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.

One...again, not provocative question. I think we can agree on fact, that there is problem with really overpowered codices of Eldar and Tau and of course Allies and formations.
For the Ally/ Formation problem is simple cure. Make and agreement with your opponent not to use them, or, on tournament, TO could simply restrict/ forbid those.

Remains Tau and Eldar which slipped out as did GK. So... would be people complaining about weak Nids (weak = not OP as Taudar, I saw them played and they are far from unplayable) happy if GW released new codices for Taudar and cut the problematic parts? Its celarly hypothetical question, because I fear there would be new wave of hate from Tau and Eldar players because of weakening their armies... And Im not sure if there truly is way community would be happy with.

When they had that crazy 15-20% permanent price hike a couple summers ago
When they ordered indie retailers to stop shipping overseas
When the introduced Finecast
When they completely replaced their paint range
When Flyers and FMCs were introduced
When 6th edition released with its nerf to cc-armies, 'tanking' wound allocation and generally bloated rules
The Battle Brothers craziness in the Allies matrix and all its exploits
When rulebooks almost doubled in price due to hardcover
When they overpowered Eldar and Tau
When they started pushing Escalation and Superheavies into regular 40k
When their accelerated release schedule meant even fans started to completely lose track of the state of the ruleset and confusion began to reign supreme
When they killed White Dwarf
When they removed all FAQs and Erratas
When their new website launched, deleting your existing account and order history
When they started selling supplements with 1 page of rules for hardback full price
When they started selling codexes based on single units (LotD, Stormtroopers) with no new unit range at all, as new armies

1 - If there's a constant in this hobby, it has to be price hikes. Still, if I was to vote, I'd probably pick this.
2 - No complaining here, this is a legitimate reason to be angered at GW - I don't suffer it directly, but I can sympathise with those affected.
3 - Two armies, over 3000 points each, zero finecast minis. I acknowledge that Finecast was a total blunder, but it wasn't the change in materials what made it painful, but the absolutely amateurish way in which GW handled it. I have less of a problem with Finecast than with all the bombastic copywriting that came with it.
4 - I like the new range better. It's still inferior to other paints on the market, but way better than the one we had before. What does bother you, the new naming?
5- I don't hate Corvus Belli for thermo-optical camo. Why should I hate GW for fliers?
6 - What? 6th ed wound allocation tanking? Someone's been cheating on you
7- See #5 - Still, it can be better worded as "poor rules writing and lack of a comprehensive vision of their game system".
8 - See, this is one move I really disliked. Still, there are... ways around it. In the end, it's their loss, not mine, so no hate.
9 - Lol, Grey Knights, Necrons, and a dozen armies before them say hello.
10 - With some exceptions, superheavies are not unlike your average deathstar unit. Except, they're often priced right.
11 - Truth be told, the only "confusing" release has been this Tempestus/Astra Militarum mess, and mostly due to ill-intentioned rumors. The accelerated release schedule would pose no problems if accompanied by a solid communications strategy.
12 - I never cared about WD to begin with. Looking for hobby news? Check Dakka.
13 - I would undestand this if "when" was not "yesterday". Come on, there may be a new set of FAQs on the way.
14 - Oh, I spent two minutes making a new account! HATE and MAIM and BURN!
15 - It's not like they're mandatory. If you don't like them, vote with your wallet.
16 - Codex: Necrons and Codex: Sisters of Battle had the astounding number of three units in them when they were introduced back in 2nd.

There's a lot to criticise both in GW as a company and in their products. But there's a noticeable difference between legitimate concern, constructive criticism and senseless whining.

Its strange. Saturday we played an APOC game, Necrons and DE vs. Nids and Nids. Each army was 5000 pts, so 10,000 pts per side.
DE had the Revenant Titan and I had the Trans. C'tan, while Nids had the Biotitan and a few other smaller superheavies.
Nids got knocked down hard.

Now they decided to restrict superheavies (say, <500 pts) in the next APOC game. Then I'm out.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Its strange. Saturday we played an APOC game, Necrons and DE vs. Nids and Nids. Each army was 5000 pts, so 10,000 pts per side.
DE had the Revenant Titan and I had the Trans. C'tan, while Nids had the Biotitan and a few other smaller superheavies.
Nids got knocked down hard.

Now they decided to restrict superheavies (say, <500 pts) in the next APOC game. Then I'm out.

Everyone is on board until the change hurts their army.

Heck, until I started Dark Eldar last week I didn't even have any Apoc Formations, and I still don't have proper access to any super-heavies (though Celestine as a count-as C'Tan Shard could be a lot of fun) for either army (Sisters or DE), only getting them through allies. And I still find Apoc to be a pretty good amount of fun! It's all about the mindset I guess.

