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.

And thus falling sales....

Martel732 wrote:
There have been models that NEVER sold well because they were crap in the game for years and years. And GW never buffed them. Like Vespids.

Maybe they don't want to make more Vespids. It's like the Sisters. They don't want to make more Sisters so they just price them ridiculously high so nobody will buy them.

If anything, your example actually supports the OPs idea, lol.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There have been models that NEVER sold well because they were crap in the game for years and years. And GW never buffed them. Like Vespids.

Maybe they don't want to make more Vespids. It's like the Sisters. They don't want to make more Sisters so they just price them ridiculously high so nobody will buy them.

If anything, your example actually supports the OPs idea, lol.

It happens even with new kits. Vespids were *never* good even when Tau were brand new. The just made a new kit for Ogryn and the new Bullgryn unit, and they still have pretty naff rules.

Super Conspiracy: They a wide bevy of units with each codex release, but realize their dated method of game development is only self sustaining if you continue the merry-go-round of "Is it garbage?" Thus, you bring out gotta have it, must have it, so OP "QQ moar" models and some garbage ones. Wait for a codex/edition change, oh look, OP "QQ Moar" models are crap and the ones that sucked are AMAZING MUST HAVE TENOUTTA TEN!?

Whether intentional or not, we've seen this be the case. I'd more ascribe to incompetence at this point, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Boniface wrote:
Following the Eldar codex release dire avengers got changed from 10 to 5 man.
It is coincidence then that dire avengers are commonly taken in 5 man squads with a wave serpent.

What do you guys think?

That would sound more like a conspiracy if almost all the squads didn't go from 10 to 5+ after hardcover codex releases, including boxes for basic infantry models that are made in 10s.

What's far more annoying to me are models that are only sold in 1s but are played in multiples, like Grotesques (unit = 3). But I mean, whatever -- whether something is $25 for 1 or $75 for 3 makes no difference in the end calculation, I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There have been models that NEVER sold well because they were crap in the game for years and years. And GW never buffed them. Like Vespids.

Maybe they don't want to make more Vespids. It's like the Sisters. They don't want to make more Sisters so they just price them ridiculously high so nobody will buy them.

If anything, your example actually supports the OPs idea, lol.

I see Sisters in bargain bins all the time. Nobody wants them, even when they're reduced to $5 a blister.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Essentially what you're proposing is that GW is aiming their products at a group of people that is so small that it might as well not exist: people with low standards who will buy anything you put in front of them AND lots of money to afford GW's prices. .

Not quite. What they're aiming for is people who either ignore the game rules and just want to buy the pretty miniatures, and people who don't much care that the rules aren't perfect.


And from my experience, those two groups do make up most of GW's customer base, and always have.

@Insaniak - You hit the nail on the head. I'm a perfect example of such a person -- a steady flow of nice miniatures to model and occasionally play is more important to me than perfect rules. In addition, a constant trickle of new releases is preferable to me over an essentially static game, because I enjoy the modelling aspect greatly.

@Peregrine -- The group is actually not that small, and it's not that they have low standards; imperfect rules just doesn't really bother them. And, the cost of GW models, excluding independent characters, is actually pretty cheap compared to the competition.

I understand and appreciate that people who don't like the modelling aspect, and just want to play a game, get screwed because new stuff constantly comes out that disrupts their game mojo. But, I really think 40k is the wrong game for anyone who doesn't like painting and modelling stuff, because the model count and total cost of an army is just too high if you aren't squeezing enjoyment out of the hobby side of it.

Comparing 40k or WMH to video games and such make them seem very expensive. But, if you look at it a different way -- let's say, you actually enjoy putting together MPP kits, building and painting. Even taking the most expensive models, if you spend 10-30 hours on one independent character, per hour, that's still cheaper than even renting a PPV movie from a cable box, way cheaper than going to the movie theatre, and almost on par to a decent video game ($60 for a 60-100 hour game). But this requires that you actually spend time and enjoy the hobby aspect of it, and I get that this isn't the case for many.

So, as long as you don't care about the rules, 40k is alright? That does seem to be their target audience.
But it is a game and as such they should put effort into the rules.

Or give them away for free.

 Talys wrote:
@Peregrine -- The group is actually not that small, and it's not that they have low standards; imperfect rules just doesn't really bother them.

That's the definition of low standards.

