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.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.

"Damn, our sales are way down, if only there was some way to ask customers why they've stopped buying our products, or foster some kind of relationship with them to increase their loyalty. Like...some kind of.. public forum, where they could give us feedback? Maybe our products are too cheap and our rules are too clear? We'll just have to assume thats what it is until some kind of mass communication is invented, increase prices and make more vauge, badly worded rules, that'll sort it out!"

It's hilarious that people think GW isn't aware of the feelings of their player base, it truly is.

What about their behaviour makes you think they are?

As long as people continue to spend money, they have no reason to make any significant changes

This is why you dont buy LE codex's, LE rule books, or any other explicit money scams GW runs.

 PhillyT wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

Well, given their diminishing share of the market, they might be better at this than us, but they don't appear to better at this than some people. Some of those people just also happen to be ex-GW, as well. Hmmm...

Every industry with a single monolithic company and hundreds of minor ones ends up in a similar situation.

No other company matches the scope or size of the GW line and game. They have no competitors within their specific set.

Now I know you can't be serious, or you're a GW employee towing the party line. Their "specific set" is miniature wargames, specifically 28mm miniature wargames. Their scope amounts to "Doesn't matter so long as you buy things" which is more or less the lack of scope rather than a defined scope, and their games actually have no scope since it's supposed to allow for various points values from a couple of units to massive armies (and fails at it, but that's another issue). What makes you think they don't have competitors? There are other 28mm games out there, some of which are also for large scale battles (Kings of War springs to mind), actually larger than GW since the rules are streamlined so you can play a larger game without it taking the better part of a day.

By your logic, Microsoft has no competitors either.

 PhillyT wrote:
What parts of the rule set do you feel are broken?

I'd say melee in general, the WS rule is horrific, generally the only good melee units are those that are gamebreaking deathstars while generalized melee can't do much, being unable to assault from unmoving transports has broken many units considering many still rely on those sorts of transports.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

Da Butcha wrote:

Well, given their diminishing share of the market, they might be better at this than us, but they don't appear to better at this than some people. Some of those people just also happen to be ex-GW, as well. Hmmm...

Every industry with a single monolithic company and hundreds of minor ones ends up in a similar situation.

No other company matches the scope or size of the GW line and game. They have no competitors within their specific set.

Now I know you can't be serious, or you're a GW employee towing the party line. Their "specific set" is miniature wargames, specifically 28mm miniature wargames. Their scope amounts to "Doesn't matter so long as you buy things" which is more or less the lack of scope rather than a defined scope, and their games actually have no scope since it's supposed to allow for various points values from a couple of units to massive armies (and fails at it, but that's another issue). What makes you think they don't have competitors? There are other 28mm games out there, some of which are also for large scale battles (Kings of War springs to mind), actually larger than GW since the rules are streamlined so you can play a larger game without it taking the better part of a day.

By your logic, Microsoft has no competitors either.

100 - 200 models per side, small and large vehicles with terrain and at least seven distinct and varied armies in the 28mm scale?

Who else? Everything else is smaller scale or niche pseudo skirmish.

 PhillyT wrote:
What parts of the rule set do you feel are broken?

Just off the top of my head:

I Go You Go turn system in a company scale game where half an army can be crippled before it gets to act by an alpha strike list.

Anything with a 2+ rerollable invun save.

Moving each model individually and measuring ranges and distances for them when the whole squad is otherwise acting as a single unit.

Other remnants of skirmish scale rules, like challenges, in a game with artillery and air support acting on the table.

Those are complaints, not broken rules.

They are issues I take with the rules and consider part of a broken ruleset. If you where meaning specifically units that where underpowered/overpowered then do we REALLY need to go into that?

Thousand Sons and rough riders are never worth taking. Wave serpents and riptides are always worth taking. Daemon factories should never have been allowed to exist, and worse it was found by fans before the rules had even officially hit shelves, there is no way you can't see that as poor or broken rules.

 PhillyT wrote:
Those are complaints, not broken rules.

Offer a definition of broken first, because these discussions frequently seem to involve moving targets.

A rule that directly invalidates play styles or that cannot be applied because of its mechanic.

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.

I fail to see the disadvantage for GW in listening to us about improving/tightening the ruleset. I'm not asking for a price decrease, because I don't believe in miracles. It could very well improve things for everybody, and bring back disgruntled customers. And seriously it won't bother you anyway since you're going to buy it regardless of the quality of the rules. If anything your opinion actually means less than ours because you and your ilk are guaranteed money.

I am fine with loose rules for the sake of diversity.

Legion Of The Damned Codex

Are independent character Psykers attached to a unit, still considered a "Psyker unit" when attached to another unit for the purposes of generating warp charge?

How many powers can a Psyker cast per psychic phase?

That's just off the top of my head, I don't hang out in YMDC much.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.

