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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I still maintain that rules quality is the priority to make a lot of issues go away, but the thing is, if you only look inside wargaming, the difference between GW and the other players (even the fairly substantial ones like Mantic and PP) you're not comparing apples to oranges, but maybe oranges to tangerines?

There's plenty of other companies making kits which utterly trounce GW in terms of parts numbers, detail and price, but they're chiefly in the scale modelling sphere, so tend to avoid direct comparison.

I agree that some of the kits from GW don't represent bad value, the core units and transports have never struck me as being quite so egregious as the likes of the Imperial Knight or the clam pack characters, but when you have a small operation like the likes of the Perrys undercutting you, significantly, and matching you on quality, as an encumbent and the dominant player in the market segment, that's plain embarrassing.

That's pretty much it. The units that are a really poor value are independent characters and superheavies. The superheavies, like the Imperial Knight are particularly egregious. However, if you compare an IK with a Colossal, the price is about the same ($140 vs $135 USD MSRP). If you want to be shady about it, one could argue that competitive IK abusers will sometimes buy recasts, which are between $35-$55 USD. Personally, I'm not a fan of either model.

On the other hand, the IK is the worst offender, IMO. Wraithknights and Riptides are a "better" value (~$115 & $85). If you want to go crazy, FW superheavies are sky high, and in Canada, we get smacked bad at customs when they come across.

The problem with some of the independent sculptors are that they either have very tiny collections (like, you can buy one of every scifi model in one shopping cart ), or they have no gaming system at all, or both. While I certainly won't be one jumping up and down giving 40k accolades for being the best gaming system in the world, it's *a* gaming system, it can be lots of fun, and it's sure better than nothing

Talys wrote:
Can we say, Lords of War? I mean, from a balance perspective, they are terrible for the fame and break way more than they fix. But the coolness factor is way, way up tjere

LoW only break the game because GW sucks at writing rules. There is nothing inherent about big models that requires them to have overpowered rules, and virtually all of the problems with LoW units could have been fixed by simple things like giving them point values that accurately represent their power or imposing a maximum percentage of your points that can be spent on LoW (like in the 30k rules).

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Can we say, Lords of War? I mean, from a balance perspective, they are terrible for the fame and break way more than they fix. But the coolness factor is way, way up tjere

LoW only break the game because GW sucks at writing rules. There is nothing inherent about big models that requires them to have overpowered rules, and virtually all of the problems with LoW units could have been fixed by simple things like giving them point values that accurately represent their power or imposing a maximum percentage of your points that can be spent on LoW (like in the 30k rules).

Well, you and I have debated this before, but I stand steadfastly by my opinion that in an army, 1+1 should not always equal 2. Not all combinations of 50 or 100 or 500 points should be equivalent in effectiveness; some units should synergize better together, thereby giving an advantage.

It would be better to say, all 500 point units should be roughly comparable, but even that's not a good way to do it, because each faction has unique advantages, characters, and units that can act as force multipliers. So, even though one faction's 500 point unit might be weaker on its own, when paired with another unit, it might be awesomely powerful (like CentStar with Tig).

In my experience, LoW generally break the game (not fame :X typo earlier!) in two ways:

1. If one player has these "advanced" units, and another player only has "beginner" units, the newb is screwed, because he'll use his whole army up just trying to take down the LoW. It's not just frustrating; the level of silliness is epic.

2. LoW in play means that both sides need an answer to big units. So, if they are permitted in the game, every battleforce really needs to be able to respond to them, and that breaks many theme armies -- a big chunk of your points go to handling the LoW, either with your own, or a special unit.

On the other hand, it's a very cool model to see on the table.

Most tournaments only allow up to 1 LoW (or none at all), and I'm perfectly fine with excluding an LoW from my list if my opponent doesn't want to play one/against one.