I understand and appreciate that people who don't like the modelling aspect, and just want to play a game, get screwed because new stuff constantly comes out that disrupts their game mojo. But, I really think 40k is the wrong game for anyone who doesn't like painting and modelling stuff, because the model count and total cost of an army is just too high if you aren't squeezing enjoyment out of the hobby side of it.

Why are you creating this artificial division between modeling/painting and playing the game? What about people like me who enjoy both sides of the hobby? And why are you assuming that improving the rules to sell to all of the gamers would hurt the painters? If rules don't really matter to them then improving the game shouldn't be a problem, and GW could easily expand their market without sacrificing their current customers.

Makumba wrote:

But that makes no sense as far as generating sells goes. If someone likes lets say a tac marine model, how many boxs will he buy ? one. Serpents, riptides? same. Buy one and master class paint with added conversions. How many models will a person that plays the game buy? as many as are needed for a list.

That's the thing about having game rules for 'collectibles' though... they encourage the collector who doesn't really care about playing the game to buy armies anyway, because that's the way to make the collection mean something.

I've known plenty of 'players' over the years who rarely if ever play the game... they're far more interested in just putting armies together, because they like the models.

@Peregrine - you should respect that some people have different standards than you, which doesn't mean that they have low standards. I like lots of books, complex rules, tons of fluff, and a good game setting. I care little about 'tight' bulletproof rules.

I actually like playing the game too. I model more than I play, but I model a LOT (30+ hrs a week). I play maybe 20hrs a month, or less, in contrast. I'm just saying if those numbers, were inverted and i played 120+ hours and modelled less than 20 hours, I would prefer a game where I didn't have to spend tons of time to get a different battleforce ready to play.

 Peregrine wrote:
If rules don't really matter to them then improving the game shouldn't be a problem, and GW could easily expand their market without sacrificing their current customers.

If rules don't really matter to them, why would they think that the game needs to be 'improved'?


Sure, GW could invest extra time and effort (and thus money) into developing a tight, tournament-friendly ruleset. Macdonalds could invest extra time, effort and money into developing burgers that are actually edible... but they won't, until poor sales give them a valid reason for examining whether or not they need to change their current business model. Because they run their business around a particular model. They make the product that they want to sell, like just about any other business.

40K is the product that GW want to sell. They're not going to change it until they see a valid reason to do so... and your personal dislike for the game apparently isn't that reason.

 insaniak wrote:
If rules don't really matter to them, why would they think that the game needs to be 'improved'?

That's not what I said. Improving the rules is about selling to other potential customers who do care about the rules, I was just pointing out the fact that improving the rules wouldn't mean sacrificing anything that the current customers like. If you're a customer who doesn't care much about the rules then from your perspective nothing changes, unless you're a "casual at all costs" players who thinks that punishing competitive players and keeping them out of your game should be GW's top priority.

Sure, GW could invest extra time and effort (and thus money) into developing a tight, tournament-friendly ruleset. Macdonalds could invest extra time, effort and money into developing burgers that are actually edible... but they won't, until poor sales give them a valid reason for examining whether or not they need to change their current business model. Because they run their business around a particular model. They make the product that they want to sell, like just about any other business.

That's not a very accurate comparison. McDonalds would have to spend lots of money on developing a new product AND would have to change their entire business model because you can't make a profit selling good hamburgers for $0.99 each. GW, on the other hand, would only have to make minor financial investments in improving the rules. They already pay people to write rules, and even expanding the game design staff would be a small investment relative to their other costs. And their business is already built around selling rules for the game, the only change from the point of view of the customer is that the product would improve and become more appealing.

40K is the product that GW want to sell. They're not going to change it until they see a valid reason to do so... and your personal dislike for the game apparently isn't that reason.

I'm not debating the fact that 40k is exactly what GW wants to be doing, I'm arguing that what GW wants to be doing is unbelievable incompetence. The valid reasons are there and would be painfully obvious to anyone but GW (if only there was a way to find those reasons, we might call it "customer study" or something). But that's the difference between GW and a well-run company like WOTC: a good company is always looking for ways to grow, GW is content to declare that they're already perfect and let someone else make that profit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
@Peregrine - you should respect that some people have different standards than you, which doesn't mean that they have low standards. I like lots of books, complex rules, tons of fluff, and a good game setting. I care little about 'tight' bulletproof rules.

And, again, that's the definition of low standards. You don't dispute the fact that the product is flawed, you just don't care about the flaws.

 insaniak wrote:

Makumba wrote:

But that makes no sense as far as generating sells goes. If someone likes lets say a tac marine model, how many boxs will he buy ? one. Serpents, riptides? same. Buy one and master class paint with added conversions. How many models will a person that plays the game buy? as many as are needed for a list.