I fail to see the disadvantage for GW in listening to us about improving/tightening the ruleset. I'm not asking for a price decrease, because I don't believe in miracles. It could very well improve things for everybody, and bring back disgruntled customers. And seriously it won't bother you anyway since you're going to buy it regardless of the quality of the rules. If anything your opinion actually means less than ours because you and your ilk are guaranteed money.

But who are they listening to and about what? With the number of conflicting opinions where are you expecting them to go?

 PhillyT wrote:
I am fine with loose rules for the sake of diversity.

Tight rules =\= lack of variety

Balance =/= everything in the same.

Why do White Knights always have to have this explained to them?

 azreal13 wrote:
Legion Of The Damned Codex

Are independent character Psykers attached to a unit, still considered a "Psyker unit" when attached to another unit for the purposes of generating warp charge?

How many powers can a Psyker cast per psychic phase?

That's just off the top of my head, I don't hang out in YMDC much.

Don't have the codex. Couldn't tell you.

 PhillyT wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Legion Of The Damned Codex

Are independent character Psykers attached to a unit, still considered a "Psyker unit" when attached to another unit for the purposes of generating warp charge?

How many powers can a Psyker cast per psychic phase?

That's just off the top of my head, I don't hang out in YMDC much.

Don't have the codex. Couldn't tell you.

Only the first thing is to do with LotD (ie that they automatically lose). The rest of those rules issues are core rules problems.

 PhillyT wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Legion Of The Damned Codex

Are independent character Psykers attached to a unit, still considered a "Psyker unit" when attached to another unit for the purposes of generating warp charge?

How many powers can a Psyker cast per psychic phase?

That's just off the top of my head, I don't hang out in YMDC much.

Don't have the codex. Couldn't tell you.

Oh, right, you're ignorant of it, so it doesn't exist?

Well let me explain,

All LotD units must be deployed in reserve.

They have no special permission, except one special mission in the book, to deploy before turn 2.

The rules state that if you have no models on the board at the end of a turn, you lose.

Ergo, any army comprising solely of units from the LotD codex loses at the end of the first turn, every game.

This is still an outstanding issue, which needs to either be fixed, or for GW to explicitly state that the book is intended to be used as an ally only force, which essentially invalidates it's merit in being titled "Codex"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Legion Of The Damned Codex

Are independent character Psykers attached to a unit, still considered a "Psyker unit" when attached to another unit for the purposes of generating warp charge?

How many powers can a Psyker cast per psychic phase?

That's just off the top of my head, I don't hang out in YMDC much.

Don't have the codex. Couldn't tell you.

Only the first thing is to do with LotD (ie that they automatically lose). The rest of those rules issues are core rules problems.

Correct.

The LOTD is an issue in it's entirety, the rest are unrelated core issues.

 PhillyT wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.

I fail to see the disadvantage for GW in listening to us about improving/tightening the ruleset. I'm not asking for a price decrease, because I don't believe in miracles. It could very well improve things for everybody, and bring back disgruntled customers. And seriously it won't bother you anyway since you're going to buy it regardless of the quality of the rules. If anything your opinion actually means less than ours because you and your ilk are guaranteed money.

But who are they listening to and about what? With the number of conflicting opinions where are you expecting them to go?

Engage with their fan base again. They could start with the Tournament Organizers and Top Players. Most would be able to point out all the weak points and anti-fluffy rules conflicts.

On topic:

It's hard for GW to get a "win" from me (and by win I mean a model purchase, which I haven't done since 2004, and instead use Ebay) as their prices are too outrageous to warrant a purchase, but they do get me to buy the majority of their paint/basing supplies. Now, I know people are also pretty unhappy about paint pot sizes, the changing of the paint names, the amount given today vs ten years ago, and the price, but I honestly am quite happy with the range and availability. I spent 20$ today at my FLGS and got four pots of paint, which is reasonable in my eyes, and each will likely last me +50 models. The flock is also not horribly priced (13$) and the amount given is enough for several armies. All in all, not much for me to complain about...those model prices, on the other hand...

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

That was arguably true 10 years ago. These days, as more and more people have ready access to the web, the 'internet crowd' covers a much wider cross-section of a company's potential audience.

 insaniak wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

That was arguably true 10 years ago. These days, as more and more people have ready access to the web, the 'internet crowd' covers a much wider cross-section of a company's potential audience.

I don't know about this one to be honest. I know that in a lot of competitive video gaming, teams will do a full on social media black out so that the players don't have to see the negativity about their players, but that is more with teams than companies so the example doesn't perfectly work.

 insaniak wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

That was arguably true 10 years ago. These days, as more and more people have ready access to the web, the 'internet crowd' covers a much wider cross-section of a company's potential audience.

Hah you must never read politics on Facebook. Today is 100 times worse than 10 years ago.

 PhillyT wrote:
A rule ... that cannot be applied because of its mechanic.

The entire psychic phase currently doesn't function.

Last edition, it was fortifications, most notably the Skyshield, anything with battlements, and the Aegis Defense Line, and the Look Out Sir! rule which was errataed to work completely differently 3 minutes after release..