Like other people have said, it's not really the price that's the problem, it's what you're getting for it. I mean, Infinitys upcoming 3rd edition rulebook is the same price as 7th ed 40k, and I feel much happier about paying that, because I'm reasonably certain it's going to be a very well written balanced game.

Kits like the new BA tactical squad is quite reasonable, 10 well detailed figures for £26 isn't bad. I think they're reasonable value. If they had more impact in the game, they'd be better value. A unit in WMH costs more, but I feel it's better value - it makes up a larger percentage of the actual army, and will probably do more in the game.

If they sorted their rules out and toned down some of the price ridiculousness (18 quid for a captain/sanguinary priest/librarian...really?) then each kit, while expensive still, would represent better value. And if the books were better written, they'd be better value too.

So based on that, I voted better authors. Also though I think the buy in price needs to be much lower.

Talys wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Can we say, Lords of War? I mean, from a balance perspective, they are terrible for the fame and break way more than they fix. But the coolness factor is way, way up tjere

LoW only break the game because GW sucks at writing rules. There is nothing inherent about big models that requires them to have overpowered rules, and virtually all of the problems with LoW units could have been fixed by simple things like giving them point values that accurately represent their power or imposing a maximum percentage of your points that can be spent on LoW (like in the 30k rules).

Well, you and I have debated this before, but I stand steadfastly by my opinion that in an army, 1+1 should not always equal 2. Not all combinations of 50 or 100 or 500 points should be equivalent in effectiveness; some units should synergize better together, thereby giving an advantage.

It would be better to say, all 500 point units should be roughly comparable, but even that's not a good way to do it, because each faction has unique advantages, characters, and units that can act as force multipliers. So, even though one faction's 500 point unit might be weaker on its own, when paired with another unit, it might be awesomely powerful (like CentStar with Tig).

In my experience, LoW generally break the game (not fame :X typo earlier!) in two ways:

1. If one player has these "advanced" units, and another player only has "beginner" units, the newb is screwed, because he'll use his whole army up just trying to take down the LoW. It's not just frustrating; the level of silliness is epic.

2. LoW in play means that both sides need an answer to big units. So, if they are permitted in the game, every battleforce really needs to be able to respond to them, and that breaks many theme armies -- a big chunk of your points go to handling the LoW, either with your own, or a special unit.

On the other hand, it's a very cool model to see on the table.

Most tournaments only allow up to 1 LoW (or none at all), and I'm perfectly fine with excluding an LoW from my list if my opponent doesn't want to play one/against one.

I agree that I would prefer LoW in their own thing. Really, if the game was codified with a couple of separate rule sets to accommodate different game scales, that would be the best. As it stands, I'm just not a big fan of LoW or fliers in the core game.

The price and the rules of the game are the best concerns of improvement for GW in my opinion. `Nuff said.

I love 40k, and I still do now. But I haven't played an actually game in quite some time, I'm too busy working on my WHFB army. Which I'm quite fond of.

It's not just the pricing, it's the rules and the pricing which go hand in hand.

Take the Chaos Army. It has a unit called a Heldrake. It competes in the fast attack slots with Bikes, Raptors and Chaos Spawn. Depending on who you ask, Spawn and Heldrakes are the two best options. Except Spawn are £25 pounds for 2, and Heldrakes are £45.

If I needed just one Heldrake, I would be okay. Except having one aircraft means all the enemies anti-air is focused on it alone. You need target saturation, and the Heldrake is the only flier in the CSM book.

So three Heldrakes and 510 points later, you have spent £135 pounds on what amounts to just over a quarter of an average game. If I'm a new player, I do not want to pay that on top of the money required for rulebooks and the other units you actually need to play a game in the first place, considering you also need dice and tape and templates.

Compare this to Warmachine. A unit of Winterguard might be £30, which is expensive even when compared to GW. Plus you lose out on the quality, which is a pain. But as a percentage, they can make up nearly all of a skirmish match, and even a fifth of a massive 50 point game.


