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.
Well why the hell would you play those people in the first place?
Also, both you an azrael are missing the fact that thousands of 40k players don't even consider it to be a problem in the first place. It's just a thing that comes from having such a gigantic game.
YES, thank you. If Joe is an ***hole, why would you play with Joe? Why would you say, "I want to play a fair game with Joe, even though he's an ***hole"? Isn't life way too short for that?!
Absolutely, there are jerks that frequent the several FLGS that I visit. I can spot them a mile away. There are also lots of really fun, interesting people that I'd like try gaming with; frankly, more than I will ever have time to. As part of an cognitive and social species, my first reaction to seeing a gaming opponent isn't, "HULK SMASH!".
I mean, I occasionally play hockey. My goal is not to hospitalize the other guy, y'know?
Well why the hell would you play those people in the first place?
Also, both you an azrael are missing the fact that thousands of 40k players don't even consider it to be a problem in the first place. It's just a thing that comes from having such a gigantic game.
YES, thank you. If Joe is an ***hole, why would you play with Joe? Why would you say, "I want to play a fair game with Joe, even though he's an ***hole"? Isn't life way too short for that?!
Absolutely, there are jerks that frequent the several FLGS that I visit. I can spot them a mile away. There are also lots of really fun, interesting people that I'd like try gaming with; frankly, more than I will ever have time to. As part of an cognitive and social species, my first reaction to seeing a gaming opponent isn't, "HULK SMASH!".
I mean, I occasionally play hockey. My goal is not to hospitalize the other guy, y'know?
Because joe and his friends hank, bob and william are the douchebags that frequent the club. If you want a game, you'll be playing one of them. Otherwise you won't be playing, period. And yes, it is better to not play - thats a big part of why i don't play.
ImAGeek wrote: It's not a problem for you, but it is an inherent problem in the game due to bad design. Good for you that you have avoided the problem, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
It's only a problem at your hypothetical gaming store where everyone's a complete dick and no one will play with you if you attempt conversation.
Yeah places like that ONLY exist hypothetically, there aren't people like that anywhere...
The fact of the matter is this. If the game was well designed, the problem wouldn't even exist, hypothetically or no.
Well why the hell would you play those people in the first place?
Also, both you an azrael are missing the fact that thousands of 40k players don't even consider it to be a problem in the first place. It's just a thing that comes from having such a gigantic game.
Besides, as much as you're being dubious about a store where everyone plays like a complete cock, I'm equally dubious of your store where players line up to submit their lists for your approval until you find one you deign worthy to play against.
You're right that most of the time players rub along more or less ok, but the fact that this situation exists even hypothetically is demonstrative of a deeper issue with 40K that just doesn't exist in any game I'm aware of.
It's one thing to sell a flawed product when you're effectively the only option, as was the case 10 or 12 years ago, it's another to not address that issue when your competition are taking chunks out of you left right and centre.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
What if you want to play Infinity and I don't? ...how can we satisfy both parties?
Do you really not see any difference between divisions between different games, and divisions within the same game?
Gunzhard wrote: This is less a game issue but more a people issue it seems to me.
And therein lies the genius of GW.
Why bother balancing a game when you can just blame the players instead?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
I never said anything about submitting lists. You're being ridiculous. What I said was that talking with people about what kind of game we want to play works fine for me and that I've never had a problem with it.
Talys wrote: YES, thank you. If Joe is an ***hole, why would you play with Joe?
Why are you making the assumption that having strong opinions about how to play the game makes you a ? If I want to play with my superheavies and you want a game between 5th edition armies that doesn't mean either one of us is a . Nor does it make either of us a if we don't want to "negotiate" and play a game that doesn't include the (incompatible) things we want.
And yes, you can "solve" the problem by never playing a game with me, but the whole point here is that shouldn't be necessary. Better games don't require negotiation and compromise about what parts of the game you're going to include, you just say "hey, let's play a 1500 point game" and play. GW could make 40k that kind of game, they just lack the desire and/or ability to do so.
Las wrote: It's just a thing that comes from having such a gigantic game.
No, it's a thing that comes from having a poorly designed game. Other complex games don't have this problem.