That's the thing about having game rules for 'collectibles' though... they encourage the collector who doesn't really care about playing the game to buy armies anyway, because that's the way to make the collection mean something.

I've known plenty of 'players' over the years who rarely if ever play the game... they're far more interested in just putting armies together, because they like the models.

@Makumba -- since 1988 or so, I have bought an ungodly number of Tacticals. I have 4 boxes of the new BA tacs, for example -- since it takes 3 for the formation, and I wanted one box for different weapon configurations and extra bits. You may find it surprsing, bit I think the formation actually sucks. I just wanted to model the full 3 stormravens and 3 Yacs

Even though I don't play serpent spam, I own 5 wave serpents -- painted differently, and I have 2 more BNIB. A bunch of Hemlocks too, and DE Raiders, because when they came out, they were just such cool models.

 Talys wrote:
@Peregrine - you should respect that some people have different standards than you, which doesn't mean that they have low standards. I like lots of books, complex rules, tons of fluff, and a good game setting. I care little about 'tight' bulletproof rules.

I actually like playing the game too. I model more than I play, but I model a LOT (30+ hrs a week). I play maybe 20hrs a month, or less, in contrast. I'm just saying if those numbers, were inverted and i played 120+ hours and modelled less than 20 hours, I would prefer a game where I didn't have to spend tons of time to get a different battleforce ready to play.

You like complex rules, but don't care if they're "tight?"

Yeesh.

You're the embodiment of the ideal GW customer.

Thing is, while you yourself may not be bothered, your attitude gives GW's licence to continue churning out average product. Personally, I'm probably closer to your view than Peregrine's, but I want 40K to be better, and that isn't achieved by hand waving away all the issues, it's about taking a stand, withholding your cash and only spending it on things you feel are of sufficient quality to justify the price.

We would have an amazingly improved version of 40K within months of everyone just stopped buying it and told GW why, but while people continue to accept a poor product, what incentive is there to produce better?

If 40K were better written, nobody loses out. Tolerating sub par product because it doesn't bother you personally damages everyone who thinks differently to you.

@Talys.
The ONLY reason people are into 40k is because of the style of the artwork and the background.(This is inspiring enough IMO.)

However, I like complex game play delivered by straightforward rules .Rather than simple game play delivered by over complicated rules like 40k.

I like books to deliver what they are specifically written for.

So background books should be chocked full of narrative and pictures/art to make the world seem as real as possible to the reader.
And get them emotionally invested with the background environment , culture and ethos of the factions.

I like rule books to deliver clear and concise instructions on how to play the game.

If GW plc wrote rules focused on game play for 40k.
Well defined rules that were proof read and edited to a professional level.

This would make 40k more appealing to a much wider audience.
And as more people would be buying from GW , they could use the economies of scale to reduce retail prices, thus appealing to even more people.

So rather than HAVING to wallet rape the collectors, the only one buying from GW at the moment.

GW plc could sell more product to more people , and make more profit , even with lower retail prices.

Unless you like thinking of yourself as being 'elite' enough to buy lots of expensive stuff from GW.
And lord it over those poor folks who can not afford GW prices.

Why on earth would you not want GW to improve its rules enough to attract people wanting to play enjoyable pick up games using R.A.W.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's not what I said. Improving the rules is about selling to other potential customers who do care about the rules, I was just pointing out the fact that improving the rules wouldn't mean sacrificing anything that the current customers like. If you're a customer who doesn't care much about the rules then from your perspective nothing changes, unless you're a "casual at all costs" players who thinks that punishing competitive players and keeping them out of your game should be GW's top priority.

But, again, that still involves GW adopting a different writing strategy to what they currently use... and that requires them to want to do so.

That's not a very accurate comparison. McDonalds would have to spend lots of money on developing a new product AND would have to change their entire business model because you can't make a profit selling good hamburgers for $0.99 each. GW, on the other hand, would only have to make minor financial investments in improving the rules. They already pay people to write rules, and even expanding the game design staff would be a small investment relative to their other costs. And their business is already built around selling rules for the game, the only change from the point of view of the customer is that the product would improve and become more appealing.

So... McDonalds 'improving' their product would be unworkably expensive, but GW 'improving' their product would be a negligible cost because... uh... reasons?

The fact that they already employ rules writers doesn't change the fact that developing a more water-tight ruleset would take longer, and therefore cost more.

