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.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I love GW games, and love their product despite them never necessarily treating me well as a consumer, but in terms of their rules writing ability, they are just horrid.

Why doesn't GW hand the rules portion over to FFG and focus on the models? FFG has proven that they can do rules well, and then GW can focus on being a model company like they've apparently always wanted.

Benandorf wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I love GW games, and love their product despite them never necessarily treating me well as a consumer, but in terms of their rules writing ability, they are just horrid.

Why doesn't GW hand the rules portion over to FFG and focus on the models? FFG has proven that they can do rules well, and then GW can focus on being a model company like they've apparently always wanted.

Because that's far to close to a logical move for GW to consider it.

Because they want to maintain control. You can't tweak the rules to boost model sales if you don't control the rules.

And if, God forbid, an excellent, balanced set of rules came out, we'd be locked in stasis. People would be happy with the rules, and be in no rush to buy the next broken book, Codex hop, etc...

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
And if, God forbid, an excellent, balanced set of rules came out, we'd be locked in stasis. People would be happy with the rules, and be in no rush to buy the next broken book, Codex hop, etc...

Indeed. We could spent all our money on minis instead

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
And if, God forbid, an excellent, balanced set of rules came out, we'd be locked in stasis. People would be happy with the rules, and be in no rush to buy the next broken book, Codex hop, etc...

All they would do is add more units/options and people would buy the new book. It's simple.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Benandorf wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I love GW games, and love their product despite them never necessarily treating me well as a consumer, but in terms of their rules writing ability, they are just horrid.

Why doesn't GW hand the rules portion over to FFG and focus on the models? FFG has proven that they can do rules well, and then GW can focus on being a model company like they've apparently always wanted.

Because that's far to close to a logical move for GW to consider it.

They could do the rules in house, the problem isn't that they are incapable (IMO at least) it's that they don't give a damn. Things like poor wordings that make it from one edition to the next or erratas that raise just as many issues as they solved.... to me those are signs of not caring more than lack of capability.

well FFG did the rules doe Dust and that went well...

 juraigamer wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
And if, God forbid, an excellent, balanced set of rules came out, we'd be locked in stasis. People would be happy with the rules, and be in no rush to buy the next broken book, Codex hop, etc...

All they would do is add more units/options and people would buy the new book. It's simple.

Yeah, God forbid they produced something that had actual value as opposed to scheming people out of money with garbage years recycled on a bi-yearly basis. That sure hasn't had an detrimental impact on sales...

If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

Yeah, like the Ghorgon/Cygor kit for Beastmen!

 streamdragon wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

Yeah, like the Ghorgon/Cygor kit for Beastmen!

It's telling that it took ages for that kit to come out.

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

The Slaughterbrute, Treeman, Coven Throne, Thundertusk, Troglodon, & Kharibdyss would like to have a word with you.

 silent25 wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

The Slaughterbrute, Treeman, Coven Throne, Thundertusk, Troglodon, & Kharibdyss would like to have a word with you.

Maybe that actually a part of the answer as to why WFB might be changing.

Large 40k kits are going off like a frog in a sock and GW would be raking in alot of easy cash from them. If WFB large kits arnt doing anywhere close to those numbers then the 'easy cash' just isnt there.

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

Son, GW has been doing this for all their kits since the early 90s. I don't know why this is news to anyone.

 Breotan wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

Son, GW has been doing this for all their kits since the early 90s. I don't know why this is news to anyone.

I'd argue it's become more blatant over the last few years, although maybe more so with 40K

Weren't the 40k Ork new releases Flash Gitz and the *Orkanaut, neither of which are considered all that amazing?

 streamdragon wrote:
Weren't the 40k Ork new releases Flash Gitz and the *Orkanaut, neither of which are considered all that amazing?

It is hit & miss. Sometimes the new units are gross (Centurions, Riptide), sometimes they are powerful but not totally op (Knights), sometimes they totally blow (Tau and Dark Angels flyers).

There is a trend though that very large 'flagship models' are usually very strong.

 Breotan wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
If there's a clear GW trend over the last 3 years, it's using the rules (or even lack of rules) to sell big plastic kits. They will want to keep ownership of the rules to maintain the link between rules and sales.