And really, 40k isn't all that big. It has a ton of rules bloat, but very shallow strategy and most of its units/rules are subtle variations of a few standard archetypes. Contrast this with MTG, where there are far more individual "units" and interactions between those "units". And yet somehow WOTC manages to make a game with nowhere near 40k's level of division between "casual" and "competitive" players. Why? Because they don't accept "the game is too big" as an excuse for publishing garbage. The understand that a large game requires lots of playtesting and development work, and they invest the time and effort required to do it right. GW could do the same with 40k, but they're a bunch of incompetent morons who think that the best part of the hobby is buying more GW™ Products™.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Las wrote: What I said was that talking with people about what kind of game we want to play works fine for me and that I've never had a problem with it.
And the point is that "what kind of game we want to play" should involve things like creating your own missions/characters, how much story you want to put into the game, etc. It should NOT involve things like what units you're allowed to bring or what house rules you need to use to fix GW's mistakes. There is absolutely no reason why you should have to negotiate about those things instead of just setting a point limit and being confident that any two lists you create will produce a fun and balanced game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/06 23:24:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I think the whole thing is that talking it out with your opponent is okay but you shouldnt have to if the game in any way was balanced. Take 5th edition for example I meet up with my opponent and the only discussion that is needed is what points level we are playing, if he wants a type of competitive or casual game and what army is he playing. Its simple now in 7th are you taking any super heavies? Any allies? How about fortifictions?
It has seemed to me from the beginning that GW use the rules of their game to boost sales of their product. They want to sell as many models as possible, and this is a good way to make sure people invest in their product line as the game changes. It prevents people from ever finishing their collection. But I think the competitive players have allowed GW to take this to the absolute extreme- and both parties are at fault IMO.
Unfortunately, customers that want to play to win above all are the players that really drive this behavior. These are the players that will ditch their entire army as soon as a bad codex comes out or another army gets to the top of the mathhamer pile.
That's exactly what GW wants. Someone that will start from scratch and buy hundreds or thousands of dollars of new models with just a few scratches of GW's pen.
I think a lot of this hobby would be better if people played as if they were actually building an army that would fit with the universe. Just my opinion, here is why.
I have an elder player in my group, surprise surprise on elder btw, playing behind aegis defense lines. I don't know much about eldar, but it looks pretty stupid to have grav tanks sitting behind a wall with a bunch of stationary guardians just standing there.
And when people ask him about the nonsense he does, he will always use this form of logic.
"If ___ amy can have [insert some outrageous hypothetical rule or unit scenario] then my _____ can get way with having __"
That is just horse gak logic, justifying bad behavior with worse behavior and it ruins the game. Is it his fault GW wrote the rules that way? Nope. But its his fault for exploiting it at the expense of everyone else's good will and good time. There is such a thing in the world as discretion, an most people who have social skills use it. Unfrtuantely, the type of hobby we have does tend to lend itself to people who may have below average social skills, just simple fact.
I feel like it shouldn't be too much to ask that if I'm going to play your army, I should be able to know GENERALLY speaking what to expect. I shouldn't need to see your list and I sure as hell shouldn't need to know every possible rule modifications and combination that your codex could ever run to have an idea of what I'm going up against.
It just seems so much more enjoyable to me to have a fluff based collection of models, with a focus or theme I'm building towards than it does to constantly keep up with GW's latest decisions on how the game works just so you can WIN something.
In short, I agree with the OP that people tend to do a poor job of respecting the overall hobby and instead just trying to put together the most brutal list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/06 23:53:10
Yes, it seems more enjoyable to YOU. That doesn't mean everyone will get enjoyment the same way.
You can't blame people for playing to win and using broken units, or tactics that are counter to the fluff, or buying the new broken model. The badly written rules are what allows this, and if they enjoy playing that way, that's their prerogative. But if the rules were well written, again, things like that wouldn't crop up.
Stop blaming players for problems in the game just because they enjoy playing a different way to you. To quote various people in the thread so far, 'just don't play those people'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/06 23:55:41
True, but I can blame them for playing into GW's profiteering scheme and making this game less about playing out the story of 40k and more about an arms race who can spend the most money on their models.
Talys wrote: YES, thank you. If Joe is an ***hole, why would you play with Joe?