But that's the difference between GW and a well-run company like WOTC: a good company is always looking for ways to grow, .

Well, no. A good company that is looking to grow is always looking for ways to grow.

However, even assuming that GW's intention is to continue growing their customer base, doing so at the expense of what they feel makes their product what it is, is not always an option that a business is willing to explore. I'm sure Doctor Pepper would sell to more people if it had a flavour that appealed to more than 1 person in 40... but changing the flavour would make it a different product.

You don't think that 40K with better written rules would be a different product... But for whatever reason, clearly GW aren't interested in making that product. And however many times you insist it to be the case, incompetence isn't the only possible reason for that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
Why on earth would you not want GW to improve its rules enough to attract people wanting to play enjoyable pick up games using R.A.W.

For most, I suspect it's not so much about not wanting GW to improve their rules as simply not caring if they do, because they are happy with the current state of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Tolerating sub par product because it doesn't bother you personally damages everyone who thinks differently to you.

The people who are happy with the sub-par product buy the sub-par product and are happy with it.
The people who refuse to tolerate sub-par product refuse to buy the sub-par product and go and find an alternative product that they are happy with.

The only people who suffer are those who refuse to tolerate sub-par product and keep hanging around waiting for the sub-par product to improve despite 30 years' evidence that this isn't likely to happen...

@Peregrine - again, different standards are not low standards. I judge the quality of a game based on how much fun I can have playing it -- nothing else.

I can play 2-3sessions of 5-8 hours a stretch each month, and have great fun. Therefore, I say it's a good game. It isn't frustrating to me at all.

Could some of the language be clearer or lists be better? Sure, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment, even a bit.

 insaniak wrote:
But, again, that still involves GW adopting a different writing strategy to what they currently use... and that requires them to want to do so.

Yes, of course it does. But "it would require them to change" isn't really a compelling counter-argument when my point is that GW needs to change.

So... McDonalds 'improving' their product would be unworkably expensive, but GW 'improving' their product would be a negligible cost because... uh... reasons?

Yes, because McDonalds has a business model based around selling a product at the absolute lowest possible price and that means using the cheapest possible ingredients that are safe for human consumption. There's nothing mysterious about making better hamburgers, they just cost more to produce and therefore aren't suitable for a fast food restaurant. GW, on the other hand, has no such obstacle preventing them from improving the rules. The material costs of printing better rules are exactly the same as printing bad rules, so the only additional cost is the employees who write the rules. And based on what we know about the salaries of game designers and playtesters relative to GW's total expenses even a major expansion of GW's game design staff wouldn't be a major cost for the company as a whole.

The fact that they already employ rules writers doesn't change the fact that developing a more water-tight ruleset would take longer, and therefore cost more.

But by how much? And what percentage of GW's total expenses comes from rule authors? Doubling the cost of writing the rules doesn't make much of an impact if rule authors are currently only 1% of GW's total expenses.

Well, no. A good company that is looking to grow is always looking for ways to grow.

Every well-run company is always looking for ways to grow. If you ever say "we're already making enough money, let's be satisfied with what we have" then you're an incompetent manager who needs to be fired. A business can have different opinions on the risk vs. reward of various growth strategies, but making more money is always a goal.

However, even assuming that GW's intention is to continue growing their customer base, doing so at the expense of what they feel makes their product what it is, is not always an option that a business is willing to explore. I'm sure Doctor Pepper would sell to more people if it had a flavour that appealed to more than 1 person in 40... but changing the flavour would make it a different product.

Except, as I keep pointing out, improving the rules doesn't mean changing the product. It's a win/win situation for everyone who matters, and the only customers who suffer any harm are the "casual at all costs" players whose primary goal is to keep competitive players out of "their" game. And those people are toxic TFGs who need to be driven out of the community anyway.

And however many times you insist it to be the case, incompetence isn't the only possible reason for that.

And yet you still haven't given any reasons for why a well-run company would make GW's decisions. Saying "GW doesn't want to do it your way" over and over again does not mean that they're doing the right thing.

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Tolerating sub par product because it doesn't bother you personally damages everyone who thinks differently to you.

The people who are happy with the sub-par product buy the sub-par product and are happy with it.
The people who refuse to tolerate sub-par product refuse to buy the sub-par product and go and find an alternative product that they are happy with.

The only people who suffer are those who refuse to tolerate sub-par product and keep hanging around waiting for the sub-par product to improve despite 30 years' evidence that this isn't likely to happen...

