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.

 TheKbob 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'.

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.

It is true that I believe the codex is an error, and that a stand-alone LotD army should be possible.

But it is not a 'malfunctioning' rulesset. The machinery / logic-gates of the rules function smoothly and to an inevitable conclusion.

You could perhaps accuse them of having malfunctioning developers, or editors.

 Lobomalo wrote:

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

So if you aren't buying the models, how again are you supporting Games Workshop (outside of forum posts)? Is this now where I say you have no right discussing the topic because you aren't actively purchasing the product? ((Tongue in Cheek))

Or you're still just proving my point further that they are pushing themselves into failure because a new player isn't even considering purchasing new models as the barrier to entry is asinine. So thanks for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It is true that I believe the codex is an error, and that a stand-alone LotD army should be possible.

But it is not a 'malfunctioning' rulesset. The machinery / logic-gates of the rules function smoothly and to an inevitable conclusion.

You could perhaps accuse them of having malfunctioning developers, or editors.

As a great man once said: "It don't work, so it's broke." -Anonymous

But I would say an army automatically losing is a strong identifier for a malfunctioning ruleset. And I would further point out that it not being corrected ASAP that it's a key identifier of a malfunctioning company. Time will tell, I suppose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Firstly, let's ditch the "rules lawyers" out of the above. You're attempting (knowingly or otherwise) to dismiss a whole group of people by applying a label to them in a pejorative manner. So stop that.


Secondly, your scenario above fails in one big area: The problem could have been prevented before going to print. Having a decent method and structure for play-testing would eliminate a lot (not all; perfect balance is impossible) of these problems before the book goes to print. You are 100% correct when you say that it's a problem to fix a book once it's already on store shelves, but the fact remains that a good amount of testing before sending it to the printers would mean that so many of these bleedingly obvious problems would simply cease to exist.

My apologies if the rules lawyer offends, in a previous post I gave a disclaimer that I mean nothing derogatory with the term. But I will stop using it.

It doesn't fail. How many games does it take to run across problem 'x'? If the vast majority playing a game are like minded they may never come across problem 'x'.
I said in a prior post, I have been a part of a group that has played 100's of games and have approx. 20 players and have never run across many of the 'broken' issues. And haven't had to 'roll off' for issues either.
So the assumption that they are being careless doesn't hold water. This game is huge. To create the 'better' game would require downscaling. Something I, nor my group would care to have happen.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

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

So if you aren't buying the models, how again are you supporting Games Workshop (outside of forum posts)? Is this now where I say you have no right discussing the topic because you aren't actively purchasing the product? ((Tongue in Cheek))

Or you're still just proving my point further that they are pushing themselves into failure because a new player isn't even considering purchasing new models as the barrier to entry is asinine. So thanks for that.

When did I ever say they were not pushing away new players? I have said this numerous times in fact, thanks for showing me how much you actually pay attention to the posts in the thread.

I said I only buy when I need too. I buy some things in bulk like gaunts and such, you know, the super cheap things. But vehicles, buildings, elites, HQ, GW all the way. The prices really are not that high for me really. They go up the better a unit actually is and I set goals, like that Hive Crone, so awesome for my army, yet so expensive, I will have it soon and GW will have my money.

Why, because buying solo units used is absolutely slowed. Buy used in bulk, but individual things new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Throt wrote:


My apologies if the rules lawyer offends, in a previous post I gave a disclaimer that I mean nothing derogatory with the term. But I will stop using it.

It doesn't fail. How many games does it take to run across problem 'x'? If the vast majority playing a game are like minded they may never come across problem 'x'.
I said in a prior post, I have been a part of a group that has played 100's of games and have approx. 20 players and have never run across many of the 'broken' issues. And haven't had to 'roll off' for issues either.
So the assumption that they are being careless doesn't hold water. This game is huge. To create the 'better' game would require downscaling. Something I, nor my group would care to have happen.

Outside of turning 40k into one of the miniature versions of itself that is Warmachine and so many others, you would have to completely start from scratch ditch most of the armies and have more uniformity across codices, something that would destroy the game, but would actually make some of the posters here come back to the game.

They don't want the game to be better, they want the game to be what they think it should be.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It is true that I believe the codex is an error, and that a stand-alone LotD army should be possible.

But it is not a 'malfunctioning' rulesset. The machinery / logic-gates of the rules function smoothly and to an inevitable conclusion.

