The "Spirit of the Game" from an old White Dwarf (June 1998)

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.

**Torga_DW**

Talys wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Like I said, that's because GW isn't making that claim. My actual argument is that GW doesn't care about balance. "Is this balanced" is not a question they care about when they're writing rules. You're supposed to collect the models you like, roll some dice, and forge a narrative about whatever happens. Who cares if a unit/army/whatever isn't balanced, if you're Collecting™ Citadel™ Miniatures™ the right way the lack of balance isn't going to matter at all.

Oh, okay. You're saying that GW doesn't care about game balance, and that people who play 40k also don't care about game balance. I don't think either is particularly true. In 7th edition, there are a very small number of spammy builds, and none of them are even tournament winners.

Now, if you say, 40k has units that are overpowered for their point cost, or have abilities that are just too good, I will wholeheartedly agree. I will also agree that GW isn't very good at balancing units, especially to avoid powergamer abuse.

I won't agree that GW doesn't ever do or care about balance, because from version to version, they nerf/change all sorts of things that people cry about.

From the man himself:

Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.

**Talys**

Makumba wrote:

Or does by your definition spamy start at 6 units meaning all those wave serpent, nid, necron AV etc lists aren't spamy as they run only 4-5 of stuff.

The army that consistently comes up as the poster child for imbalance is wave serpent, because 3-6 of them can make your opponent feel helpless, if they aren't specifically set up to counter them. Most of the other cheesy armies like maxed Riptides have many weaknesses, and lists like drop pod spam are certainly not a guaranteed win.

Makumba wrote:
In a casual setting one would more or less have to write one owns w40k starting with the rule book and ending with what units can I or my opponent take, and how many depending on how many I or my opponent took of another unit. Which also means the game is playable in a casual setting if we both own multiple armies of huge size to play a 1500 games.

1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.

Virtually the only armies people complain about at pickup games is riptide and wave serpent spam.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Torga_DW wrote:

From the man himself:

Tom Kirby 2006 wrote:I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.

I certainly agree that GW caters to people who want to own, model, and paint miniatures, and does a better job of that than writing game rules. Kirby still doesn't say, "we don't care if the game rules suck".

**Torga_DW**

Actually, he did. Thats exactly what he wrote. As long as you're gratefully buying, thats all the business is.

**Makumba**

1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.

Few people own more then 1500 here and biggest tournaments here cap at 1850, so unless someone plays an army with more then one viable ally faction , there is no need for more then 2k points. I played since the end of 5th, have seen a gamer bigger then 1850 per side twice. One time when people were preparing for a big tournament in germany and one apocalyps game which was also the last apocalyps game ever played in my city.

**jonolikespie**

Makumba wrote:
1500 is not a huge game >.< 1850 or 2000 is a popular game size, 3500+ is not uncommon, and sky's the limit from there.

Few people own more then 1500 here and biggest tournaments here cap at 1850, so unless someone plays an army with more then one viable ally faction , there is no need for more then 2k points. I played since the end of 5th, have seen a gamer bigger then 1850 per side twice. One time when people were preparing for a big tournament in germany and one apocalyps game which was also the last apocalyps game ever played in my city.

That might be your local experience but looking at the 40k lists section 1850 seems to be the standard. I believe it is also tourney standard across the world. I can also tell you in my state it is the standard although back when I played 2500 was the most popular and pick up games of 3000 weren't uncommon

**Talys**

Yes, 1850 is a very popular number.

The tournament at the local GW store set for this month is 2000 points.

I have played games with friends up to 6500 points on an 8x8 and 12x8 table (two 4x4 or two 6x4's joined), mostly an excuse to roll out as many superheavies as possible and to have a good laugh. 12x8 is a very difficult format, as reaching units without knocking stuff over is always a worry. However, 8x8 is quite manageable!

**SpookyRuben**

On page 4 of the 40k BRB there is a line.

"At it's heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for all players as possible."

With respect to us consumers (players) this is the new 'spirit of the game' as far as GW is concerned.