See, one thing is that I miss the good days when you didn't have to worry about big 'ole tanks and giant robots clogging up the battlefield and you only had a few squads to command. As GW progressively got rid of everything remotely skirmish level (amping the game up, models costing less points, bye Kill Team, bye Necromunda, bye smaller scenarios), I started to get frustrated with them.

But it seems like there's a good market and lots of people who want to play big games with super-heavy tanks.

I think they should do something like what they did with their LOTR game, where there's a smaller-scale 'skirmish' version of the game that you can play. That really would answer a lot of my complaints.

Other than that it's just the standard gripes about the price, the crummy new website, and the price. Did I mention the price? Yeah, I did.

Oh, and I still miss the squats. Never forget.

Uh, Mysterious Pants, Kill Teams still exists. It got a 6th Edition ruleset last year. You can download it in iPad or from the BL.

Wow, the fact that almost 600 people voted is amazing. I have seen some really tough you make the call polls not even get 10 votes. Still I would have liked to see a " No hate I still like GW and its games' option.

osirisx69 wrote:
Wow, the fact that almost 600 people voted is amazing. I have seen some really tough you make the call polls not even get 10 votes. Still I would have liked to see a " No hate I still like GW and its games' option.

Not really. I voted for everything because everything sucks.

And the OP has a serious perspective issue if he forgot about the divided codexes from 2nd edition, Squats, Zoats, etc...

2011-2013 was a very rough time to be part of the GW "Hobby". One thing after another kept piling up. Price hikes, hardcover everything, very bad rulesets, horrible and (even for 40k standards) stupid fluff changes, very low quality products from the unmitigated disaster of "Finecast" to releasing surplus books that are hardcover, $50, and have 1 page of rules. There was also the incomprehensibly stupid paranoid secrecy of releases. Black Library and FW meanwhile, two of the better branches of GW, started to decline as GW infected them with their own moronic policies. BL these days is just an endless stream of overpriced "limited edition" hardcover reprints of past stories and anthologies.

But most of all it was GW becoming even more hostile and vicious towards its own customer base (chapter house, deleting all PR/social media, endless C&D letters, etc.). This was reflected in their bullying of FLGS. You have popular fansites/stores liek Mini-Wargaming begging GW to change their policies out of love and then getting a lawsuit threat as a reward. When I realized that as an older (15+) open but serious minded gamer and fluff enthusiast, GW actively hated me, I became fed up with them. I don't want any part of a company at war with its own "fans".

All of these things combined together. Had any problem existed independently of the other I probably wouldn't have had a major issue. But the prices, product-pushing, low quality, and hostility were too much for me to reconcile for a hobby.

But it hasn't stopped my love of the 40k universe. I always say GW only can make the experience as miserable for you as you let them. So print out some old edition rules, get your old (or converted/kitbashed/third party models) out, and play casually. 40k doesn't have to involve GW at all.

As for the complaints about complaints, this is all GW's fault. They've rendered "the hobby" to such a state that there isn't much to do besides reflect on whats wrong with it. We have a right to complain, this is the only outlet to do so since GW cut themselves off from any interaction with their customers, and if you don't like it don't read it.

 viewfinder wrote:
And the OP has a serious perspective issue if he forgot about the divided codexes from 2nd edition, Squats, Zoats, etc...

And the codex supplements from 3rd (Armageddon, Eye of Terror, both of which required other books to use).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 viewfinder wrote:
And the OP has a serious perspective issue if he forgot about the divided codexes from 2nd edition, Squats, Zoats, etc...

And the codex supplements from 3rd (Armageddon, Eye of Terror, both of which required other books to use).

yup. much like Tea Partiers and facts, these predated the internet rage of today...

Can we stop calling codex supplements "one page of rules" already? It's some serious hyperbole considering there are rules for Apoc, Cities of Death, and/or Planetstrike in the books and a number of Altar of War and Eternal War missions in each book (all of which are rules even if you don't choose to use them).

Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop calling codex supplements "one page of rules" already? It's some serious hyperbole considering there are rules for Apoc, Cities of Death, and/or Planetstrike in the books and a number of Altar of War and Eternal War missions in each book (all of which are rules even if you don't choose to use them).

Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Why?

Anything beyond the regular game rules is effectively redundant for most players, most of the time. Sure, it may get used occasionally, but not to the point where it will be a significant selling point for most.

Is it really all that relevant whether it is one or two or three pages of rules? Isn't the fact that the document is severely light on crunch, despite being the same price, or substantial percentage thereof, a full army book, the issue here?

Being pedantic about the actual number of pages does nothing to change that fact, and just comes across as all a bit "Leave GW Alone!!"