You could perhaps accuse them of having malfunctioning developers, or editors.

As a great man once said: "It don't work, so it's broke." -Anonymous

But I would say an army automatically losing is a strong identifier for a malfunctioning ruleset. And I would further point out that it not being corrected ASAP that it's a key identifier of a malfunctioning company. Time will tell, I suppose.

I would say that it can easily be fixed from within the rules - there are a multitude of changes that can be made which permit one of the logic gates leading to the inevitable loss to switch to [FALSE] or [NONSENSE] (for all you paraconsistent falsificationists out there).

As for the company, yes, I believe it's malfunctioning. It could use a new CEO and perhaps even some other new parts as well. But it isn't dead, and I'd rather try to help it get back on its feet rather than actively work for its demise.

 Lobomalo wrote:


When did I ever say they were not pushing away new players? I have said this numerous times in fact, thanks for showing me how much you actually pay attention to the posts in the thread.

I said I only buy when I need too. I buy some things in bulk like gaunts and such, you know, the super cheap things. But vehicles, buildings, elites, HQ, GW all the way. The prices really are not that high for me really. They go up the better a unit actually is and I set goals, like that Hive Crone, so awesome for my army, yet so expensive, I will have it soon and GW will have my money.

Why, because buying solo units used is absolutely slowed. Buy used in bulk, but individual things new.

Mmmhmm, so buy the higher margin items, like Games Workshop wants you too.

I present exhibit dos:



Stands in the realm of a Reaver Titan from Forgeworld, all multi-colored plastic (that one is pro-painted and detailed), at the grand cost of $109. Less than the cost of a Wraightknight or Imperial Titan, FAR more plastic and sprues, for more articulation and detail. Cheaper.

So yes, please buy those $65+ big bugs. Because they totally aren't highway robbery (Oh, wait, they are. And I have at least one model producer stating that on film. And I bet many more would, too!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

As for the company, yes, I believe it's malfunctioning. It could use a new CEO and perhaps even some other new parts as well. But it isn't dead, and I'd rather try to help it get back on its feet rather than actively work for its demise.

Agree to disagree on the previous post, but putting both Kirby and Johnson out to pasture would probably make quite a few people rejoice. Doing the former would certainly make the latter happen.

And then light fire to every mentioning of the word "Forge the Narrative" while they are at it. Also, pay Dan Abnett all the monies to write more books than the other guys. Forever.

 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, I do expect GW to invest the tiny amount of effort required to say "draw LOS from the model's eyes (or equivalent feature, such as optical sensors)". But maybe that's just because my intro to gaming was MTG, where everything is explicitly stated like that and there is absolutely no room for ambiguity or rule debates.

 Lobomalo wrote:
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.

Did you even bother to read the quoted statement you're "responding" to?

1) There's a difference between selling shoes at a decent markup and selling games at orders of magnitude above what is even remotely plausible for a tabletop game.

2) Shoes and games are not the same product. In fact they're exact opposites. Expensive shoes are valuable precisely because they're exclusive, they're something awesome that you have and nobody else has. But games like 40k are a social product, the value of a game is zero if you don't have anyone to play it with. And, therefore, unlike shoes you need to maintain a certain minimum market share to have a viable product, and increasing that market share is key to improving profits.

(And of course in the middle of those two options is neutral products, like a loaf of bread, where it doesn't matter at all what everyone else is buying.)

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.

Yes, and the point you keep ignoring (and yes, you're ignoring it, because I've posted it in this thread plenty of times already) is that the problem I (and many other people) have with GW's prices isn't just that they're bad for our budgets, it's that they're bad for GW. Saying "it's a business, not a charity" isn't really an impressive response to criticism of a business deciding that it's better to make $10 today and then go out of business than to make $5 a year for the next decade.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except you're overlooking the part about low market share leading to inevitable death spirals. Sacrificing market share to maximize per-unit price is, at best, an incredibly risky strategy in a social game where market share is vital to continued sales and recruiting new customers.

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.

Again, is this a joke? I think you know perfectly well that there's a difference between "my units don't move as fast as I want them to move right now" and "I automatically lose the game unless I buy another $50 codex to use as allies for my current codex" or "my unit with a close-range weapon can't fire when it moves because GW didn't bother to understand how their own chariot rules work".

