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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Just because a unit or strategy works for you doesn't automatically make it good. It just means it works for you. You have to look at the bigger picture and if, on average, Genestealers tend to underperform then they aren't an adequate unit.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

This is of course backed up by Lobomalo's claim about MTG balance, that U/W control is unbeatable (when in fact it isn't really doing very well in major tournaments). Someone in their local store probably has a decent U/W control deck and beats all the weaker players, and Lobomalo struggles to compete with it. And they make the textbook mistake of assuming that everyone else has the same problems, ignoring the tournament results demonstrating that they don't. The only question is whether Lobomalo is sincerely wrong about this, or posted a balance complaint without realizing that other people in this thread might have some MTG experience and check their claims.

I like you, I really do. People like you give me hope for the future.

Do you play Magic right now? Have you ever actually made it to a competitive event and not a local Friday night game? I've played for almost twenty years now, U/W has always been one of the most dominant decks in the game. It falls out of favor here and there because Wizards buffs the other colors because U/W is so strong. But you would know this if you actually played competitively.

Wow, the arrogance is strong with this one. Well, just because you been to a few local or even national events doesn't make your experience representative of the overall meta. You need results from a lot of tournaments to draw any conclusion about what build is good or not. As a man who believes in science I must stress this: Anecdotes mean feth all.

Not arrogance, its called being active in the competitive environment. I pay attention to what is going on in MtG, what works, what doesn't down to the tiniest rogue deck that comes out of nowhere and wins at a small state event. Honestly you couldn't find a game I paid more attention too. I am more than confident in my points and you can take however long you need to prove them wrong, don't worry, I'll wait. you'll be looking for a while.

 Throt wrote:

It is actually more difficult for GW.
Lets say that on release 'x' GW screwed up 5 things, and made 2 things out of balance that the rules lawyers have found.
They have just printed and shipped 500,000 rulebooks across the globe.
The naysayers see the books and say GW you suck.
Many don't buy, because it is overpriced, or it sucks or whatever and they want GW to recall all these books and have lost all the investment and have to start all over.
Can you see a cycle appearing.
The expectation of the naysayer is naïve and harmful.
Companies with less resource also have less overhead to cover.

Produce a free digital update to the product to clarify issues which dismisses negative comments in an orderly fashion and, better yet, generates good will.

Shocking concept. That is, unless you play other games. More so, Games Workshop could have performed an open beta test on 7th edition which would further reduce errors in the new ruleset, further increasing the value of the product and it never resulting in negative commentary.

I'm aware you're a super veteran of decades, but the way other game companies run their business is flat out superior to Games Workshop. There's just no disputing this fact. Remember, we went over a full year with meaningful FAQs for much of the game from Apr 13 to the release of 7th edition. Given the amount of content Games Workshop produced in that time frame makes it seem like an eternity for many rules disputes to languish. And now we know why FAQs were not issued... rules writers were either working on codices or preparing for 7th edition.

I have multiple people tell me across different channels that Games Workshop management allows for minimal play testing because the rules writers shouldn't be paid to "play games" on company time. While I have no fact to back this up or point towards, this seems likely given the nature of these releases and their poor wording and bad rules interaction, as seen by the Exalted Flamer Chariot. You'd only need to play that model ONCE to see it did not function.

Part of the problem, I think, is the diversity in groups of people.

We all have our own experiences with our own clubs, I suppose. I will use myself as an example:

I've only played in 3 clubs and 4 FLGSs in my time playing 40k. Each one has been different in their own ways - my first FLGS/club was in Austin, Texas, and was intensely competitive (but not WAAC) and very fast-paced and fun, almost like a sporting club. My next area was Harrisburg, PA, where people play predominantly pickup games but the competition is lessened, and fluff is respected more (better for me personally). Then State College/Altoona, PA, for school, where competition is virtually non-existent and everything is fluff driven (great for me, imo).

But at none of these places have I ever had a heated rules argument, or seen the game break down, or really even seen animosity between players.