Why are you making the assumption that having strong opinions about how to play the game makes you a ? If I want to play with my superheavies and you want a game between 5th edition armies that doesn't mean either one of us is a . Nor does it make either of us a if we don't want to "negotiate" and play a game that doesn't include the (incompatible) things we want.
And yes, you can "solve" the problem by never playing a game with me, but the whole point here is that shouldn't be necessary. Better games don't require negotiation and compromise about what parts of the game you're going to include, you just say "hey, let's play a 1500 point game" and play. GW could make 40k that kind of game, they just lack the desire and/or ability to do so.
Geez, that's not what I'm saying at all, man. I'm saying if someone is a dick, regardless of what he game he plays, whether it's poker, 40k or WMH, I'm not going to play with him.
It doesn't matter if the person is "competitive" or whatever. If they won't even have a normal conversation, why should I waste my time playing a game with them, since I probably won't be entertained? If I want to play random games with random strangers, there are PC games with good matchmaking algorithms. If I'm playing with a real human across from me, I want to have at least some of the social aspects of that human contact.
Regarding superheavies: if I happen to be at an FLGS and I have some models with me to play (which I admit is super rare, but it does happen), and someone says, "Hey, you wanna play a 1500 point game?", I will probably respond, "Sure, I have some time. Whatcha got?" and progress from there. If they say, "I left my big models at home" or "My baneblade isn't painted yet" or "I just started, and I have are the Chaos guys from Dark Vengeance", I'm going to say, "no problem, I'll just take my Knight off my list".
If they say, "Six wave serpents and thirty fire dragons", I'll reply, "Thanks man, I'll pass -- I didn't really bring the right kind of models to play that kind of game and I'd get curb stomped."
See, that wouldn't be such a hard conversation, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VanHallan wrote: True, but I can blame them for playing into GW's profiteering scheme and making this game less about playing out the story of 40k and more about an arms race who can spend the most money on their models.
I pity anyone who starts into a 40k or WHFB who is not prepared to spend THOUSANDS of dollars over a couple of years, because that's what you'll do if you love the game, love the hobby, and want the new stuff that gets released. And there is guaranteed to be new, cool stuff.
If you want to spend a couple hundred dollars and play a tabletop wargame, play something else. You will be happier, I guarantee it.
40k is not a pay to win game (like a TCG). It is, however, a universe in which the manufacturer clearly states that they produce miniatures for hobbyists, to which there is a game context. If you don't like the toy soldiers and fluff, there is zero point to the game context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/07 00:05:24
Talys wrote: If they won't even have a normal conversation, why should I waste my time playing a game with them, since I probably won't be entertained?
The point is that it isn't a normal conversation. Other games don't require it, and it is only necessary because GW sucks at writing good rules. The fact that the 40k community has not only accepted this requirement, but embraced it and declared anything else to be TFG behavior, is just sad.
See, that wouldn't be such a hard conversation, right?
Only because you left out the "what do we do about it" part that inevitably happens when you don't agree.
It is, however, a universe in which the manufacturer clearly states that they produce miniatures for hobbyists, to which there is a game context.
Which is blatant idiocy intended to keep the investors (most of which don't know anything about the game) from dumping their shares. It's an excuse for why their product sucks, put in terms that a non-gamer might be satisfied by, not a legitimate way to design a game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/07 00:10:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Las wrote: I never said anything about submitting lists. You're being ridiculous. What I said was that talking with people about what kind of game we want to play works fine for me and that I've never had a problem with it.
No, you're right, you didn't.
You also failed to address the issue of what happens when the players aren't able to negotiate an amicable compromise. ("I've brought my IK list." "Oh, my army isn't really equipped to deal with that, I don't normally like to play against Superheavies" "ah, well, I live an hour away and these are the only models I have with me" *awkward silence*)
So I just filled in the gaps in your logic with an image that amused me.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
VanHallan wrote: It has seemed to me from the beginning that GW use the rules of their game to boost sales of their product. They want to sell as many models as possible, and this is a good way to make sure people invest in their product line as the game changes. It prevents people from ever finishing their collection. But I think the competitive players have allowed GW to take this to the absolute extreme- and both parties are at fault IMO.