With respect to Games Workshop the 'spirit of the game' is, "Sell more product. Make more money".

**Wayniac**

There was also another quote I didn't add to my OP that said something like if worse comes to worse and you get crushed by the General on a dragon with a ton of "beardy" magic items, you can take pride in knowing that you didn't stoop to such things yourself.

I think the sad part is that a balanced game would benefit the collectors more as they're more likely to play what looks good not what works better. Currently they get stiffed because they want to collect what's cool.

Here's the quote in question:

And if the worst comes to the worst and you lose to the general with the Frost Blade and Potion of Strength riding his Emperor Dragon, you have at least won the moral high ground by sticking with the character of your army!

Here's another gem, from the final paragraphs of the article:

But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.

So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...

"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".

The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.

Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.

So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.

That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"

I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.

**Tamwulf**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...

"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".

The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.

Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.

So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.

That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"

I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.

I see far too many opponents that plop down 4-6 Wave Serpents, 2x Riptides or Knights, and Farseers on a Jetbike with Warlocks that just make me choke on my own bile. These are the people that want to win. When they face another player with such a list, it becomes "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours..." So sorry that I'm not overly enthusiastic, bored, and resigned to losing the game when I face such a list with my Space Marines. It's more that I just want to get this game over so I can go find another, more fun game. Being tabled on turn 3 or 4 is NOT fun. Why should I change my list to take on their list, and only their list? If there was some kind of game balance, this wouldn't happen.

It's not GW's fault that we are not having fun- it's ours and we should be playing by the Spirit of the Game! Winning and losing don't matter, only the story you and your opponent make! Forge the Narrative Harder, and buy more models!

Spirit of the Game is a crock that GW tells people to justify it's awesome miniatures and stupid expensive prices for a crappy game.

**Talizvar**

Peregrine wrote:
The GW approved way to play is to buy a collection of your favorite Space™ Marines™, create a cool story about them, and then maybe occasionally put them on the table and see what the dice do.

No truer words were said (and so few!).
Do not forget to also "forge the narrative" and find every strange way you can add another army to them and buy MOAR models.

**Wayniac**

Tamwulf wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Another thing that has never made sense to me with the "well we give you lots of options which is good but you shouldn't take them because then you're beardy" argument is that why don't they just outline the rules better to more clearly define what is NOT beardy and them simply add a statement...

"These are the standard rules for constructing an army, but feel free to go outside them with your opponent's permission to create a more interesting game, but be warned it may be harder to balance".

The fact they fall back on attacking the players by labelling things beardy just shows the utter laziness and disregard for their customers.

Of course they don't even do that any more... now they just say "feth it, here's unbound, take whatever you want, 6 riptides? sure, to hell with balance and spirit of the game, just buy more toys".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

But remember it is far better to be considered a friendly opponent than it is to be a winner of games. Picture the type of opponent you would like to play against and model your own approach on that.

So the moral is to pick a balanced army and play in a cheerful manner.

That is such horse faecal matter. The opponent I want to play against is one who actually gives a damn about the game and isn't just lining up his models to go "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours and I randomly took an army that is a hard counter to your army so I win!"

I find it rather disrespectful when people play against me and aren't attempting to win (unless they are genuinely so superior to me that it's more a training exercise than a game). Of course 40k is one of those games where even if you aren't superior to your opponent you have to back off the competitiveness to make a game that actually works.

I see far too many opponents that plop down 4-6 Wave Serpents, 2x Riptides or Knights, and Farseers on a Jetbike with Warlocks that just make me choke on my own bile. These are the people that want to win. When they face another player with such a list, it becomes "pew pew pew, yay, my dice rolled better than yours..." So sorry that I'm not overly enthusiastic, bored, and resigned to losing the game when I face such a list with my Space Marines. It's more that I just want to get this game over so I can go find another, more fun game. Being tabled on turn 3 or 4 is NOT fun. Why should I change my list to take on their list, and only their list? If there was some kind of game balance, this wouldn't happen.