Yes, the world would be an awesome place if nobody ever cared enough to want things they love to change for the better and just walked away.

Oh, hang on..

No.

While it isn't exactly women's rights or racial equality in terms of scope or import, if people keep articulating their frustrations, who knows where it ends up? What if a GW employee reads someone's comments and thinks "actually, fair point, perhaps we could do more" or someone who is currently happily emptying their wallet into their local GW store every week stops and thinks "perhaps I could be a little more discerning in my purchases, because I'm not as happy with everything as I could be" and then starts spending less/elsewhere.

Things don't change by people giving up and walking away.

 Azreal13 wrote:

People would be a lot more forgiving of their shortcomings if GW were seen to be trying: beta testing, regular FAQs, communicating and working with the community to fix issues as they arise, these things would all go a long way to predispose me, and I'm sure many others, to be more positive to GW and the game.

I agree here.

I would suppose that whether they know how unbalanced the rules are or not, they simply don't care. They have certainly made mystifying decsions in the past, after all. It's as if they put the rules out as an afterthought because it's something they've always done, and it's part of their line, and it justifies putting out new kits; however, the general bloat, the way some units become practically mandatory for a strong list while others will never leave the shelf, makes me think that there's very little in the way of thorough testing and constructive criticism going on, more of a "yeah, that'll do" attitude.

People who are primarily interested in the painting/modelling side probably won't be as bothered by this - fair enough. But as someone who likes both that and the gaming side, it would be good to buy that (very expensive) army and be able to use it with a nice, elegant ruleset where you have a fighting chance whoever you pick and certain army books aren't regarded as "best" or "worst."

Writing good rules for a new edition costs the same as writing new rules for a crappy edition. They would lose nothing by making tighter rules and gain more customers from people with higher standards than "Feth it, good enough."

To the OP.

I think GW intentionally make broken rules.
Why do I think that?

Because of two main reasons.

1 - I've been playing GW games such as 40K and WHFB for over 20 years. By now, they should have perfected a gaming systems for one or both of the games. All the game designers will never admit that it must be in their gaming design protocol to make some stupid stuff so the game can be "broken" or they know that if they fix x and y the game would be better... but they don't. Their goal is to make FUN games and then the rules. If they have the option to make FUN and perfect rules.. or FUN and a bit broken rules... they would choose the fun and broken. Why do I think this, because of the number of edition and time spent on developing this game. Think about it....1980's to now... then can't get it right?

2. Profit. Every new edition they make money from old timer. I'll take myself as an example. If they perfected the game back in 80's, there would never be new books, just new update with art work and fluff, but the rules system would stays the same. Yes, new models and stuff... but no rules. That would means for people like me and many who have more than 2 or 3 editions of books in the basements, we wouldn't have spent 1,000 of dollars on new editions. Also, every new editions... it create new excitement to the hobby. If GW perfected the game back in the 80s I might have stop playing in the 90s because I am bored with the game.

So...to create a Perfect game is to make a fun games with room for improvement(always). This is how they keep players coming back for more. Trust me, if GW make a perfect rules...we all wouldn't be playing GW games after 5 years. GW would have to keep making new games every 5 years and no long term games like WH or 40K.

Think about games like Monopoly. It is a perfected gaming system for that game. We all play them once in a while but it couldn't be a hobby because it is stagnant. A Hobby must be fluid and ever changing so hobbits can keep enjoying the hobby.

IMHO anyway.

 Fezman wrote:
makes me think that there's very little in the way of thorough testing and constructive criticism going on, more of a "yeah, that'll do" attitude.

This is true. I don't remember the source, but IIRC GW's management openly believe that playtesting is just playing with your toys on company time and you shouldn't get paid to do it. Add this to a group of rule authors that believe that the rules are just a general framework for building your own game and players can fix any problems they encounter and poor quality rules are almost inevitable.

As of 7 years ago, Monopoly had sold 250m copies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
As of 7 years ago, Monopoly had sold 250m copies.

Big deal... you know how many GW products have been sold?

In my house we have one box of Monopoly....$20

GW products....$5,000 or more I don't even know.

IF GW perfected the game...I would have only spent maybe $500 to $1,000 and that is all. This $5,000 is still going and may never stop.

No, I don't know how many GW products have been sold, but I'd guess it's less than $5bn, which is the total monopoly revenue at $20 a box.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I don't know how many GW products have been sold, but I'd guess it's less than $5bn, which is the total monopoly revenue at $20 a box.

