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.

 Throt wrote:
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 suspect that's going to come down again to individual groups of players. I've had far more rules issues come up in casual games than in tournaments. In a tournament, from my experience, players are far more likely to just get on with it for the sake of finishing the game quickly, whereas a casual game can just stall for half an hour while the players argue out the relevant rules.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Codices not working is a matter of opinion, not fact.

No, it's a matter of fact. Remember the chariot example you rudely dismissed?

Bad economic factors, again, you have theories but nothing solid.

Of course we only have theories, because GW doesn't publish the financial data required to have absolute proof. But so far those theories match the observed results in the data they do publish, and the alternative explanations aren't very convincing. Meanwhile all you've done is complain about how it's "just a theory" instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

Your theories you have cited numerous times are based upon faulty data as new editions always scare away players hence a drop in profits.

Err, what? That doesn't make any sense at all. New editions are an obvious cash cow since everyone has to buy new rulebooks, and former players might come back if they hear about how awesome the new rules are. If a new edition means a drop in profits as people ragequit then why the hell would GW ever publish new editions?

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.

Except it isn't the norm, it's a case of focusing on short-term profits in a desperate attempt to salvage the next financial report, even at the cost of long-term growth. GW is losing sales volume and market share, and every time they increase their prices they increase the barrier to entry for new players and lose even more potential customers, potential customers that GW's "maximize new player purchases" business plan requires. This isn't running a sensible business, it's deciding that you'd rather get paid $10 now instead of $100 tomorrow.

 TheKbob wrote:

 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:

Spoiler:

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

Has anything you posted had any relevance to the game in the last 3 years?

Those models IIRC correctly are out of print, unless they are hidden on some shelf somewhere in a closet as I have yet to see them in any shop I have been in.

That article is the opinion and evaluations of one individual who considers himself an expert and has extrapolated data to fit a conclusion that he was trying to prove. Should he take the time to go back and look at the same date from previous editions when things change, he would find a significant trend, but he won't because his pedestal is just high enough to convince some the sky is falling.

Value of metals < value of plastics. Metals are much more annoying to work with.

Codices issues, again, do you have anything relevant to this period of time or to issues that have not already been fixed?

 TheKbob wrote:

 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. This doesn't mean it doesn't work. It functions just fine - any player using only LotD models automatically loses the game. That's how it functions.

The Exalted Flamer Chariot did not work for an entire year. It worked just fine - it could only fire when it was stationary, but who are you to determine whether or not that's "working"?

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. Fair enough. More research is required on my part

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

Spoiler:

So again, your move. Please provide proof of your opposing argument(s). A company that can sell fewer units at a higher price is a better company than one which sells more units at a lower price, for the same total profit even in cases where the products in question are exactly the same

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
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 suspect that's going to come down again to individual groups of players. I've had far more rules issues come up in casual games than in tournaments. In a tournament, from my experience, players are far more likely to just get on with it for the sake of finishing the game quickly, whereas a casual game can just stall for half an hour while the players argue out the relevant rules.

Yeah tournaments in a lot of games work this way. The casual environment has way too many issues imo as all you need is one competitive player to show up and the gak hits the fan

 Throt wrote:

 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

OHGOD sorry, I broked it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except they aren't, because those two players only exist in some magical fantasy world. In the real world a game that goes too far to the extreme of selling a few copies at a high price per-copy will have zero players. Meanwhile the game that sells 15 million copies at $1 each will continue to sell 15 million copies every year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This doesn't mean it doesn't work. It functions just fine - any player using only LotD models automatically loses the game. That's how it functions.

...

This is a joke, right? Are you really getting so desperate that you're willing to claim that automatically losing the game is "working as intended"? This is like claiming a plate of moldy food with shards of broken glass in it is a restaurant "working as intended", and it's just personal preference if you don't like it.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I debated in High School and College sir, try again.

That's one for the ages.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Has anything you posted had any relevance to the game in the last 3 years?