It's weird to hear that 40k is literally unplayable in some places because of all the rules holes - I begin to wonder if I have some 'more perfect' copy of the rules that functions just fine, and always has.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know I'm about to say a bit of an oversimplification but:

In my business class, I was told that it is the wet dream of every manufacturer and retailer to sell one product for fifteen million dollars, rather than to sell fifteen million products for one dollar.

So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

Except only a stupid manufacturer would apply this principle to a social game like 40k. Games like 40k are worthless if you don't have anyone to play it with, which means that market share is absolutely essential. If you dominate the market you will get lots of sales, and plenty of new customers will default to buying your game because it's what everyone else is playing. If you don't have good market share you might sell a few things initially, but those people will eventually stop buying because they don't have anyone to play the game with, while new customers that walk into a store will never even consider your game. Obviously 40k hasn't lost enough market share to get into that second category yet, but they're heading in that direction and have already thrown away a ridiculous amount of market share and allowed their competition to start taking a share of their new customers. The only thing saving 40k from death by obscurity is the fact that they started from such a dominant position that even after suffering major losses in market share they're still the biggest for now.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Do you play Magic right now? Have you ever actually made it to a competitive event and not a local Friday night game? I've played for almost twenty years now, U/W has always been one of the most dominant decks in the game. It falls out of favor here and there because Wizards buffs the other colors because U/W is so strong. But you would know this if you actually played competitively.

Lol, you really don't know anything about MTG, do you. Take a look at the damn top-8 decklists from major events and notice that U/W control isn't even close to unbeatable. The most recent major standard tournament was won by a pure aggro deck, and aggro decks got the majority of the top 8. Sure, U/W control is strong at times, but so is every other major deck archetype. This special metagame where U/W control is the dominant deck and other archetypes only occasionally get an opportunity to win only exists in your own imagination.

Of course I'm sure you'll be too stubborn to admit defeat on this, even when high-level competitive results prove you indisputably wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
OR, they can expect people to act like gentlemen and use common sense, instead of saying "YOUR GUY DOESN'T HAVE EYES HOW DOES HE SEE TO SHOOT?!?!?!??!?!!!"

Because really, you're right, we shouldn't have to do it and that is a problem.

But seriously?

As I said, it wasn't a huge problem for most players. But it was a prime example of something that should have been fixed 20 years ago that GW just never bothered to address. And in some case, like the aforementioned artillery, or the old huge-headed Wraithlord, it did make a difference where you drew LOS from.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

And from a purely capitalist point of view, in just about any other market, that would be correct.

Gaming is a singular beast, though, because growth is not solely dependent on how good your product is, but also on how many people have it. Fewer people buying a game means fewer people playing that game... which leads to a recurring, ever-decreasing spiral.

Any forward-thinking games company wants their products in as many houses as possible, because that's how you get strong gaming communities established, which is what perpetuates that game.

History is littered with good games that died simply because not enough people played them.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know I'm about to say a bit of an oversimplification but:

In my business class, I was told that it is the wet dream of every manufacturer and retailer to sell one product for fifteen million dollars, rather than to sell fifteen million products for one dollar.

So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

Because it's called gambling. I have not taken a business class, but I know in my own personal investments and guidance I have received on them is that diversification leads to better chances of success. As it were, Games Workshop is nearly at the point of all-in on Warhammer 40k, meaning one product line. Should it falter, the company goes too.

That is an over exaggeration. The game will not fall flat any time soon. For them to lose enough to go belly up it would take a minimum of 5 years easily. You would need to remove a large player base and not the small percentage that has quite already, make a real dent in the pockets of shareholders and most importantly, have a legitimate alternative for the product GW is offering.

Other games have their value, but none come close to what GW has offered or those companies would actually be able to rival GW and right now, none are even close.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I would say that if even a sizable minority (Not an oxymoron) finds issue with the rules then their concerns should be at least addressed. That's lost customers and bad PR right there if you just tell them to go screw themselves because everyone else is having fun.

I don't disagree with this - but even the staunchest GW-haters have to admit, that the "sky is falling" reaction to every change in the game has remained a constant since day 2 of WH40K... they must have to become numb to some of that.