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


When did I ever say they were not pushing away new players? I have said this numerous times in fact, thanks for showing me how much you actually pay attention to the posts in the thread.

I said I only buy when I need too. I buy some things in bulk like gaunts and such, you know, the super cheap things. But vehicles, buildings, elites, HQ, GW all the way. The prices really are not that high for me really. They go up the better a unit actually is and I set goals, like that Hive Crone, so awesome for my army, yet so expensive, I will have it soon and GW will have my money.

Why, because buying solo units used is absolutely slowed. Buy used in bulk, but individual things new.

Mmmhmm, so buy the higher margin items, like Games Workshop wants you too.

I present exhibit dos:

Spoiler:

Stands in the realm of a Reaver Titan from Forgeworld, all multi-colored plastic (that one is pro-painted and detailed), at the grand cost of $109. Less than the cost of a Wraightknight or Imperial Titan, FAR more plastic and sprues, for more articulation and detail. Cheaper.

So yes, please buy those $65+ big bugs. Because they totally aren't highway robbery (Oh, wait, they are. And I have at least one model producer stating that on film. And I bet many more would, too!)

I've mentioned this before, but the company that sells fewer units at a higher price is objectively better than the company that sells more units at a lower price if the units are of comparable quality. So it may be highway robbery, but it is good Capitalism.

If you've got a problem with that, we should take it to PMs, because I have some major beefs with capitalism as well but politics/economics is generally a disagreeable and off-topic discussion.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


When did I ever say they were not pushing away new players? I have said this numerous times in fact, thanks for showing me how much you actually pay attention to the posts in the thread.

I said I only buy when I need too. I buy some things in bulk like gaunts and such, you know, the super cheap things. But vehicles, buildings, elites, HQ, GW all the way. The prices really are not that high for me really. They go up the better a unit actually is and I set goals, like that Hive Crone, so awesome for my army, yet so expensive, I will have it soon and GW will have my money.

Why, because buying solo units used is absolutely slowed. Buy used in bulk, but individual things new.

Mmmhmm, so buy the higher margin items, like Games Workshop wants you too.

I present exhibit dos:

Spoiler:

Stands in the realm of a Reaver Titan from Forgeworld, all multi-colored plastic (that one is pro-painted and detailed), at the grand cost of $109. Less than the cost of a Wraightknight or Imperial Titan, FAR more plastic and sprues, for more articulation and detail. Cheaper.

So yes, please buy those $65+ big bugs. Because they totally aren't highway robbery (Oh, wait, they are. And I have at least one model producer stating that on film. And I bet many more would, too!)

You are either blatantly ignoring an obvious conclusion or you have failed to see it.

If people want to pay a high price for something, what the hell does that have to do with you or your opinions on the companies business tactics.

By the way, if that was a legit GW model, just like that and actually playable in a game and not merely a collector item, GW could throw a $800 price tag on it and I would preorder it and stand in line for a midnight launch.

Something you have continuously failed to realize in 18 pages now, if players feel that something is worth the money they are investing into a product, then it is. I don't give a crap what other second rate miniature companies say. It has no bearing on why I play or why I buy models.

$65 dollars for a model I would use minimum 3 times a week for a very long time is a very good deal to me. I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe this is an issue for you, but guess what, that's your problem.

If people want to pay out the ass for something, let them, don't sit there and preach doom and gloom, it isn't your concern or your business to question them or make an opinion about them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I've mentioned this before, but the company that sells fewer units at a higher price is objectively better than the company that sells more units at a lower price if the units are of comparable quality. So it may be highway robbery, but it is good Capitalism.

If you've got a problem with that, we should take it to PMs, because I have some major beefs with capitalism as well but politics/economics is generally a disagreeable and off-topic discussion.

I'd argue it doesn't make good capitalism as it banks on one thing specifically: the player base being either ignorant or incompetent for that scheme to succeed.

I have no heart to discuss economics, but that would rousing at another time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But it is not a 'malfunctioning' rulesset. The machinery / logic-gates of the rules function smoothly and to an inevitable conclusion.

This is a ridiculously low standard for a functioning game. It's like claiming that your calculator software is working fine when it claims that 1+1=3, because it's doing exactly what the code is meant to do. And obviously having a calculator that gives the correct answer instead of one that gives some other random answer is just a matter of personal preference!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

Except you're overlooking the part about low market share leading to inevitable death spirals. Sacrificing market share to maximize per-unit price is, at best, an incredibly risky strategy in a social game where market share is vital to continued sales and recruiting new customers.