It's not GW's fault that we are not having fun- it's ours and we should be playing by the Spirit of the Game! Winning and losing don't matter, only the story you and your opponent make! Forge the Narrative Harder, and buy more models!

Spirit of the Game is a crock that GW tells people to justify it's awesome miniatures and stupid expensive prices for a crappy game.

The problem though is that Wave Serpents *ARE* fluffy, they're just too good. Same with Jetbikes, if I did a Saim-Hann Windrider army, then it's fluffy to have a Farseer on a Jetbike (and everything else too). That's why balance is so important; taking an all Jetbike army should give you some advantages (very fast, hard to hit, etc.) and some disadvantages (e.g. small model count, fragile) so that it's not automatically making you have a superior army. There should be solid tradeoffs for doing that versus anything else, so there is no "go to" choice for maximizing "competitiveness" in picking an army.

There is too much of a gulf in the rules to where some fluffy armies can work very well while others cannot work at all, and that's just bad design. It's not necessarily unfluffy to have an entirely mobilized army, for example; perhaps a particular operation requires a very fast strike force to seize an objective. By the same token it's not unfluffy to have, for example, a Tau force on the front lines that are field testing a bunch of Riptides to give feedback to the Earth caste; the problem is the Riptide is too good so maximizing on it heavily skews the game.

The fluffiness of an army is what you make of it as a lot of things can be justified, but game balance is what keeps it in check so that it doesn't grow too powerful, and that's what is lacking.

**Azreal13**

Actually, that's a good point, many times in other games I've encountered upgrades/units/whatever where they have a downside (or potential downside) to their effect to counter something potent.

We could use a lot more negative effects in the game to balance things somewhat.

Downsides to powerful effects would be a quick shortcut to balance without radical change (for instance, have the Serpent Shield burn out it's generators if you roll a six when rolling for the number of shots, meaning it cannot be used for the rest of the game, offensively or defensively

**LordBlades**

Azreal13 wrote:
Actually, that's a good point, many times in other games I've encountered upgrades/units/whatever where they have a downside (or potential downside) to their effect to counter something potent.

We could use a lot more negative effects in the game to balance things somewhat.

Downsides to powerful effects would be a quick shortcut to balance without radical change (for instance, have the Serpent Shield burn out it's generators if you roll a six when rolling for the number of shots, meaning it cannot be used for the rest of the game, offensively or defensively

While I do agree with your general point (drawbacks) I feel more adding randomness would be a terrible idea. The game is too random as it is IMO (A gretchin standing in open field has a 1/6 chance to survive a Titan's shot, as a classical example).

**Azreal13**

I'm very much of the "more choice, less rolling" school of thought, but I think a lot of that needs to disappear at the front end (traits, powers etc) and the frankly stupid "all objectives are a thing, and not just a defensible position etc.. oh, and 16% of the time, it's a bomb!" can feth off and die too.

But for all that, randomness in a risk/reward sense is not something I'm as bothered by.

**Runic**

I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as "incompetent idiots" instead like someone already did. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to go demolition derby on the core and renew everything from the ground up.

I´d like to see you try.

**Talizvar**

RunicFIN wrote:
I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as incompetent idiots instead. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to to demolition mode on the core and renew everything from the ground up.
I´d like to see you try.

Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?

We would make the more "sucky" model choices reasonable... no truly bad models (only bad combinations)... a new age will be born!
We will then allow WHFB models to be sucked into the warp and fight with their futuristic counterparts it would be called War-Battle!
Command points and magic points would be used to activate units... wait, has this been done before?

**Runic**

Talizvar wrote:
Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?

Ah well, WM/H has 22 books going for them too, leaving out outdated rulebooks of which there are 4, altough ofcourse you do get the cards. I don´t know any players that don´t own any books though and only use the cards.

But in any case I don´t think the designers are even most to blame, as I am certain they are not told "yeah just renew the whole thing." Altough, if the result would be great, that would be fantastic.