You will always have people that disagree with every decision a company make. The Blizzard forums are a testament to that. But the key to utilizing feedback is to recognize trends, investigate them and address concerns if they are common and/or valid. Even if 20% of your consumer base is making the same complaint surely that is worth looking into.

 TheKbob wrote:


I'm aware you're a super veteran of decades, but the way other game companies run their business is flat out superior to Games Workshop. There's just no disputing this fact.

It isn't a "fact" it is an opinion. If they were so much better, they would be actual competition, they aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:


History is littered with good games that died simply because not enough people played them.

Name 5. I have seen very few games that fit this criteria.

 TheKbob wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

How about this thing called human subjectivity? You presume everyone can be pleased.

You presume that they couldn't be doing better and the displeased are a minority. I have facts to back up my stance, where are yours? Or are we doing the illogical dance of the person who says "we can never know anything, so therefore you're wrong?"

You have subjective opinions. Other people have different ideas.

If they please you it may displease others.

How does your cognitive dissonance deal with that?

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
[Tournament players are also not the majority that they believe themselves to be. They just tend to be the most vocal

Most tournament players don't believe themselves to be a majority. They're fully aware that most players don't play in tournaments.

The reason they complain is that for the most part, writing a game that is tournament-friendly benefits all of the players, whereas writing a game that is only fit for those players who are happy to make up rules with their opponent excludes a chunk of the player base.

Many are not aware. they are the self proclaimed spokespeople.
But this is not fully the case. I'm not saying they have bad intentions, but rules problems, these 'broken' parts, mostly come up in tournaments and not in other places. I have read forums about 'broken rules that in all my games, my friends games and their fiends games have never come up. 100's of games.
Yet there is this expectation for GW to catch all these things.

 TheKbob wrote:
Produce a free digital update to the product to clarify issues which dismisses negative comments in an orderly fashion and, better yet, generates good will.

This. FFS, it's 2014 now. If you can't figure out how to issue digital FAQs and errata for your products then you deserve to have your company die.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Just because a unit or strategy works for you doesn't automatically make it good. It just means it works for you. You have to look at the bigger picture and if, on average, Genestealers tend to underperform then they aren't an adequate unit.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

This is of course backed up by Lobomalo's claim about MTG balance, that U/W control is unbeatable (when in fact it isn't really doing very well in major tournaments). Someone in their local store probably has a decent U/W control deck and beats all the weaker players, and Lobomalo struggles to compete with it. And they make the textbook mistake of assuming that everyone else has the same problems, ignoring the tournament results demonstrating that they don't. The only question is whether Lobomalo is sincerely wrong about this, or posted a balance complaint without realizing that other people in this thread might have some MTG experience and check their claims.

I like you, I really do. People like you give me hope for the future. .

Do you play Magic right now? Have you ever actually made it to a competitive event and not a local Friday night game? I've played for almost twenty years now, U/W has always been one of the most dominant decks in the game. It falls out of favor here and there because Wizards buffs the other colors because U/W is so strong. But you would know this if you actually played competitively.

Wow, the arrogance is strong with this one. Well, just because you been to a few local or even national events doesn't make your experience representative of the overall meta. You need results from a lot of tournaments to draw any conclusion about what build is good or not. As a man who believes in science I must stress this: Anecdotes mean feth all.

Not arrogance, its called being active in the competitive environment. I pay attention to what is going on in MtG, what works, what doesn't down to the tiniest rogue deck that comes out of nowhere and wins at a small state event. Honestly you couldn't find a game I paid more attention too. I am more than confident in my points and you can take however long you need to prove them wrong, don't worry, I'll wait. you'll be looking for a while.

I'll freely admit my knowledge of M:TG is limited at best and is more accurately described as near-nonexistant. I don't care for the game for several reasons so I will allow those more knowledgeable to debate it.

GW is a little slow on the uptake to transition to digital. Many games are in fact. Patience is something we should all try and use

 Throt wrote:
but rules problems, these 'broken' parts, mostly come up in tournaments and not in other places.

No, they come up everywhere else as well. You just seem to think that if "casual" players agree to 4+ a rule question instead of taking it to YMDC that the problem never existed in the first place.