Unfortunately, customers that want to play to win above all are the players that really drive this behavior. These are the players that will ditch their entire army as soon as a bad codex comes out or another army gets to the top of the mathhamer pile.
This is not true, though it's easy to see why you might come to this conclusion. GW has stated time and again that they are a miniature company first, and a game company second. They make cool miniatures that are collectible, and they have multiple new releases pretty much every single week. It is pretty much impossible to buy, model, and paint everything that GW manufactures, even if you did nothing else with your life.
Therefore, you are correct in that collections will never be done, but this isn't an arms escalation where the new product is better than the old product; it's more often a collection issue, where if you like faction X, there is new stuff for faction X at least once a year, and more often than that if you factor in reasonable allies you might have on your army.
Do you HAVE to have the new units? Of course not. Are the new units sometimes really good. Yes! However, sometimes, they are not good, too -- this week, for example, it's Blood Angels tacticals, and people all say, "WHY?!" -- and yet, most blood angels players will buy at least one box (even though they don't need any more tacticals, tacticals relatively weak, and there is no compelling playing reason that you can't just use your old models).
VanHallan wrote: True, but I can blame them for playing into GW's profiteering scheme and making this game less about playing out the story of 40k and more about an arms race who can spend the most money on their models.
No, you can't, because casual players do the exact same thing.
In the Blood Angels rumor thread, a dozen people who already own tactical marines are losing their gak over the new BA-exclusive Tactical marine models, talking about how they're going to buy five boxes and they've already pre-ordered X amount, yadayada.
Do you think competitive players will be buying up those kits? No. Why? Because tactical marines are garbage. They're one of the worst troops choices in the game unless you're using them in a Salamanders drop-pod list (which in itself isn't even especially competitive), yet fluff-bunnies are gearing up to buy them anyway because they "look cool" or "they match my fluff".
Who's buying up the Dark Angels flyers? Casual players. Tau flyers? Casual players. Bullgryns? Warp Talons? Casual players. Chosen? Casual players. etc etc. All these crap units that no competitive player would be caught dead using because of their poor rules designs get gobbled up by fluff-bunnies, and that directly encourages GW to not give a gak about their rules. Casual players buying models completely irregardless of the competency of their game design is as directly responsible for the ass internal balance you so commonly see in codices as competitive players buying models specifically because of how good a model's rules are.
So it's silly to wag your finger at one group and not the other.
But the reality is that it shouldn't even matter. It's entirely Games Workshop's fault, because if they designed their game better, you wouldn't have this system in which a list comprised of cool, fluffy units gets demolished by a rock hard competitive list. If GW designed their game better, you would have a system where player A can design his list based off of units' rules while player B based his list off of fluff/themes, and the game wouldn't be particularly lopsided, coming down to player skill rather than list optimization. That is good game design, and as noted in this thread multiple times it's something that other hobbyist games manage to achieve despite having comparable or superior depth to 40K.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2014/12/07 00:26:39
Talys wrote: If they won't even have a normal conversation, why should I waste my time playing a game with them, since I probably won't be entertained?
The point is that it isn't a normal conversation. Other games don't require it, and it is only necessary because GW sucks at writing good rules. The fact that the 40k community has not only accepted this requirement, but embraced it and declared anything else to be TFG behavior, is just sad.
Fair enough that you think so; I actually have pretty long conversations with people before I ever play with them. I enjoy socializing with human beings, and since my playtime is limited, I play with the people I find most enjoyable to play with =]
Only because you left out the "what do we do about it" part that inevitably happens when you don't agree.
What do you mean? I cited an exact example, of me saying, I'll pull my Knight. Or, that I'd pass on the game with the guy who has fire dragons and wave serpents.
Which is blatant idiocy intended to keep the investors (most of which don't know anything about the game) from dumping their shares. It's an excuse for why their product sucks, put in terms that a non-gamer might be satisfied by, not a legitimate way to design a game.
Investors is a whole other discussion (please, let's not go there in this thread, which has nothing to do with investors). I think that it's legitimate to recognize that some companies are miniatures first, game second; other companies are games first, miniatures second.
Choice is a good thing.