Oh, and when I noticed just how much the prices actually have risen. E.E

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop calling codex supplements "one page of rules" already? It's some serious hyperbole considering there are rules for Apoc, Cities of Death, and/or Planetstrike in the books and a number of Altar of War and Eternal War missions in each book (all of which are rules even if you don't choose to use them).

Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Why?

Anything beyond the regular game rules is effectively redundant for most players, most of the time. Sure, it may get used occasionally, but not to the point where it will be a significant selling point for most.

Is it really all that relevant whether it is one or two or three pages of rules? Isn't the fact that the document is severely light on crunch, despite being the same price, or substantial percentage thereof, a full army book, the issue here?

Being pedantic about the actual number of pages does nothing to change that fact, and just comes across as all a bit "Leave GW Alone!!"

I don't mind complaints about price, I do dislike hyperbole that misrepresents what is actually in the material though.

 viewfinder wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Wow, the fact that almost 600 people voted is amazing. I have seen some really tough you make the call polls not even get 10 votes. Still I would have liked to see a " No hate I still like GW and its games' option.

Not really. I voted for everything because everything sucks.

And the OP has a serious perspective issue if he forgot about the divided codexes from 2nd edition, Squats, Zoats, etc...

Um, what Squat and Zoat codexes from 2nd ed.?

Well I'm honestly rather new. I joined in the last year of 5th edition and didn't really start playing till 6th struck so many of these things happened before I arrived. Most of these didn't immediately kill it for me since 6th was the first I really looked I to the rules as well (technically I played it for a bit in 3rd but that was long ago and I mainly played LotR). That being said, things gradually combined. Starting relatively fresh, my friend and I played the starter box thinking they were balanced. Big mistake. Honesty, I got a bit irked how my friend always seemed to be crushing me. Turns out the starter orks and starter chaos happened to be at a slight disadvantage. Well still I made it through and time to play.

Now, I wouldn't call it hatred as much as dislike/disillusionment. The first time I played fliers ruined fliers to me. Alright, I can live with it. Then Tau and Eldar came out and my Ksons which were already kinda crummy got worse. Then SM came out and I compared SM tactically to CSM. Okay first book I'll just have to live with it. Taudar, Seerstar, drastic nerf on assault, the thousands of supplements, bullying indie retail, dlc, removing tons of units, terrible terrible balance externally and internally, allies on allies with data slates on top, and then adding in super heavies. It's just. It honestly ruined much of the charm to me.

I only hate GW when I am on the internet. Any other time I find that I tend to enjoy their product

I dislike them for their aggressive brick and mortar store clerks. The other crap listed - not that big of a deal for me.

There was no specific point where I started to dislike Games Workshop. I do remember a time when I thought they were a good model company and that their stuff was the greatest thing ever. I think the start was when I bought my first Leman Russ. When I got it I thought I'd be getting something nice and big. At least the size of a good sized shoe. I paid $50 for it. When I finished putting it together.. it was puny. I justified it to myself thinking, "It's so detailed! Look how awesome it looks!".

Then I joined this forum. I was then exposed to the greater wargaming community. I saw how bad the rules were even back during the "Golden Age" of 5th edition. What really kickstarted my dislike was the price rise they had. I was baffled by how a company could be so greedy as to do a price rise (Lol, right?) for no good reason. And then they did it again. My precious guard army wasn't touched but it was still bull crap. I slowly started putting my army together over the months. I learned more and more about what Games Workshop does to it's fanbase. 6th edition hit and it renewed me with hope and love for the game. I played estatically with my guard army. I didn't much care for GW but I didn't overtly hate them.

Then they took down those articles. I loved the gak out those articles. They inspired me and made me love the HHHobby. They also had some cool Leman Russ tank camo schemes so yeah. Then they sued Chapterhouse studios over stupid crap. Then they released Tau/Eldar. Then the dataslates. Then more price hikes. Then Escalation. Now I really dislike them and how they messed up this great game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Which, you know, is much better...

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Which, you know, is much better...

I don't mind complaints about feeling that something is too expensive. but lying about how much content, or what the book actually provides to create a stronger position for yourself is best left to politicians, not the internet.

Frankly I feel the books are hitting the right notes in terms of length, scope and scale, it's the price that's wrong. $20 is about the most I'd want to pay for one normally ($30 is how my upper threshold for where I think the codexes should be, with $50 for the LE ones), so I understand the price complaint. The issue is that people aren't framing their complaint about how much is costs around it's actual costs, they're complaining about the content like there is less than there is and almost never mention the price which is just silly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop calling codex supplements "one page of rules" already? It's some serious hyperbole considering there are rules for Apoc, Cities of Death, and/or Planetstrike in the books and a number of Altar of War and Eternal War missions in each book (all of which are rules even if you don't choose to use them).

Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Why?