As for the LoW, look at the Colossus from warmachine, they are tough to beat if you are not prepared, but they are not invincible. Nor are they crazily overpowered, except maybe one of them....... But no one likes Cygnar anyway.



My point is, better rules and more value for money on models. I don't mind paying for an expensive piece, but I want it to actually have an impact in my game.

Tighter rules and better balance (both internal and between codicies).

 welshhoppo wrote:

My point is, better rules and more value for money on models. I don't mind paying for an expensive piece, but I want it to actually have an impact in my game.

I seem to see this sentiment reflected a lot in this thread. The consensus seems to be that each dollar should contribute to a higher percentage of the battle force. For people that think this way, does this necessitate that:

1. If a good game has few models, each model may be quite expensive
2. If a good game has many models, each model should be quite cheap

Is that what you're saying? So, whether a game has 100 models or 25 models on the board, you'd like to pay the same amount in the end; therefore, the models for a 50 model game should be 1/2 the cost, a 100 model game should be 1/4 the cost, and a 200 model game should be 1/8 the cost?

I don't agree with this (and I don't think it's likely to happen from any company), as I would prefer the selling price of a model to be reflective of how many the company is likely to produce and sell, the artisanship of the piece, and the size of the model. So, a large model that is rarely sold and is exquisitely crafted would be most expensive, and a small model that everyone buys in bulk would be the cheapest.

I realize that this is not strictly how anyone prices models. I'm just saying, that I recognize that a company has to make money on every model, and the total profit on that model per year versus its development, production and sales cost is how I would imagine a fair pricing scheme to be.

natpri771 wrote:
Better Authors:
GW should put a stop to the Matthew Wards they have employed and hire authors that are capable of writing better fluff, reasonable crunch and superior overall rules

The writers aren't the issue. It's the lack of cohesive and effective editing that is the issue with GW's rules.

And for me, this is the single biggest problem with GW's product right now.

Talys wrote:


There is a whole faction with only women Hopefully, next year they get some love.

People have been saying that for years upon years now. So far, we got a Codex "update" that was split over 2 issues of WD, and now a digital-only Dex.

As they say, Hope is the first step on the road to Disappointment.

 Psienesis wrote:

Talys wrote:


There is a whole faction with only women Hopefully, next year they get some love.

People have been saying that for years upon years now. So far, we got a Codex "update" that was split over 2 issues of WD, and now a digital-only Dex.

As they say, Hope is the first step on the road to Disappointment.

Hey, we're just about to get Blood Angels, so there is yet hope

This is totally unfounded in fact, but my suspicion is that GW will update all of the factions they want to keep to 7e (unlike 6e), sell some campaign stuff, which seems overwhelmingly popular, a few box sets to get people interested in other factions, and perhaps progress the storyline. Then *boom* 8e, perhaps Xmas 2016 or 2017, latest.

If you think people are going to be excited for an entirely new edition so close on the heels of the now-current edition, you're nuts.

Most of those options, however lower prices and "engage with their customers" would probably be good one's to start with.

Ya know like that one pole that GW did a while ago with the top 2 or so being more gender diversity in plastic model boxes (irc this was specific to the IG troop box and the IG in general with some hints at the more gender neutral xenos like the Eldar, DE, and Tau where everybody fights no matter the gender.). The second top one was plastic SoB. Though as far as I know that pole pretty much went no where.

I'd like to see wargear get much more diversified and characterful. And I don't think Matt Ward was the worst thing in the world.

I put better authors, but I don't think it's the authors fault per say, it more has to do with corporate direction I think. I would like a better ruleset, or maybe even 2 different rulesets. A set for regular games with all the allies and LoW and superheavies. And another set for competitive play.

