allies rules is the ability to abuse them, whether it's to cover your army's weaknesses and destroy its identity, to take powerful single units (especially buff characters), or just to get extra FOC slots by allying with one of your army's supplements.

I don't see any actual "mechanic" that is making the game worse by having flyers exist.

The mechanics are the awkward movement rules, and the need for specialized AA weapons. Some of them are nice models, but the execution of their rules is a complete mess and we would have been better off not having flyers at all.

I do not think people should have the right to show up with a LOW in a 2000 or less game and think its ok.

And this is why the LoW rules suck. When you have to start saying "I don't think people should expect to play the game according to the normal rules without asking for special permission" it's a concession that the game is utterly broken.

Generally it goes, mate wanna play a 2000 point LOW battle, na id prefer just a straight game, no worries then 2000 points it is no LOW, ok cool.

And this is a huge problem. Why should I have to take a different list just because you don't like my Baneblade?

I have to say, for all the complaints I have against Games Workshop, and they are many (and repetitious), they have well above average customer service, and I would even say they have very good customer service, at that.

 jasper76 wrote:
I have to say, for all the complaints I have against Games Workshop, and they are many (and repetitious), they have well above average customer service, and I would even say they have very good customer service, at that.

Honestly, they really don't. Most of their "good customer service" consists of replacing defective products that wouldn't need to be replaced if GW provided better customer service up front and didn't sell defective products.

@Peregrine - All of your comments make you sound like you like to know everything and can't deal with the sprawl either mentally due to changes or financially. Also the game is not complex at all and they even suggest to you to learn to play without the USR's until you get moving, shooting and assault phase down. That is how the game is taught in store and should be taught to everyone. Move 6, shoot, charge if you can, choppy, consolidate, the end.

After reading your post just now instead of your reply further up, I would like to change it from you like to know everything to you just like fething complaining. Grow up dude, no one is forcing you to buy anything yet you post so much hate.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I have to say, for all the complaints I have against Games Workshop, and they are many (and repetitious), they have well above average customer service, and I would even say they have very good customer service, at that.

Honestly, they really don't. Most of their "good customer service" consists of replacing defective products that wouldn't need to be replaced if GW provided better customer service up front and didn't sell defective products.

Ah, but they do it with free shipping and quickly, and are courteous on the phone. That is good customer service, and those people are not responsible for production,

 jasper76 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I have to say, for all the complaints I have against Games Workshop, and they are many (and repetitious), they have well above average customer service, and I would even say they have very good customer service, at that.

Honestly, they really don't. Most of their "good customer service" consists of replacing defective products that wouldn't need to be replaced if GW provided better customer service up front and didn't sell defective products.

Ah, but they do it with free shipping and quickly, and are courteous on the phone. That is good customer service, and those people are not responsible for production,

To Peregrine:
Customer service. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, I meant Customer Service, like the human beings you talk to on the phone, as opposed to production. Sorry if that was not clear.

 Markerlight Junkie wrote:
@Peregrine - All of your comments make you sound like you like to know everything and can't deal with the sprawl either mentally due to changes or financially.

No, I can deal with it just fine. But I, like everyone else who cares enough to post on a forum about the game, am not a representative sample of the average 40k player.

Also the game is not complex at all and they even suggest to you to learn to play without the USR's until you get moving, shooting and assault phase down.

Have you ever looked at the rulebook for 40k? The game is incredibly complex because of the sheer number of special rules. The fact that you can play a special stripped-down version of the game to learn the basic mechanics doesn't change this fact, because that stripped-down game isn't the real game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Ah, but they do it with free shipping and quickly, and are courteous on the phone.

Doing it with free shipping is just part of their obligation to replace defective products. You can't sell someone a $100 item and then expect them to pay shipping to get a replacement when they open the box and discover that it's broken. And doing it quickly is just common sense to avoid losing customers and/or having them file fraud reports with their credit card company.

Now, I'm not saying that GW has bad customer service, just that they're not anything special.

That is good customer service, and those people are not responsible for production,

Yes, I know that production is not technically the same as customer service. But the point is that GW's "good customer service" is mostly the fact that they replace defective products, and they shouldn't have such a high rate of defective products in the first place. It's like giving someone credit for being a good person when they crash into your car and then give you their insurance information as required by law.

They do have good customer service, but really, by law they have to replace faulty products, so I'm not falling over myself praising GW for happily following the law instead of unhappily following it or not following it.