I can see that, but I'm sure there's a balance point, where you maximize your per-unit price but your customer base is sufficient to keep the company alive.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Again, is this a joke? I think you know perfectly well that there's a difference between "my units don't move as fast as I want them to move right now" and "I automatically lose the game unless I buy another $50 codex to use as allies for my current codex" or "my unit with a close-range weapon can't fire when it moves because GW didn't bother to understand how their own chariot rules work".

 Lobomalo wrote:
you would have to completely start from scratch ditch most of the armies and have more uniformity across codices

You can keep repeating this as many times as you want, but it won't make it true. Uniformity and lack of options are NOT prerequisites for having a balanced game with clear rules.

 Lobomalo wrote:

You are either blatantly ignoring an obvious conclusion or you have failed to see it.

If people want to pay a high price for something, what the hell does that have to do with you or your opinions on the companies business tactics.

That if people choose to remain ignorant to the cost of producing such models or worse, become informed customer and continue to choose to throw money at said models, then there's an adage said:

"A Fool and his money are soon parted."

For the record, I am not calling anyone a fool, rather it's foolish to both know you are being ripped off and to continue to purchase something. It's hypocritical and illogical. As long as you are okay with that fact, then it's on you. Spend your money as you wish.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I've mentioned this before, but the company that sells fewer units at a higher price is objectively better than the company that sells more units at a lower price if the units are of comparable quality. So it may be highway robbery, but it is good Capitalism.

If you've got a problem with that, we should take it to PMs, because I have some major beefs with capitalism as well but politics/economics is generally a disagreeable and off-topic discussion.

I'd argue it doesn't make good capitalism as it banks on one thing specifically: the player base being either ignorant or incompetent for that scheme to succeed.

I have no heart to discuss economics, but that would rousing at another time.

Or people accepting that the product is worth it.

People know businesses are out to make money, it isn't some secret hidden agenda, yet we knowingly buy anyway, why, because we like it. Honestly, I've seen other miniatures for other games, GW literally has the best designs for miniature games though I do love the Star Wars miniatures.

If you showed me a cheaper model for 40k made by the guys who do any one of the other miniature games, I'd throw it in the trash, or make it a permanent casualty on my gaming board.

If GW artistic standards drop and the prices stay as they are, then you have a real issue, but people keep buying so you have merely frustrations and shattered dreams.

TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I've mentioned this before, but the company that sells fewer units at a higher price is objectively better than the company that sells more units at a lower price if the units are of comparable quality. So it may be highway robbery, but it is good Capitalism.

If you've got a problem with that, we should take it to PMs, because I have some major beefs with capitalism as well but politics/economics is generally a disagreeable and off-topic discussion.

I'd argue it doesn't make good capitalism as it banks on one thing specifically: the player base being either ignorant or incompetent for that scheme to succeed.

I have no heart to discuss economics, but that would rousing at another time.

My faith in humanity in general is low enough that I assume most humans are both ignorant and incompetent simultaneously at many things, myself included.

Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But it is not a 'malfunctioning' rulesset. The machinery / logic-gates of the rules function smoothly and to an inevitable conclusion.

This is a ridiculously low standard for a functioning game. It's like claiming that your calculator software is working fine when it claims that 1+1=3, because it's doing exactly what the code is meant to do. And obviously having a calculator that gives the correct answer instead of one that gives some other random answer is just a matter of personal preference!

Except that 1+1 = 3 is objectively wrong, and in this case, LotD auto-losing isn't objectively wrong. It's wrong from very nearly every angle I can think of save an EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of fluff, but it still can't be objectively proven to be wrong.

And yes, in a case where 'correctness' is subjective, then whether or not the item in question is correct or not is entirely personal preference!

I'm glad you finally caught on! lol

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

You are either blatantly ignoring an obvious conclusion or you have failed to see it.

If people want to pay a high price for something, what the hell does that have to do with you or your opinions on the companies business tactics.

That if people choose to remain ignorant to the cost of producing such models or worse, become informed customer and continue to choose to throw money at said models, then there's an adage said:

"A Fool and his money are soon parted."