However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever. When it comes to some people even individuals cannot be.

**Azreal13**

I direct you to Pancake Edition, which was a substantial overhaul, if not of 2nd-3rd Ed dimensions, certainly approaching that, which was, in the main, greeted with cautious optimism by many, because it read like a decent game where player input had a much higher degree of influence than the current game.

It then was revealed as, well, not fake but certainly not official, and we got lumbered with 6th instead, which many cite as the edition that stopped them playing, or sucked their enthusiasm for the game out of them. It is also the edition that began the actual trend of falling revenue and profit, rather than the years of treading water by cutting costs and raising prices that preceded it.

There comes a point, and if the current trends continue, that point is probably not massively far away, when you need to roll the dice and take a risk, because there's little choice to do anything else.

**Talizvar**

RunicFIN wrote:
However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever.

They have now 7 editions of rules that have come out.
They could be lazy and piece-together a "greatest-hits" of all the rules, no creativity required.
This would also ensure some level of backwards compatibility.
This would also allow an evil means of saying "Hey, we listened to our fans! We have brought back what you love! What was old is new again! Something for everyone!".
How can you condemn and shoot-down such a noble thing to do?
To ensure I totally get flamed, this is what I would do in their shoes, GW being "true" to itself is how they operate: copying others would be like admitting other games may be a threat.

**Runic**

Ofcourse being open for betatesting a new set of rules would work, even for a relatively small amount of renowned wargamers ( dunno, like 200 or smth ) if not all. The result would still not satisfy everyone, but I guess it would still be the best approach if they would take the insurmountably huge risk of renewing everything.

**Talys**

RunicFIN wrote:
Talizvar wrote:
Their response would be: how many rulebooks can we suck out of them and more importantly: how does it increase model sales?

Ah well, WM/H has 22 books going for them too, leaving out outdated rulebooks of which there are 4, altough ofcourse you do get the cards. I don´t know any players that don´t own any books though and only use the cards.

But in any case I don´t think the designers are even most to blame, as I am certain they are not told "yeah just renew the whole thing." Altough, if the result would be great, that would be fantastic.

However if one considers the reality of things it would firstly be a huge risk to take, and secondly it would just cause the same kind of kneejerking the current rules do, as everyone cannot be satisfied, ever. When it comes to some people even individuals cannot be.

I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).

The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RunicFIN wrote:
Ofcourse being open for betatesting a new set of rules would work, even for a relatively small amount of renowned wargamers ( dunno, like 200 or smth ) if not all. The result would still not satisfy everyone, but I guess it would still be the best approach if they would take the insurmountably huge risk of renewing everything.

I think they could have a better game, but they will never satisfy anywhere close to everyone. Eldar nerfs will butt-hurt many people -- the same way DE were nerfed in 7th made many DE players very unhappy.

I also think their FAQ/errata suck. They don't answer very common, ambiguous questions, which they so easily could.

**GreyHamster**

Paradigm wrote:
Makumba wrote:
Why only pick the people that worked for GW how had crazy ideas about how the game is suppose to be played like.

So, to clarify, you're saying that the people who wrote the actual game all those years ago, and therefore the people who know exactly how they intend the game to work, don't know how the game 'should' work?

The flaw in your logic is that it assumes that people will always do things correctly. History is littered with people who knew exactly how they intended something to work, and completely missed the mark on how it SHOULD work. I should like to cite Edison's fanatic obsession with DC power grids as a strong example. 4th Edition D&D fell prey to the mistake of trying to create tightly defined roles in a game where the target audience really did not care for that sort of thing, and worsened it by fouling up the mathematical structure underlying the game. The people who wrote the game, and knew exactly how they intended it to work, didn't know how it should work.

**Wayniac**

They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.

**Runic**

Talys wrote:

I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).

The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.