I used to play in local rogue traders and Ard Boyz, all the time. It was great to have all the local community of gamers get together periodically to get some games in and see what armies everyone was working on. That doesn't happen anymore, the game just doesn't work, it's too 'open'. Sure you can house rule stuff but that introduces a whole new set of problems. I was way more motivated to get armies done when I could show them off at a tourney. Not so much anymore, I still paint, but if I want a good tournament I go for Dropzone commander. So my 40k stuff rarely comes out to play (and consequently I buy much less GW models than I used to) I'd like to see a revamped balanced ruleset for 40k.

At the same time 40k as it is now has redeeming qualities too, so I would also like rules that allow more flexibility, for the beer and pretzels games. Just a bit of guidance and I really think 40k could be revitalized. Have sets of competitive rules, and casual rules.

I doubt it will happen though, not when they can make tons of cash piling on more and more rulebooks and supplements and data-whatevers

I'd re-word "better authors" as "better rules." I didn't vote for it because I thought it was talking about BL authors. Oops.

But for me, #1 is rules.
I perceive the price as too high because I don't think I'm getting my money's worth. (value.)
Like Toofast, I have other more expensive hobbies. (guns and travel) But it's about value to me. I don't think a GW rulebook is worth the price they're asking.

Toofast brings up a solid point of the experience. If you don't want to play a game because you know its going to be annoying there is a problem with the rule set.

I've been playing for 22years now, and only recently have I had the notion of "well this is going to be pointless" based on what the other player has. When they make rules that make units unstoppable it makes it feel like you are playing chess where the other guy takes an entire backfield of queens, you can predict the outcome accurately without playing the game.

And lets be honest GW ditching 6th in 23months isn't a sign of confidence, and the detachment/LoW stupidity in 7th doesn't make it much better.

But again as I said before, its because the people at the top don't understand, play, or care about the game.

 Ravenous D wrote:

And lets be honest GW ditching 6th in 23months isn't a sign of confidence, and the detachment/LoW stupidity in 7th doesn't make it much better.

What's wrong with detachments?

I think LoW's are just fine; they just belong in their own game.

Similarly, I think skirmishes with 40k are fine too, as long as you use a separate set of rules (like Kill Team), so that it's not 200 points of assault versus one unkillable unit.

Talys wrote:
I think LoW's are just fine; they just belong in their own game.

Isn't that the point?

Talys wrote:

Similarly, I think skirmishes with 40k are fine too, as long as you use a separate set of rules (like Kill Team), so that it's not 200 points of assault versus one unkillable unit.

So... not fine at all then if they require a specialised ruleset to make work.

Removed by insaniak. Not appropriate.

 vipoid wrote:

Talys wrote:
I think LoW's are just fine; they just belong in their own game.

Isn't that the point?

I mean: LoW's are good, if both sides want to play them. They are terrible if one side wants to play them, because they know the other side can't respond to them. So, for Apocalypse games, they are great. LoW models and rules are not a bad thing as a broad statement.

 vipoid wrote:

Talys wrote:

Similarly, I think skirmishes with 40k are fine too, as long as you use a separate set of rules (like Kill Team), so that it's not 200 points of assault versus one unkillable unit.

So... not fine at all then if they require a specialised ruleset to make work.

The Warhammer 40,000 BRB is not a ruleset for a skirmish game. If you try to play it as such, prepare to be disappointed. On the other hand, it never claims to be.

Kill Team is an official set of rules, not dissimilar to many house rules, to make it a skirmish game out of core rules. If you aren't familiar with them, it limits the teams to 200 point skirmishes and you're highly limited in what units you can take (like up to 2 of x, up to 1 of y, etc.). There are specific missions for KT games.

What's wrong with this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In my opinion, this is why people feel that GW falls short of their expectations:

It says very clearly in the BRB set, in the opening sentence of the first page of text in A Galaxy of War: "At its heart, Warhammer 40,000 is a collecting hobby."

GW's mission statement is: "We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever."

I think it's pretty clear that Games Workshop primarily wants to make collectible miniatures. Their mission statement isn't to make the best game on the planet. In fact, they specifically say: "Our games are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense. The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy."