 Lobomalo wrote:


That is an over exaggeration. The game will not fall flat any time soon. For them to lose enough to go belly up it would take a minimum of 5 years easily [Citation Needed]. You would need to remove a large player base and not the small percentage that has quite already [Citation Needed], make a real dent in the pockets of shareholders and most importantly, have a legitimate alternative for the product GW is offering[Citation Needed].

Other games have their value, but none come close to what GW has offered[Citation Needed] or those companies would actually be able to rival GW and right now, none are even close[Citation Needed].

Please fill in the gaps and we can continue this discussion.

 Lobomalo wrote:
GW is a little slow on the uptake to transition to digital. Many games are in fact. Patience is something we should all try and use

Why should we have patience with such unbelievable stupidity? GW's failure to realize that it's 2014 and the internet exists should, by itself, be justification for firing every single person in GW's management.

 TheCustomLime wrote:


I'll freely admit my knowledge of M:TG is limited at best and is more accurately described as near-nonexistant. I don't care for the game for several reasons so I will allow those more knowledgeable to debate it.

I was a little harsh, I apologize for that. Certain posters, while ignored sometimes have something interesting to say so I look. As expected, it contributed nothing but a personal attack with no reprisals at all which is fine, I don't expect anything more.

Magic is one of those things where balance has never really been achieved until everyone is running the same deck, then it is down to play style and random draw. It's why you never see rogue decks make it very far and why you always see multiples of the exact same deck, even down to the sideboard. Players buy what is considered the most op thing at the time and run with it, not bothering to try something else.

 44Ronin wrote:


You have subjective opinions. Other people have different ideas.

If they please you it may displease others.

How does your cognitive dissonance deal with that?

Words. Words. Words. I can point to things not working in codices. I can point to bad economic factors. I can point to the cost of the game increasing far beyond material or inflation costs.

What can you point towards? Anything concrete?

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Just because a unit or strategy works for you doesn't automatically make it good. It just means it works for you. You have to look at the bigger picture and if, on average, Genestealers tend to underperform then they aren't an adequate unit.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

Hmmmm you realize you are insulting a whole bunch of people you've never met or spoken to? No matter what you think of Lobomalo, it's a bit uncalled for.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


That is an over exaggeration. The game will not fall flat any time soon. For them to lose enough to go belly up it would take a minimum of 5 years easily [Citation Needed]. You would need to remove a large player base and not the small percentage that has quite already [Citation Needed], make a real dent in the pockets of shareholders and most importantly, have a legitimate alternative for the product GW is offering[Citation Needed].

Other games have their value, but none come close to what GW has offered[Citation Needed] or those companies would actually be able to rival GW and right now, none are even close[Citation Needed].

Please fill in the gaps and we can continue this discussion.

I told you already, I won't do the work for you.

 Lobomalo wrote:
GW is a little slow on the uptake to transition to digital. Many games are in fact[Citation Needed]. Patience is something we should all try and use

Clarify that one, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

I told you already, I won't do the work for you.

Then you have failed to debate properly.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

So proof or stop.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Throt wrote:
but rules problems, these 'broken' parts, mostly come up in tournaments and not in other places.

No, they come up everywhere else as well. You just seem to think that if "casual" players agree to 4+ a rule question instead of taking it to YMDC that the problem never existed in the first place.

I think I've 4+'d something once since 2001 when I started playing.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


That is an over exaggeration. The game will not fall flat any time soon. For them to lose enough to go belly up it would take a minimum of 5 years easily [Citation Needed]. You would need to remove a large player base and not the small percentage that has quite already [Citation Needed], make a real dent in the pockets of shareholders and most importantly, have a legitimate alternative for the product GW is offering[Citation Needed].

Other games have their value, but none come close to what GW has offered[Citation Needed] or those companies would actually be able to rival GW and right now, none are even close[Citation Needed].

Please fill in the gaps and we can continue this discussion.

I told you already, I won't do the work for you.

Then why should they do the work for you?

G'night all. See you in 10 pages.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Magic is one of those things where balance has never really been achieved until everyone is running the same deck, then it is down to play style and random draw. It's why you never see rogue decks make it very far and why you always see multiples of the exact same deck, even down to the sideboard. Players buy what is considered the most op thing at the time and run with it, not bothering to try something else.