I spend 3-4 hours a day modelling (whatever I can squeeze out, after 10pm or so) -- that's about 100 hours a month; I spend about 7 hours twice a month playing games, or about 15 hours total gaming. I cherish both time blocks
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@BlaxicanX
I have bought most of the models you mention, and I have already preordered 2 boxes of BA tacticals -- not because they are competitive, or because I'm casual or whatever. I bought them because they are cool models, and I will probably rarely field any of them.
I probably won't even field the BA tacticals, because I intend for them to be 10+ hour paint jobs (each) and I don't want to damage the models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/07 00:22:36
VanHallan wrote: Right, they're a miniatures company that realizes if Genestealers are supreme units in one codex, people will buy lots of them. And then the next codex, if we make them worse, people will buy new models to fill the force org chart with something that fills the shoes of last editions gene stealers. You don't think GW does that with purpose?
Nephilim.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I have bought most of the models you mention, and I have already preordered 2 boxes of BA tacticals -- not because they are competitive, or because I'm casual or whatever. I bought them because they are cool models, and I will probably rarely field any of them.
I probably won't even field the BA tacticals, because I intend for them to be 10+ hour paint jobs (each) and I don't want to damage the models.
Indeed. And you doing this encourages GW to not care about their rules. Why should they put effort into their rules when people will buy the models based off nothing more then their appearence?
I don't blame you for that, though. You're a customer, you have a right to buy models for any damn reason you like. The onus is on GW to make good rules, not you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/07 00:27:18
VanHallan wrote: Right, they're a miniatures company that realizes if Genestealers are supreme units in one codex, people will buy lots of them. And then the next codex, if we make them worse, people will buy new models to fill the force org chart with something that fills the shoes of last editions gene stealers. You don't think GW does that with purpose?
VanHallan wrote: Right, they're a miniatures company that realizes if Genestealers are supreme units in one codex, people will buy lots of them. And then the next codex, if we make them worse, people will buy new models to fill the force org chart with something that fills the shoes of last editions gene stealers. You don't think GW does that with purpose?
Nephilim.
I don't know what that means. Can you explain?
The Nephilim/Dark Talon was the big fancy expensive kit for Dark Angels when their codex came out and is also one of the worst units in the codex.
The same happened with the Tau's flyer
and Daemon's Burning Chariot of Tzeentch (which literally did not function rules wise)
All of the models listed above were brand new kits for those armies. If GW's plan is to nerf existing models and make the new units more viable you'd think they'd at least make those units playable. The fact that serveral new units were complete garbage competitively shows that GW is just inept at making rules.
Talys wrote: Fair enough that you think so; I actually have pretty long conversations with people before I ever play with them. I enjoy socializing with human beings, and since my playtime is limited, I play with the people I find most enjoyable to play with =]
There's a difference between socializing and negotiating what rules you're going to allow. Examples:
Socializing: "did you see the football game last night? No way {team} is going to the playoffs this year!"
Rule negotiation: "I think superheavies are overpowered, how do you want to remove yours from your army?"
Socializing: "wow, that's really well painted, how did you do that?"
Rule negotiation: "you brought too many Riptides, could you take some out?"
And really, if you like social gaming the last thing you want is pointless rule negotiation that takes away time that should be spent on more interesting conversations.
What do you mean? I cited an exact example, of me saying, I'll pull my Knight. Or, that I'd pass on the game with the guy who has fire dragons and wave serpents.
That's not solving the problem, it's avoiding it. If I want to use X and you don't want me to use X you don't have any easy solution, and one of us isn't going to be happy. Or neither of us will be happy because we don't play the game at all.
Investors is a whole other discussion (please, let's not go there in this thread, which has nothing to do with investors).
No, let's go there. Investors are entirely relevant when we're talking about GW saying stupid stuff to keep the investors happy. And that's what "we're a miniatures company" and "what our customers love most about games day is buying more GW™ Products™" are. Anyone who plays the games knows how stupid it is, but it's just plausible enough to a non-gamer shareholder that they might not declare GW a failure and dump their shares.
I think that it's legitimate to recognize that some companies are miniatures first, game second; other companies are games first, miniatures second.
And you know what those miniatures companies do? They don't publish rules. GW is using this as nothing more than an excuse for why they publish garbage.