In 5th edition it was characters joining units pre-game and LOS outside the shooting phase... two issues that carried over into 6th edition despite being clarified at the very end of 5th.

In 4th edition, they 'forgot' to include the rules for vehicle access and fire points, and the badly written LOS rules coupled with a complete failure to ever clarify them meant that for the entire life of that edition there were arguments over just how LOS worked.


Those are just the big ones. It seems like every edition they manage to jam something in there that they wrote out on a napkin in a hurry and never bothered to actually proof-read.

The psychic phase currently doesn't function?

I'm scratching my head on that one...

 Gunzhard wrote:
The psychic phase currently doesn't function?

I'm scratching my head on that one...

azrael13 already mentioned the 2 big issues.

There is currently no way to determine how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, or what happens when you have more than one non-brotherhood psyker in a single unit or a psyker in a unit of non-psykers.

Again, I disagree with this one. There is currently no way to determine it on this forum in particular. I haven't run into any issues with this in any other forum or in any game I have played.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
The psychic phase currently doesn't function?

I'm scratching my head on that one...

azrael13 already mentioned the 2 big issues.

There is currently no way to determine how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, or what happens when you have more than one non-brotherhood psyker in a single unit or a psyker in a unit of non-psykers.

Am I missing something obvious you are about to explain to me?

You can attempt to cast as many powers as you have dice/warp-charge for... some might not be successful and some may be denied.

More than one psyker in a single unit is absolutely no different than more than one psyker in separate units (what am I missing?). It just adds to your pool of dice. The last one doesn't make any sense either ...the rest of the unit (non-psykers) doesn't make any difference.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
The psychic phase currently doesn't function?

I'm scratching my head on that one...

azrael13 already mentioned the 2 big issues.

There is currently no way to determine how many powers a psyker can cast in a turn, or what happens when you have more than one non-brotherhood psyker in a single unit or a psyker in a unit of non-psykers.

Am I missing something obvious you are about to explain to me?

You can attempt to cast as many powers as you have dice/warp-charge for... some might not be successful and some may be denied.

More than one psyker in a single unit is absolutely no different than more than one psyker in separate units (what am I missing?). It just adds to your pool of dice. The last one doesn't make any sense either ...the rest of the unit (non-psykers) doesn't make any difference.

IIRC there is a heated locked thread over in YMDC, ran into it while looking up information on ML. From what I recall, it was an agreement to disagree as people couldn't come to terms on anything and started debating the meaning of words in the sentence, whether a Psyker stopped being a Psyker and lost its ML if it joined a group of non-Psykers, and the usual personal attacks between forum posters.

 Gunzhard wrote:
You can attempt to cast as many powers as you have dice/warp-charge for... some might not be successful and some may be denied.

That's one current interpretation, yes. However, many players are taking the line about the number of powers you can cast depending on your mastery level to mean that your mastery level is the number of powers you can cast. There have been fairly extensive threads on this. And no, Lobomalo, this isn't an issue that is exclusive to Dakka. You'll find the same rules discussions going on in pretty much every forum.

More than one psyker in a single unit is absolutely no different than more than one psyker in separate units (what am I missing?). It just adds to your pool of dice. The last one doesn't make any sense either ...the rest of the unit (non-psykers) doesn't make any difference.

The issue is that your Warp Charge pool and casting is worked out by psyker unit, not by individual psyker. Again, there has been extensive discussion of this one with no clear resolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:
...whether a Psyker stopped being a Psyker and lost its ML if it joined a group of non-Psykers,

You misunderstood the argument if you think that's what was being said.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
You can attempt to cast as many powers as you have dice/warp-charge for... some might not be successful and some may be denied.

That's one current interpretation, yes. However, many players are taking the line about the number of powers you can cast depending on your mastery level to mean that your mastery level is the number of powers you can cast. There have been fairly extensive threads on this. And no, Lobomalo, this isn't an issue that is exclusive to Dakka. You'll find the same rules discussions going on in pretty much every forum.

Well I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I really can't understand this one. Your mastery level says how many powers you HAVE not how many you can cast. That said, a single psyker cannot cast the same power twice, so the number of powers he has (which is dependent on his mastery level) - is also the number of powers he can cast per turn.

It really couldn't be more clear...

 insaniak wrote:

More than one psyker in a single unit is absolutely no different than more than one psyker in separate units (what am I missing?). It just adds to your pool of dice. The last one doesn't make any sense either ...the rest of the unit (non-psykers) doesn't make any difference.

The issue is that your Warp Charge pool and casting is worked out by psyker unit, not by individual psyker. Again, there has been extensive discussion of this one with no clear resolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:
...whether a Psyker stopped being a Psyker and lost its ML if it joined a group of non-Psykers,

You misunderstood the argument if you think that's what was being said.

But a psyker by himself is still a psyker unit. The example on page 24, 3rd paragraph - would read exactly the same if all of Andy's psyker units are joined into a single unit (which might actually be the case). This alternative interpretation seems a little obtuse.