For the record, I am not calling anyone a fool, rather it's foolish to both know you are being ripped off and to continue to purchase something. It's hypocritical and illogical. As long as you are okay with that fact, then it's on you. Spend your money as you wish.

I can agree with that, but let's look at it from another angle.

Video games are grotesquely over priced, always have been frankly, especially now that you can get most if not all as downloads, yet full retail is still charged. Why do you think this is? It takes less work to make a download than it does a disc or a cartridge, costs less money to produce overall and allows for a wider variety of buyers in the online market.

The answer is easy.

You pay for the product itself, not the pieces that make the product what it is. I pay $60+ for bad ass video games because they are worth it to me. I know they're over-priced, I've always known, but I continue to do it anyway, why, because I love them, they are worth every penny I put into it.

So, how exactly is this a problem?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


My faith in humanity in general is low enough that I assume most humans are both ignorant and incompetent simultaneously at many things, myself included.

And we've come to full agreement. Cheers. (myself, too, for the record)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is a difference there, but it's a difference of scale, not of substance. Either one will make you lose the game, and both are undesirable ramifications of RAW.

But, RAW functions quite clearly in every case. There are plenty of times when RAW breaks wide open (morale checks in transports from 5th edition comes to mind), but these flow as gently as a sleeping baby through the rules' logic gates

Again, "it is possible to play the game" is a ridiculously low standard for having a functioning game. If the rules technically produce an outcome, but one that is completely absurd and likely not even close to what was intended, the rules are still broken.

And, no, the two "flaws" are not even close to the same thing. LOTD is a case of an army that is sold as a separate army (and NOT an allies-only supplement thing) but can not be used as a separate army without automatically losing the game. And we even have a hint that it wasn't supposed to work that way since there is a special rule elsewhere in the book that prevents the auto-loss, if only GW had bothered to add it to the units. Not being able to move far enough to claim an objective, on the other hand, is just a case of being annoyed that you aren't winning the game. There's no reason at all to think that infantry moving 6" is a mistake or the result of unclear rules, rather than a clear and deliberate design choice that just happens to be a shorter distance than you want to have.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


My faith in humanity in general is low enough that I assume most humans are both ignorant and incompetent simultaneously at many things, myself included.

And we've come to full agreement. Cheers. (myself, too, for the record)

Meh, humanity as a whole is woefully ignorant and incompetent, myself included. We tell ourselves we know more than we do, we act like we are experts at things we are not and we assume that our opinion counts as fact simply because we believe it to be so.

Personally, if there is any intelligent alien race out there that ever seeks to elevate humanity into the farthest reaches of the galaxy, they are better off taking the apes.

 TheKbob wrote:

 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.

Doesn't GW do updates to all their digital content?
Doesn't GW release FAQ's? Though maybe not as fast as people want.
And what have the naysayers done...complained that now they have to look for stuff or carry extra papers or whatever else they come up with. This is a small part (I'm guessing) about where the thread started with GW can't win. Some things they do will never be enough.
I don't mean to invalidate opinions. And there is validity.
I have worked for corporations, and are these things possible...yeah they are.
The idea that it is an absolute purposeful, lazy, uncaring bunch of schleps......nah, I'm not buying that.
I guess I'm the eternal optimist. Get past the negative enjoy what you have. Don't let yesterday take too much of today.

 Lobomalo wrote:

I can agree with that, but let's look at it from another angle.

Video games are grotesquely over priced, always have been frankly, especially now that you can get most if not all as downloads, yet full retail is still charged. Why do you think this is? It takes less work to make a download than it does a disc or a cartridge, costs less money to produce overall and allows for a wider variety of buyers in the online market.

The answer is easy.

You pay for the product itself, not the pieces that make the product what it is. I pay $60+ for bad ass video games because they are worth it to me. I know they're over-priced, I've always known, but I continue to do it anyway, why, because I love them, they are worth every penny I put into it.

So, how exactly is this a problem?

Are they? I see three, if not more, active sales going on right now on many old, new, major studio and indie studio games offering pricing from mere change to a few bucks.

Or that you cannot compare the budget of a singular model and it's production cost to that of a AAA title with budgets in the hundreds of millions anymore than you can to that of an indie game made in the backroom of a gent's house.