...

Honestly, I'm not even sure where to start with this one. I'm kind of impressed by how much ignorance of the game you've managed to pack into those few short sentences.

 TheKbob wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


You have subjective opinions. Other people have different ideas.

If they please you it may displease others.

How does your cognitive dissonance deal with that?

Words. Words. Words. I can point to things not working in codices. I can point to bad economic factors. I can point to the cost of the game increasing far beyond material or inflation costs.

What can you point towards? Anything concrete?

Can you point to anything concrete?

Codices not working is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Bad economic factors, again, you have theories but nothing solid. Your theories you have cited numerous times are based upon faulty data as new editions always scare away players hence a drop in profits.

Cost of gaming and inflation is the norm when people want your product, its how business is done, its how business works. Otherwise, nobody makes money.

So, anything concrete?

 Lobomalo wrote:
I told you already, I won't do the work for you.

IOW: "Hey guys, everyone else is just as bad as GW, now go find some examples for me so that you can dispute them. Why should I have to do all the work of providing some proof for my claims of 'everyone else does x'?"

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
GW is a little slow on the uptake to transition to digital. Many games are in fact[Citation Needed]. Patience is something we should all try and use

Clarify that one, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

I told you already, I won't do the work for you.

Then you have failed to debate properly.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

So proof or stop.

Actually according to the rules of debate, I simply need to cite my sources when initially presented, not every time. I debated in High School and College sir, try again. I posted all my sources and reasons for things numerous pages ago, you want to argue them, you scroll back and look for yourself, until then, you have nothing.

 TheKbob wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


You have subjective opinions. Other people have different ideas.

If they please you it may displease others.

How does your cognitive dissonance deal with that?

Words. Words. Words. I can point to things not working in codices. I can point to bad economic factors. I can point to the cost of the game increasing far beyond material or inflation costs.

What can you point towards? Anything concrete?

Most of the things "not working in codices" work just fine, people just don't like the conclusion.

Bad economic factors? What precisely do you mean by that phrase?

And I've illustrated before:

If a game company can sell 2 sets for 7.5 million dollars to the two people who will play them, then they're better capitalists than the ones that sell 15million sets for 1 dollar each.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Can you point to anything concrete?

Codices not working is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Bad economic factors, again, you have theories but nothing solid. Your theories you have cited numerous times are based upon faulty data as new editions always scare away players hence a drop in profits.

Cost of gaming and inflation is the norm when people want your product, its how business is done, its how business works. Otherwise, nobody makes money.

So, anything concrete?

Legion of the Damned automatically loses if played as a primary source.

The Exalted Flamer Chariot did not work for an entire year.

I can link you the entire 14 part series of "The Future of Games Workshop" that has all the facts that you can speak to Mr. Beeble towards. Or you can pop over to Dakka discussions where there is a 34 page topic chock full of goodness. I can provide another thread, too.

And for further evidence for the value to be decreasing, I continually and will forever point to one of many exhibits:



So again, your move. Please provide proof of your opposing argument(s).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Actually according to the rules of debate, I simply need to cite my sources when initially presented, not every time. I debated in High School and College sir, try again. I posted all my sources and reasons for things numerous pages ago, you want to argue them, you scroll back and look for yourself, until then, you have nothing.

Sadly, this isn't high school debate club and we have this thing called the internet. If you had relevant proof, you could utilize the Hypertext Markup Language to quickly reference me to the source.

Or, you could be throwing a smoke bomb and debating poorly in the process.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Throt wrote:
That is my point. I have a classic rational consumist point of view: high price means high quality.

Not to nitpick, but in a truly capitalist society, this is super naive.

High price means that people are willing to pay that price for the product - you could have a turd, but if people pay $15,000,000 for it, you bet your ass it'll be sold for that much.

Perhaps there ought to be a correlation between quality and price, but there are waaaayyy more things that go into pricing than mere quality, including branding, market share, target markets, et cetera.

Just to clarify...that's not my quote
No hard feelings on my end