Those models IIRC correctly are out of print, unless they are hidden on some shelf somewhere in a closet as I have yet to see them in any shop I have been in.

That article is the opinion and evaluations of one individual who considers himself an expert and has extrapolated data to fit a conclusion that he was trying to prove. Should he take the time to go back and look at the same date from previous editions when things change, he would find a significant trend, but he won't because his pedestal is just high enough to convince some the sky is falling.

Value of metals < value of plastics. Metals are much more annoying to work with.

Codices issues, again, do you have anything relevant to this period of time or to issues that have not already been fixed?

Those models are now in print in a box for five Dire Avengers at a higher cost than the box for 10. This was changed out when the Eldar codex was released (whatever date that was, but within 3 years, most certainly two, if not one year).

The article cites plenty of facts and uses the educated and expert opinion of an individual that is putting his credentials, that he clearly states in the first article, on the line. This is called making a statement on the record and if he is wrong, he will eat crow (and be incredibly happy because he's a massive baby for all things Games Workshop. It's hilariously awesome!)

Legion of the Damned has yet to be fixed. I refer you to YMDC for easy references of the rest. Or we can talk about Pyrovores that board wipe when they die and explode.

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
I saw an issue, I believe was from a tournament somewhere, that there were arguments about line of sight with wraithguard and other Eldar walkers because they don't have eyes.
Many of these problems are just not forseen.

Not foreseen?

The issue with LOS from models without eyes has been something that people have been complaining about for 6 editions now. GW finally resolved it by changing the LOS rules in 7th edition.

And while it was never that huge a problem for things like Wraithguard, it was somewhat less clear last edition just how we were supposed to establish LOS with artillery.


The thing is, these are things that should be foreseen. Particularly when people have been complaining about them for multiple editions.

So, again, it ultimately comes back to engaging with the customer base, which they just don't bother to do.

And you really believe that this is necessary??
That GW need to be sure that their models have eyes or that they tell players how to address situations where a model does not??

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except they aren't, because those two players only exist in some magical fantasy world. In the real world a game that goes too far to the extreme of selling a few copies at a high price per-copy will have zero players. Meanwhile the game that sells 15 million copies at $1 each will continue to sell 15 million copies every year.

Except business trends across the world have shown otherwise. People will flock to spend hundreds of dollars more on a product because they are convinced that it is of better quality.

I knew a guy who worked for Nordstrom. Regularly would he sell hundreds of dollars worth of shoes to women who convinced themselves that not only do they need them, but that the price for them is fine. Do a little research, the shoes sold by Nordstrom are made in sweat shops for 1/10th the sale price, end up in Payless in a year for less than $20 bucks.

As long as people are willing to pay a price for something, businesses will take advantage and milk people for their money.

At the end of the day, they are a business, they are not providing a service. They care about money, not the consumer and GW is the same. As are other miniature games, they are just so small they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Throt wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
I saw an issue, I believe was from a tournament somewhere, that there were arguments about line of sight with wraithguard and other Eldar walkers because they don't have eyes.
Many of these problems are just not forseen.

Not foreseen?

The issue with LOS from models without eyes has been something that people have been complaining about for 6 editions now. GW finally resolved it by changing the LOS rules in 7th edition.

And while it was never that huge a problem for things like Wraithguard, it was somewhat less clear last edition just how we were supposed to establish LOS with artillery.


The thing is, these are things that should be foreseen. Particularly when people have been complaining about them for multiple editions.

So, again, it ultimately comes back to engaging with the customer base, which they just don't bother to do.

And you really believe that this is necessary??
That GW need to be sure that their models have eyes or that they tell players how to address situations where a model does not??

To some players, yes, GW really needs to

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except they aren't, because those two players only exist in some magical fantasy world. In the real world a game that goes too far to the extreme of selling a few copies at a high price per-copy will have zero players. Meanwhile the game that sells 15 million copies at $1 each will continue to sell 15 million copies every year.