There´s way more similiarities between GW´s games and PP´s than the most biased WM/H fans want to/can see, these are really good examples which cannot be denied unless you just substitute reality. I recall WM/H felt better everyway for a while back when I started ( still 2007 ) but overtime it wears off as you start realizing these things are actually true. Still digging both games, but in the end there´s quite a lof of the same things going on.

I find trying to make money with dataslates just as dumb as trying to make it with "epic epic epic epic large base war engine warcaster version 8, the epic edition, with his new awesome lore included in our new book, to be continued in the next book that you need to buy." I guess some just can´t see this. In any case, Kirbys words are true and both companies run on money, and most of both companies money comes from the actual miniatures themselves, everything else does indeed come after if they want to stay in business. Atleast he was honest if nothing else.

**SpookyRuben**

WayneTheGame wrote:
They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.

Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?

**Azreal13**

Because it is starting to stop working.

**MWHistorian**

Talys wrote:

I collect WMH models as well, and frankly, PP releases (books and models) are not cheap. Their plastics are as expensive as the priciest 40k kits, and their solo models (which I love!) cost more than 40k solo models. There are also never "cheap bundle" releases like stormclaw or deathstorm, or even a decent model-count starter like dark vengeance (you get a crappy 17-20 plastic models out of either of the two starter boxes, with none of them being hellbrute, dreadnought, or carnifex sized).

The reason WMH players don't feel as beat up on, though, is that list building is less important, and there aren't really crazy overpowered units. Even so, some units are obviously inferior, everyone is playing with colossals now (which are not cheap!), and there are just as many dicks whom I would never play a second game with in WMH as any other game. And to put it into perspective, just buying starter box units is not any more playable (or competitive) than using starter box units from DV.

PP books aren't cheap, but they're far cheaper than GW's books. (And not necessary to play.)
Solo models more expensive than 40k solo models?
$12 for metal a Steel Soul protector.
#30 for a plastic librarian.
In Warmachine there aren't cheap large army bundles because the army has to be built around your playstyle. A boxed army might be amazing to some but completely suck for other players. The game was designed to slowly add on units you think fit your army.
"Model count starter." The game wasn't meant for large scale battles, so why would they have large armies in their starter? It's a skirmish game. And warjacks are roughly the same size as dreadnaughts and all intro box sets come with at least one.
The beginner boxes are indeed far more playable than the DV one because yes, you can and often do play at those size games (my FLGS just had a league where the first week's battles were 15pt battle box games) and they're a great way to learn new units and army playstyles. Also, the armies are balanced so unlike the unbalance DV boxset, both players have a roughly equal chance of winninng.
List building is important, just not in the way you're thinking of. Your list has to be built carefully to work well together. There's no spamming Wave Serpents or such nonesense.

**Wayniac**

SpookyRuben wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
They could never satisfy everybody, but they could do a hell of a lot better than they are. EVERYONE benefits from a balanced and clear set of rules, and everyone benefits from having things fairly close in balance.

Everyone except Games Workshop that is. Why would they change a business model that has worked for 20 years?

Declining sales show that it hasn't worked for 20 years.

**Blacksails**

RunicFIN wrote:
I guess most don´t even consider the option of the game designers not being allowed to change the core rules, and therefore they have to deal with 15 year old stuff and try to make something out of it. Nope, just label them as "incompetent idiots" instead like someone already did. If one of you ever makes it to being a GW rules designer, go meet the CEO and say you´re about to go demolition derby on the core and renew everything from the ground up.

I´d like to see you try.

Runic, its quite possible to post without being immediately on the attack.

There are on this forum people who write rules for a living. There are people on this board who write rules for fun. Many of these same people produce better products then what GW is currently putting out. The reason people label the GW design team as incompetent idiots is because most of what we've seen these last few years shows a large amount of incompetence, ignorance, and general stupidity.

If you have a counter argument to make, just make it. You don't need to put people on the defensive by saying 'Let's see you try!'. Many people have on this board. I recall in 5th edition quite clearly that a user JustDave made a few fan codices that were far above and away superior to what GW had released for those factions. They were not only more balanced, but had more options and playstyles to boot.