Son, GW has been doing this for all their kits since the early 90s. I don't know why this is news to anyone.

Yes, but it's accelerated massively over recent years. We've heard from a number of ex-GW guys (inc. Rick Priestly, and you don't get much bigger) that a reason they left was due to the sales team holding sway over the design guys.

I've no doubt at all that if the rules authors were allowed to create a better semblance of rule balance, improve the mechanics etc, they could do so. I have no doubt that the creative types within the company have got potential to create things that would raise the bar in the industry (as they did in the 90's in fact). But, the point is that in both of these cases they are shackled. If the 90's was an 'accountants nightmare' (as it's been described) of too many games, too many off-the-wall releases, then surely the last decade has swung back completely in the opposite direction.

Do you have a link to such Priestly quites? Not doubting you, but would be interested to read it.

The most famous quote

Rick Priestley wrote: Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!

From this interview..

http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/rick-priestley-interview-from-realms-of.html

 streamdragon wrote:
Weren't the 40k Ork new releases Flash Gitz and the *Orkanaut, neither of which are considered all that amazing?

Huh? The Flash Gitz models are pretty awesome and the changes in the rules made them better and cheaper to a point where they actually became a viable option and not a completely overcosted points dump.

As for the orkanaut? Well, it depends. I find it's design a little bit too boxy and too... i don't know? clean? friendly? chibbi? Forge's Megadread looks so much more rust-corroded, rag-tag welded-on ork-style assembly while this thing looks too pre-planned and too comical. Didn't look into the rules, as I never wanted one of these.

The discussion of whether GW tailor the rules for new models to make them sell better comes up frequently. I think the evidence points to GW just being bad at writing rules rather than intentionally doing it to sell models as there's lots of examples of new models having crappy rules as well.

I never understood people. You are not forced to buy the models you like them but think they are over priced way the pros cons and buy or don't. There is nothing to complain about since you not forced to do anything. If I sell rocks that keep away tigers and people buy them then good if not then thats my problem if you like the tiger rock get it if not don't and move on.

Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

which is my point who cares you like them get them if not then don't who cares if you keep playing no love lost. GW makes rules they like and again your not obligated to buy them. So again a pointless topic, like them or not they are what they are.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

which is my point who cares you like them get them if not then don't who cares if you keep playing no love lost. GW makes rules they like and again your not obligated to buy them. So again a pointless topic, like them or not they are what they are.

I feel like you've still missed the point.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

which is my point who cares you like them get them if not then don't who cares if you keep playing no love lost. GW makes rules they like and again your not obligated to buy them. So again a pointless topic, like them or not they are what they are.

OUR point is that we liked the game and would like to see it done properly and not as an adjunct to selling toys.

It's clear you don't like GW games. At which point, I do have to ask why you're trolling on a forum DEDICATED to GW games. Perhaps YOUR time might be better spent on other forums rather than here complaining that we like GW games but don't like the direction they're going right now.

 Vulcan wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

which is my point who cares you like them get them if not then don't who cares if you keep playing no love lost. GW makes rules they like and again your not obligated to buy them. So again a pointless topic, like them or not they are what they are.

OUR point is that we liked the game and would like to see it done properly and not as an adjunct to selling toys.

It's clear you don't like GW games. At which point, I do have to ask why you're trolling on a forum DEDICATED to GW games. Perhaps YOUR time might be better spent on other forums rather than here complaining that we like GW games but don't like the direction they're going right now.

To be fair I don't think that was his point at all...

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Clearly you don't understand people, as the discussion is not if people buy things or not, but whether GW tailor rules to encourage said behaviour.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware we're not obligated to buy anything, but I guess it never hurts to have someone bumbling around stating the blindingly obvious.

which is my point who cares you like them get them if not then don't who cares if you keep playing no love lost. GW makes rules they like and again your not obligated to buy them. So again a pointless topic, like them or not they are what they are.

You're terribly one note aren't you?

GW doesn't make "the rules they like" they make "rules that should sell and support the sale of models so they don't make no money and go out of business." At least, one assumes that's what they're trying to do on account of that's their business model.

So, to answer your question "who cares if we like them or not?"

It's GW!!