Monopoly is not a hobby that requires large amounts of time and energy like 40k does. Short of reducing 40k to Monopoly levels (lol), it is bound to never have the same appeal.

As for balancing, how does one balance a player who has 3 Baneblades vs a player who only wants to run Flyers? There's too much diversity in this game to balance it without taking some of the options out.

david choe wrote:
Why do I think this, because of the number of edition and time spent on developing this game. Think about it....1980's to now... then can't get it right?

Making a perfect game isn't easy, or something that happens just because you spend a lot of time on it. GW could spend another 50 years on the rules for 40k and they wouldn't have a perfect game unless they change their approach and make fixing the rules a priority. So the fact that they haven't fixed everything yet doesn't mean that they're deliberately sabotaging their own product.

That would means for people like me and many who have more than 2 or 3 editions of books in the basements, we wouldn't have spent 1,000 of dollars on new editions.

You haven't spend thousands of dollars on new editions, unless you're one of the very few hardcore collectors willing to buy every single thing GW publishes. The average customer spends about $2-300 on a new edition at most, $75ish for the main rulebook and $50ish each for the codex for the 1-2 armies they play. And that's at current prices, previous editions were cheaper. That's barely enough to reach $1000 in rules if you've been playing since the beginning. And if you've been playing that long you've probably spent way more money on models that don't have anything to do with new editions.

If GW perfected the game back in the 80s I might have stop playing in the 90s because I am bored with the game.

I think you're the minority here, for two reasons:

1) Good games don't disappear because their rules never change. Chess hasn't changed significantly in hundreds of years and yet people still play it.

2) A game like 40k doesn't depend on new rules to keep offering new things. Remember, the story is supposed to be important, and even if the core rules never change you can always create new missions, play against new opponents, etc. The ongoing story of your army and characters doesn't end just because you don't get a new rule for how to roll the dice.

Think about games like Monopoly. It is a perfected gaming system for that game. We all play them once in a while but it couldn't be a hobby because it is stagnant. A Hobby must be fluid and ever changing so hobbits can keep enjoying the hobby.

No, we rarely play Monopoly because it's a terrible game that drains all the fun out of your existence. And you're making a big mistake here by comparing board games for children to hobby games. Most people don't play games like Monopoly very often because there's nothing to get invested in. No fluff, no customizing your own force, and no real gameplay depth. The 10000000th time you play a game of Monopoly is just like the 10th time you play it. And that's fine, because those games are meant to be something you do to spend time with your kids or have an excuse to invite your friends over for beer. But that's not at all the case with a game like 40k, where there's just so much more to invest in and so much more return on investing a lot of time and money. Even if the rules never change and you never start a second army it still takes a long time to build a complete army, and then there's an almost endless number of stories to tell about your characters.

david choe wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
As of 7 years ago, Monopoly had sold 250m copies.

Big deal... you know how many GW products have been sold?

In my house we have one box of Monopoly....$20

GW products....$5,000 or more I don't even know.

IF GW perfected the game...I would have only spent maybe $500 to $1,000 and that is all. This $5,000 is still going and may never stop.

Well, I don't think the game will ever be 'finished' even if they really polished the rules. At most, I spend... $300 a year on rules, and I doubt it's even that(basically all the codex releases). The models is where the money is... Harlequins? There goes $500 in plastic. Blood Angels? $700. And so on.

I'm certain that when they finally get around to redoing Eldar, I'm going to blow a small fortune on models -- I miss them, but I'm not really willing to invest more energy on a faction with 6e rules, where almost all the infantry models are from two editions ago, and where there hasn't been a significant new release in a very long time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for balancing, how does one balance a player who has 3 Baneblades vs a player who only wants to run Flyers? There's too much diversity in this game to balance it without taking some of the options out.

Two things here:

1) You're taking for granted that removing options is a bad thing. In reality there's nothing wrong with imposing limits, as long as there's still enough depth within those limits for the game to be interesting. Why should an army of all Baneblades or all flyers be possible? In the "real" world you'd rarely, if ever, have an army consisting of three superheavy tanks with no support, and an all-flyer army is just an airstrike that has no story potential beyond "they dropped their bombs and returned home".

2) It's still possible to balance this situation. For example, the game might be about whether the flyers have the ability to kill the Baneblades fast enough to prevent them from scoring all of the objectives and winning without ever firing a shot at the flyers. This would probably be a boring game (which is why such absurd armies should not be possible), but you could still give each side a roughly 50% chance of winning.