Anything beyond the regular game rules is effectively redundant for most players, most of the time. Sure, it may get used occasionally, but not to the point where it will be a significant selling point for most.

Is it really all that relevant whether it is one or two or three pages of rules? Isn't the fact that the document is severely light on crunch, despite being the same price, or substantial percentage thereof, a full army book, the issue here?

Being pedantic about the actual number of pages does nothing to change that fact, and just comes across as all a bit "Leave GW Alone!!"

I don't mind complaints about price, I do dislike hyperbole that misrepresents what is actually in the material though.

Saying one page, when there are in fact a whole three doesn't really qualify as hyperbole IMO, YMMV.

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can we stop calling codex supplements "one page of rules" already? It's some serious hyperbole considering there are rules for Apoc, Cities of Death, and/or Planetstrike in the books and a number of Altar of War and Eternal War missions in each book (all of which are rules even if you don't choose to use them).

Plus the core rules of the books are 3 pages, not one.

Why?

Anything beyond the regular game rules is effectively redundant for most players, most of the time. Sure, it may get used occasionally, but not to the point where it will be a significant selling point for most.

Is it really all that relevant whether it is one or two or three pages of rules? Isn't the fact that the document is severely light on crunch, despite being the same price, or substantial percentage thereof, a full army book, the issue here?

Being pedantic about the actual number of pages does nothing to change that fact, and just comes across as all a bit "Leave GW Alone!!"

I don't mind complaints about price, I do dislike hyperbole that misrepresents what is actually in the material though.

Saying one page, when there are in fact a whole three doesn't really qualify as hyperbole IMO, YMMV.

Three pages of core rules and about a dozen of non-core rules, sometimes more does make it hyperobole as we're pretending there is only a single page of "rules" in the book when there are in fact more.

And yes, not everyone is going to use all the rules, but like I've said in the past, that's like complaining that the C:SM book has Dreadnoughts in it when you play White Scars. Just because you don't find utility with some of it doesn't mean they aren't valid or that they aren't worth at least a little.

So then the question becomes are 3 pages of rules and some pictures worth $50?

yukondal wrote:
So then the question becomes are 3 pages of rules and some pictures worth $50?

That's ignoring the dozen other pages related to alternate game types, extra missions (to include scenario based ones) and all the fluff stuff, but better.

And no, supplements aren't worth $50. Like I've said, my upper limit on them is about $20. They're good, but frankly they're an add on to a main book and shouldn't cost as much as a full codex (which I feel shouldn't be over $30).

My main sticking point on the price related to the amount of content but more the utility of the book. You basically pay double the cost of a regular codex army just to have the rules for your faction. And if that cost was a total of $50 I'd be pretty okay with it, but when it's $100, that's just a bit too steep for me.

This is a culmination of the GW-hate on Dakka, a thread that assumes everyone dislikes them. And, looking at the options for this poll, the thread should be re-named "when did you start disliking 40k". GW make other games, you know.

I'm not hater of GW, but I do dislike the supplements. It's a cool idea, and some of them are actually pretty good, but the price is ridiculous. I lose a little bit of faith in humanity everytime I see somebody buy one. So that gets my vote in the poll.

Started to hate them when they started releasing rulesets that they didn't even attempt to balance. I don't mind bad balancing, at least the effort was there and they can work towards fixing it or improving upon their mistakes - no, its the scraping together of some pathetically written codex that they don't even care about, and releasing it knowing people have to buy it to play their armies anyway, and with 100 limited edition copies per continent shipped to just as a slap in the face. I don't know what option this is but I voted for the "accelerated releases" option.

I don't care about the milking, if the product is good, however I will not support such decisions and give my money to GW for making my game worse.

I literally went out and spent $300 on an iPad for the sole purpose of putting a pirate codex on there, so I can play my armies rules without having to give my money to GW to do so. Use it for very little else. Also pirated the dataslates because meh, they were a rip off anyway. And GW owes me $300 for that iPad the way I see it

However on the flip side of the coin, if they release an amazing codex for one of my armies, I will buy even the limited edition. I will support the effort and have done before. Best way to make it clear to them what they do right and wrong is to speak with the dollar. Just wish more people did the same.




And yes, I hate GW. Not just disillusioned or disappointed. If I could obliterate the company off the face of this earth this instant, I would not even hesitate. If they suddenly disbanded, someone new and better would snap up the opportunity to write rulesets for 40k. GW still being here at the moment is literally ruining the hobby I spent so much money on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Shadow wrote:
And, looking at the options for this poll, the thread should be re-named "when did you start disliking 40k". GW make other games, you know.

Disagree as I still like 40k otherwise I would not even be discussing it, however at this point I do hate the current role GW has to do with it.

You didn't include an I don't mind them option. I just buy less.

When my wallet was emptied.