Video games aren't overpriced, it's that their value is different. The value of the models from Games Workshop is far less subjective as they are actively eroding it themselves (previous Dire Avenger kit and many more like it) and you have people with model manufacturing experience plainly stating that they are raking their customers over the coals. Plus, they never offer sales or discounts to patient or frugal buyers, thus missing out a complete segment of the market which then turns to third parties and used sales. Instead of reacting normally and adjusting pricing or offering discount, they try to sue third parties and stop used sales as they can. Both have failed.

So I don't see your analogy holding up within this respect.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is a difference there, but it's a difference of scale, not of substance. Either one will make you lose the game, and both are undesirable ramifications of RAW.

But, RAW functions quite clearly in every case. There are plenty of times when RAW breaks wide open (morale checks in transports from 5th edition comes to mind), but these flow as gently as a sleeping baby through the rules' logic gates

Again, "it is possible to play the game" is a ridiculously low standard for having a functioning game. If the rules technically produce an outcome, but one that is completely absurd and likely not even close to what was intended, the rules are still broken.

And, no, the two "flaws" are not even close to the same thing. LOTD is a case of an army that is sold as a separate army (and NOT an allies-only supplement thing) but can not be used as a separate army without automatically losing the game. And we even have a hint that it wasn't supposed to work that way since there is a special rule elsewhere in the book that prevents the auto-loss, if only GW had bothered to add it to the units. Not being able to move far enough to claim an objective, on the other hand, is just a case of being annoyed that you aren't winning the game. There's no reason at all to think that infantry moving 6" is a mistake or the result of unclear rules, rather than a clear and deliberate design choice that just happens to be a shorter distance than you want to have.

Well, the rules are functioning, and not by any arbitrary "standard" but by the literal definition of the verb "to function."

I don't really know what more to say - it's a fact, in RAW, that pure LotD armies lose nearly every game they play (save the one with the special rule). But RAW is functioning perfectly and with no hiccups. Again, you may claim that the developers are malfunctioning, or that the editors are on acid 24/7, or really anything. But RAW itself is quite clear here.

 Throt wrote:

I guess I'm the eternal optimist. Get past the negative enjoy what you have. Don't let yesterday take too much of today.

I like this. A ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark and gloomy place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that 1+1 = 3 is objectively wrong, and in this case, LotD auto-losing isn't objectively wrong. It's wrong from very nearly every angle I can think of save an EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of fluff, but it still can't be objectively proven to be wrong.

Only because your definition of "objectively wrong" is so narrow that it is utterly useless and adds nothing to this discussion. It's like claiming that a restaurant serving moldy food with shards of broken glass in it isn't "objectively wrong", and you can't prove anything about it. Feel free to nitpick about this stuff in an intro-level philosophy course (until the professor tells you to STFU and stop being annoying), but if you want to have a constructive discussion about game design then you need to have a definition of "broken" that actually includes a meaningful number of things.

Lobomalo wrote:GW literally has the best designs for miniature games

...

Have you seen the things GW produces? I know you're going to claim that design is a subjective thing, but really, can the company that produced the Taurox really claim to have the best designs? Taking a basic low-tier model kit and throwing a bunch of skulls on it doesn't make an excellent design.

 Throt wrote:
It doesn't fail. How many games does it take to run across problem 'x'? If the vast majority playing a game are like minded they may never come across problem 'x'.

How many of the current problems with 40K get pointed out within hours of a book being released?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobomalo wrote:
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?

If you have to create a house rule to deal with a situation, the rules didn't 'work' for you. You might not take issue with the fact that the rules are incomplete, but that doesn't make them complete.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

I can agree with that, but let's look at it from another angle.

Video games are grotesquely over priced, always have been frankly, especially now that you can get most if not all as downloads, yet full retail is still charged. Why do you think this is? It takes less work to make a download than it does a disc or a cartridge, costs less money to produce overall and allows for a wider variety of buyers in the online market.

The answer is easy.

You pay for the product itself, not the pieces that make the product what it is. I pay $60+ for bad ass video games because they are worth it to me. I know they're over-priced, I've always known, but I continue to do it anyway, why, because I love them, they are worth every penny I put into it.

So, how exactly is this a problem?

Are they? I see three, if not more, active sales going on right now on many old, new, major studio and indie studio games offering pricing from mere change to a few bucks.