Choice is a good thing.
Yeah, we really need choices between a good meal at a restaurant and a plate of moldy food with shards of broken glass in it. The point the "choice" argument ignores is that this isn't a choice between different preferences, it's a choice between a product and an alternative product that is superior in every way.
I spend 3-4 hours a day modelling (whatever I can squeeze out, after 10pm or so) -- that's about 100 hours a month; I spend about 7 hours twice a month playing games, or about 15 hours total gaming. I cherish both time blocks
What does this have to do with anything? Improving rule quality doesn't mean sacrificing model quality. It's not like the sculptors/mold designers/etc are writing the rules, they're two separate parts of the company.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
VanHallan wrote: Right, they're a miniatures company that realizes if Genestealers are supreme units in one codex, people will buy lots of them. And then the next codex, if we make them worse, people will buy new models to fill the force org chart with something that fills the shoes of last editions gene stealers. You don't think GW does that with purpose?
Nephilim.
I don't know what that means. Can you explain?
The Nephilim/Dark Talon was the big fancy expensive kit for Dark Angels when their codex came out and is also one of the worst units in the codex.
The same happened with the Tau's flyer
and Daemon's Burning Chariot of Tzeentch (which literally did not function rules wise)
All of the models listed above were brand new kits for those armies. If GW's plan is to nerf existing models and make the new units more viable you'd think they'd at least make those units playable. The fact that serveral new units were complete garbage competitively shows that GW is just inept at making rules.
Yup.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
VanHallan wrote: Right, they're a miniatures company that realizes if Genestealers are supreme units in one codex, people will buy lots of them. And then the next codex, if we make them worse, people will buy new models to fill the force org chart with something that fills the shoes of last editions gene stealers. You don't think GW does that with purpose?
Nephilim.
I don't know what that means. Can you explain?
The Nephilim is a brand new unit. It's rules are utter garbage. Explain GW's policy there.
Hanlon's Razor; Don't attribute to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity.
GW is frankly too incompetent too have some manner of overarching scheme in place to buff or nerf units to control sales when they can't even get the base rule set to work properly.
Looking for Durham Region gamers in Ontario Canada, send me a PM!
See my gallery for Chapterhouse's Tervigon, fully painted.
^^ agreed.
Any of the "new" Nid heavies back this point up too.
WS3 all round, no frags, poor saves, little utility, mixed/undefined roles on the battlefield, generally overcosted, few biomorphs, lack of theme.....we could go on.....
I do believe GW has some good ideas with units (that they want to sell) but others are utterly bizarre. Makes one believe it is pure "rule of cool" :(
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
Harks back to the anecdote that SM Chaplains got a Nerf/points increase one edition because the studio found them too OP in their games.
Totally failed to spot that the Librarian was a massively more efficient choice in the real world.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
A company focused on miniatures will release miniatures, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. I'm ok with this, and frankly, I would buy a nice model even if it had no rules to play at all. I know many people aren't ok with that, and that's fine too.
I happen to be fine with GW rules, and like them better than other rules, even while recognizing that GW rules are flawed. You know what, I liked first edition AD&D rules too, knowing they were deeply flawed. I still play BattleTech, even though that has problems, and I like Axis & Allies, and many other games with goofy rules. They are still really fun games.
re: Investors. Look at the 5 year chart (GAW). The stock price is 535GBP today, the 52 week low is 470GBP, the 52 week high is 745 and the 5 years ago it was about 250GBP. Looking at long term trends, it steadily increased in value until 2013, when it dropped precipitously, then climbed up, and has gone up and down. It's ROE is 15.51%. P/E ratio is 14, net profit is 6.48%. Price/Cashflow of 8.55 is actually not bad, and they have some cash in the bank.
At 173M GBP market cap and 123M sales, without any fantastic growth or prospect for, it's not an exciting stock. You're not gonna retire on GAW. However, it's a far cry from distressed equity, and the value looks ok, or slightly under.
And guess what? Analyst recommendation as of Friday 5 Dec 2014? BUY.
Thought for the day 
? If I want to play with my superheavies and you want a game between 5th edition armies that doesn't mean either one of us is a 
3000 points 