I'm just saying, until we reach the point where the game dies, it's better business to sell fewer units at a higher price. GW may be raising prices in order to find the highest price it can get while the game still lives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This doesn't mean it doesn't work. It functions just fine - any player using only LotD models automatically loses the game. That's how it functions.

...

This is a joke, right? Are you really getting so desperate that you're willing to claim that automatically losing the game is "working as intended"? This is like claiming a plate of moldy food with shards of broken glass in it is a restaurant "working as intended", and it's just personal preference if you don't like it.

I mean, that's true, though. It's not like the game suddenly breaks or glitches or whatever. It's the natural consequence of how the rules are written, and there are a multitude of ways around it. But people can't point to a situation that has a clear, logical pathway to a clear, incontrovertible conclusion and then go: "THE RULES THEY ARE BROKEN"

EDIT:

It's like saying "My infantry can only move 6", which means they can't capture an objective 10" away! THE RULES ARE BROKEN! ... no, the rules are still functioning, even if the outcome is undesirable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So again, your move. Please provide proof of your opposing argument(s). A company that can sell fewer units at a higher price is a better company than one which sells more units at a lower price, for the same total profit even in cases where the products in question are exactly the same

Legion of the Damned is intended to work as a stand alone Codex. It cannot legally do so because of a certain rule therefore it is not working as intended. It's a broken Codex.

 Throt wrote:
And you really believe that this is necessary??
That GW need to be sure that their models have eyes or that they tell players how to address situations where a model does not??

Yes, absolutely, I think it is necessary for any given game mechanic to function for every model that this game mechanic applies to.

Because that's how a ruleset works.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So again, your move. Please provide proof of your opposing argument(s). A company that can sell fewer units at a higher price is a better company than one which sells more units at a lower price, for the same total profit even in cases where the products in question are exactly the same

So your counter to this argument, the other's being not even worth debating, is that Games Workshop is banking on new players to be stupid and old players not to care that a unit box went down in model count while also going up in price, thus reducing it's value dramatically?

Sorry, I am not a business type, but I would certainly call doing something like this a non-sustainable action. Or simply put, dumb.

You may think it's dumb, and I may even agree with you, but until GW actually goes under, we won't know for sure.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So again, your move. Please provide proof of your opposing argument(s). A company that can sell fewer units at a higher price is a better company than one which sells more units at a lower price, for the same total profit even in cases where the products in question are exactly the same

So your counter to this argument, the other's being not even worth debating, is that Games Workshop is banking on new players to be stupid and old players not to care that a unit box went down in model count while also going up in price, thus reducing it's value dramatically?

Sorry, I am not a business type, but I would certainly call doing something like this a non-sustainable action. Or simply put, dumb.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You may think it's dumb, and I may even agree with you, but until GW actually goes under, we won't know for sure.

I will rely on the fact that they did this number prior to their Jan 14 financials, meaning that ball has already been set in motion. But agreed, time will tell. We'll have a better discussion on the full sustainability of their actions this July.

For me, I stopped buying, for the record.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Legion of the Damned is intended to work as a stand alone Codex. It cannot legally do so because of a certain rule therefore it is not working as intended. It's a broken Codex.

First of all, [CITATION NEEDED] for it being intended to work as a standalone codex (I didn't know you could discern the author's intentions). Second of all, yes, you can make a legal army for WH40k solely out of models and units from the LotD. It will lose every single game it plays, but nothing in the rules actually 'breaks'.

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
And you really believe that this is necessary??
That GW need to be sure that their models have eyes or that they tell players how to address situations where a model does not??

Yes, absolutely, I think it is necessary for any given game mechanic to function for every model that this game mechanic applies to.

Because that's how a ruleset works.

But the ruleset works for some players, judging by the overall player base, once can easily assume it works for most players, but neither side has concrete data on this.

So narrowing the scope here, the rules work for me, they work for a couple of other posters in this same thread, so I ask you again, where is the problem? Who is to blame, the company making the rules or the players who are unable to reach the same conclusions as those who see clarity?