Or that you cannot compare the budget of a singular model and it's production cost to that of a AAA title with budgets in the hundreds of millions anymore than you can to that of an indie game made in the backroom of a gent's house.

Video games aren't overpriced, it's that their value is different. The value of the models from Games Workshop is far less subjective as they are actively eroding it themselves (previous Dire Avenger kit and many more like it) and you have people with model manufacturing experience plainly stating that they are raking their customers over the coals. Plus, they never offer sales or discounts to patient or frugal buyers, thus missing out a complete segment of the market which then turns to third parties and used sales. Instead of reacting normally and adjusting pricing or offering discount, they try to sue third parties and stop used sales as they can. Both have failed.

So I don't see your analogy holding up within this respect.

Indie games? Seriously? Most Indie games are worthless and are sold on the cheap because they are trash to much of the gaming community. Sorry but Indie games are something that have no place to even be mentioned when conversing about games.

The point though was paying for the value of the work, the experience and enjoyment you get from it. The materials used to make it don't matter for enjoyment to be had.

You have yet to have a reasonable argument as to why it is wrong for people to pay for something they find value in, even if it is over-priced, which we all can agree on. Also again, the opinions of other manufacturers have no place here. We are discussing players and their spending habits and not want to be competitors of GW who honestly wouldn't even be around if GW didn't bring war-gaming to the forefront of the gaming community.

Edited, way too harsh and forgot about a few indie games I actually like

 Throt wrote:

Doesn't GW do updates to all their digital content?
Doesn't GW release FAQ's? Though maybe not as fast as people want.
And what have the naysayers done...complained that now they have to look for stuff or carry extra papers or whatever else they come up with. This is a small part (I'm guessing) about where the thread started with GW can't win. Some things they do will never be enough.
I don't mean to invalidate opinions. And there is validity.
I have worked for corporations, and are these things possible...yeah they are.
The idea that it is an absolute purposeful, lazy, uncaring bunch of schleps......nah, I'm not buying that.
I guess I'm the eternal optimist. Get past the negative enjoy what you have. Don't let yesterday take too much of today.

Answered in order asked:

1) Sparingly, it seems. I know my two iBooks have not been updated for seventh edition. The Legion of the Damned codex has not yet been fixed of it's glaring flaw.

2) Yes, however they went over a year without FAQs at their new fast release, causing many rules disputes to swell. They then released FAQs late of the launch of seventh and those FAQs required further clarifications. They actively copy and pasted entries across similar documents that caused issues and they dumped a large swath of material still necessary for the fifth edition codices that remain. So they have them, but they are incredibly poor.

3) It sucks carrying extra paper, but most players I've seen have phones or tablets (and even a few laptops!). You can store the .pdf on there for any issues you might need one or ask your opponent to download it if they truly believe you're cheating them.

I would love to be an optimist, too. You sound very much like the gentleman that runs masterminis (Painting Buddha), that is pretty cool and jovial. I hope I wasn't rude to you, I can be gruff at times.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
First of all, [CITATION NEEDED] for it being intended to work as a standalone codex

The Black Library wrote:Codex: Legion of the Damned allows you to add Legion of the Damned squads into your Warhammer 40,000 army, or field them as a detachment in their own right.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that 1+1 = 3 is objectively wrong, and in this case, LotD auto-losing isn't objectively wrong. It's wrong from very nearly every angle I can think of save an EXTREMELY narrow interpretation of fluff, but it still can't be objectively proven to be wrong.

Only because your definition of "objectively wrong" is so narrow that it is utterly useless and adds nothing to this discussion. It's like claiming that a restaurant serving moldy food with shards of broken glass in it isn't "objectively wrong", and you can't prove anything about it. Feel free to nitpick about this stuff in an intro-level philosophy course (until the professor tells you to STFU and stop being annoying), but if you want to have a constructive discussion about game design then you need to have a definition of "broken" that actually includes a meaningful number of things.

Actually I nitpick about this stuff all the time in 400-level philosophy courses here at Penn State, because I'm a philosophy double-major. And I rarely get told to STFU, because such distinctions are some of the most important distinctions that human thinkers have ever drawn. And if people like moldy food with shards of broken glass in it enough to buy an $85 dollar rulebook to eat it, then no, it isn't objectively wrong.

And I don't really want to have a 'constructive discussion about game design' because I have a hunch you mean 'how to improve a game based on my standards' when you say 'constructive'.