In other words, the purpose of the game is to encourage you to buy and collect more miniatures.

Personally, I like collecting and modelling miniatures, so Games Workshop is a good fit for me. I like social gaming with friends, too. Games Workshop doesn't lie about its core business, so I don't know why people have to try to make it into something that it's not.

Obviously, if the market is elsewhere, Games Workshop's revenues will suffer for it. If they choose to change their business model, that's up to them; but if they want to be a collectible model company, with a game context for their collectibles, I see nothing wrong with that.

Just don't pick their game if you want the best short skirmish, low model count game.

Kill Team also does nothing to address the inherent imbalance of the game, and makes it more front and center.

The rules should really be like three different books:

40k: Kill Team for small skirmishes of a few guys per side up to like a squad or two. Include things for doing Necromunda-like campaigns or the like (imagine something like the old Last Chancers, an A-team style thing)

40k: Eternal War for the normal game, handful of squads up to company level games

40k: Apocalypse for large scale games with abstracted rules for ease of play but using the same figures

Multiple BALANCED ways of playing games with the same models, which beforehand was the problem with say 40k and Epic. But things need to be balanced correctly to allow a good combination of freedom without making some units way better than others. LoW for example aren't a bad thing in and of themselves, but their power level is so off the charts that they completely break any idea of balance. They should be just another tactical choice, not an "I Win" button.

@Wayne -- completely agree, and some specials should not be available in some rulesets. I think Kill Team is quite good, actually. A lot of criticisms, like rules negotiations, high cost of entry, and massively overpowered units are just non existent. Problems like flyer rules are no longer an issue, as they are not allowed.

On the other hand, KT disallows almost every large model.

I actually like 7th Edition Rules (gasp), but Kill Team has always seem kind of half-assed to me. It's really just 40k, with some unit limits, and giving special rules to models, which oftne don't make too much sense.

When I think of Skirmish games, I think of every model acting as an individual unit.

I'd like to see a Lord of the RIngs style skirmish game come out for the 40k universe.

 jasper76 wrote:
I actually like 7th Edition Rules (gasp), but Kill Team has always seem kind of half-assed to me. It's really just 40k, with some unit limits, and giving special rules to models, which oftne don't make too much sense.

When I think of Skirmish games, I think of every model acting as an individual unit.

I'd like to see a Lord of the RIngs style skirmish game come out for the 40k universe.

Rogue Trader rules ftw!... and, in the back of the book, there are even paper cutouts for units if you haven't bought the models. Remember those days? LOL.

Rogue Trader = Well Before My Time (playing-wise, not age-wise )

 jasper76 wrote:
Rogue Trader = Well Before My Time (playing-wise, not age-wise )

RT was the most RPG-ish, single unit 40k game produced by GW. It even used d100 Like AD&D, it had a bazillion tables... like, your commander might have a 25% chance of having a type of grenade... lol. Back then, we actually persisted our IC's gear from game to game, unless they were killed. The scenario in the back of the book (for which counters were supplied in lieu of models) were 16 marines (IIRC, 1 squad of 15 SM + Pedro) vs an ork warband. There was actually a character-sheet type of thing, with one row for each member of the squad. and a column for what gear they had hahaha.

Happy days!

WayneTheGame wrote:
All the above

^ This bruva ^

I am - on the whole - a fan of the rules. There is absolutely big room for improvement, but to me the game is very enjoyable and I like it's current direction.

The pricing is okay to dumb. Kit costs would be fine if there were a bit more options or realistic packaging. An example would be their tendency to sell 5 man kits at a price that would suggest a 10 man kit, especially when those are the units that tend to be fielded in groups of ten or more.

THE most important issue however, is customer engagement. GW gamers are dying to be taken out of the dark. This is, I believe, the single factor that leads many to feel like the company is treating them like mindless cash cows.