 Lobomalo wrote:


No the argument is that the company knows that players will pay whatever price GW marks things at so they can continue playing. This is obviously the case as the game hasn't broken yet, people keep buying, people keep playing.

Really the answer is obvious, if you don't like the prices, don't pay them. But don't cite other games and past models as a comparison to a time when things were "better" or when the company wasn't out to make a buck.

Back then, they needed to sell more units for less, there were less people playing. Now, there are more playing, models are made better and look better and are also easier to work with, hence, the rehash of their business strategy. Make money off of those you know will buy because GW has the best crack in town.

Said by the individual not too long ago looking for ways to purchase large quantities of cheap models and that used models were too "inflated" in price.

Touche, salesman.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You may think it's dumb, and I may even agree with you, but until GW actually goes under, we won't know for sure.

I will rely on the fact that they did this number prior to their Jan 14 financials, meaning that ball has already been set in motion. But agreed, time will tell. We'll have a better discussion on the full sustainability of their actions this July.

For me, I stopped buying, for the record.

I've stopped buying too, actually. I have all that I need. But I think the crucial difference between us is that I am rooting for GW (in the hopes that it will eventually turn around, even if it is being a jerk about it) rather than trying to pull it down.

EDIT:

That isn't true - I've bought the 7th edition rules and the AM codex, my bad.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You may think it's dumb, and I may even agree with you, but until GW actually goes under, we won't know for sure.

I will rely on the fact that they did this number prior to their Jan 14 financials, meaning that ball has already been set in motion. But agreed, time will tell. We'll have a better discussion on the full sustainability of their actions this July.

For me, I stopped buying, for the record.

Again, to make a concrete statement, you would need to give the edition ample time to settle into the community.

Also when you consider that they are only now switching to digital, you would need to give this time to get put into proper action as well.

You are looking at one year at least just for the edition to settle in. I don't know how long for the digital stuff, depends on how much effort they put into it. So far, they aren't too bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Legion of the Damned is intended to work as a stand alone Codex. It cannot legally do so because of a certain rule therefore it is not working as intended. It's a broken Codex.

First of all, [CITATION NEEDED] for it being intended to work as a standalone codex (I didn't know you could discern the author's intentions). Second of all, yes, you can make a legal army for WH40k solely out of models and units from the LotD. It will lose every single game it plays, but nothing in the rules actually 'breaks'.

Why do I need a citation? It doesn't state that it's an ally only Codex so therefore it is a standalone. I guess your argument makes sense if you consider unambiguous rule interactions as a functional ruleset but if you can't play a game with your models following the 40k rules to the letter then I think it's broken. And no, automatically losing does not count as playing since we are being sold a table top war game.

In fact, that's exactly why I made this thread - I feel like people "complain because they like 40k" and then do their best to destroy 40k - GW can't win, because people won't give it a chance.

They wander to other games, and they fight tooth and nail to bring more gamers into their fold, inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately :( )causing the death of the game they ostensibly like.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Throt wrote:
Many of the so called 'errors' come from players that start reading between the lines.

So we're back to blaming the victim are we?

I'm not going to claim that writing rules is easy - in my experience it can be a frustrating thing indeed - but writing clear and concise rules isn't very hard once the you've got the base down correctly. The fact that GW fails in this aspect on a consistent basis says to me that they either don't know what they're doing or that they don't care. I choose to think the better of people, so I'll go with the ignorance over apathy conclusion.

No. When someone seeks a loophole and then blames someone else for the loophole they actively sought out it is disingenuous at the least.
For many the rules are clear and concise.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


No the argument is that the company knows that players will pay whatever price GW marks things at so they can continue playing. This is obviously the case as the game hasn't broken yet, people keep buying, people keep playing.

Really the answer is obvious, if you don't like the prices, don't pay them. But don't cite other games and past models as a comparison to a time when things were "better" or when the company wasn't out to make a buck.

Back then, they needed to sell more units for less, there were less people playing. Now, there are more playing, models are made better and look better and are also easier to work with, hence, the rehash of their business strategy. Make money off of those you know will buy because GW has the best crack in town.

Said by the individual not too long ago looking for ways to purchase large quantities of cheap models and that used models were too "inflated" in price.

Touche, salesman.

I didn't pay them, I found them cheaper.

Used models, no matter how well painted are used and warrant nothing more than the standard used prices for hobby materials which is %50.

Your post has no merit, try again please.

I don't buy from GW unless I absolutely need too. Me, I am a smart shopper, I buy used and make due, it's both cheaper and smarter. I have said numerous times GW prices are too expensive and need to come down, I'm just not under any delusion that they will because of a minor financial hiccup

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Legion of the Damned is intended to work as a stand alone Codex. It cannot legally do so because of a certain rule therefore it is not working as intended. It's a broken Codex.

First of all, [CITATION NEEDED] for it being intended to work as a standalone codex (I didn't know you could discern the author's intentions). Second of all, yes, you can make a legal army for WH40k solely out of models and units from the LotD. It will lose every single game it plays, but nothing in the rules actually 'breaks'.

Why do I need a citation? It doesn't state that it's an ally only Codex so therefore it is a standalone. I guess your argument makes sense if you consider unambiguous rule interactions as a functional ruleset but if you can't play a game with your models following the 40k rules to the letter then I think it's broken. And no, automatically losing does not count as playing since we are being sold a table top war game.

I don't know of any codex at all that states it's 'ally only'. The premise that such a thing would be distinguished from a 'regular' codex by some artifice of the developers is reasonable, but not apparent.

And you can play a game with your models following the 40k rules, if you bring a single allied Inquisitor. Or work things out with your opponent. Neither of which is terribly difficult, although the first one can sour the experience for a fluff player (though not much imo).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Legion of the Damned is intended to work as a stand alone Codex. It cannot legally do so because of a certain rule therefore it is not working as intended. It's a broken Codex.

First of all, [CITATION NEEDED] for it being intended to work as a standalone codex (I didn't know you could discern the author's intentions). Second of all, yes, you can make a legal army for WH40k solely out of models and units from the LotD. It will lose every single game it plays, but nothing in the rules actually 'breaks'.

While we can never know the true intent of the writers, a key testament of YMDC, up and through the release of Codex Legion of the Damned, products released as Codices gave the very, very, very strong notion that they were intended for complete and stand alone armies. Given that they deliberately named further items Codex Supplements and Dataslates (and the rest), one could still assume that when they purchase a Codex, it's intended to be used as a stand-alone army.

Now, after many crap show "Codex" releases, this can be debated, but at the time of the Legion of the Damned release, this was not as drawn into contention. Thus you could have several people purchasing the book fully intended to make a complete Legion of the Damned army (a still cool concept, I might add) and being what I would call "severely bummed out, brother."

So as it stands, there is no other Codex that has stipulations in it that would cause itself to automatically lose the game directly because of the special rules within with no means of stopping it from doing so. Thus we could argue the point or come to the very real conclusion that Legion of the Damned is busted and Games Workshop has little interest in maintaining their digital products, given the Inquisition and Sisters of Battle codices have yet to be updated for seventh edition.

 Throt wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Throt wrote:
Many of the so called 'errors' come from players that start reading between the lines.

So we're back to blaming the victim are we?

I'm not going to claim that writing rules is easy - in my experience it can be a frustrating thing indeed - but writing clear and concise rules isn't very hard once the you've got the base down correctly. The fact that GW fails in this aspect on a consistent basis says to me that they either don't know what they're doing or that they don't care. I choose to think the better of people, so I'll go with the ignorance over apathy conclusion.

No. When someone seeks a loophole and then blames someone else for the loophole they actively sought out it is disingenuous at the least.
For many the rules are clear and concise.

For a great many, for a minority, they are unclear.

Also, people actively seek loopholes to exploit the rules in their favor, this I have seen in YMDC a few times and it's funny because they probably brow beat players in their LGS into thinking this is the right way to play it.