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.

Here I thought you were asking for my advice on using warhammer to improve your sex life from the title.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Daemonkin wasn't chaos love, it was buy our new bloodthirster model. Fluff is cheap and crunch is minimal, with most of the work being copy/pasted. Put a hefty pricetag on it and it's win/win spend/spend.

That's a fairly accurate description. It's a damn shame too, it got a lot of people's hopes up.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Daemonkin wasn't chaos love, it was buy our new bloodthirster model. Fluff is cheap and crunch is minimal, with most of the work being copy/pasted. Put a hefty pricetag on it and it's win/win spend/spend.

I agree and disagree. Yes, the release schedule was probably prompted by the new Bloodthirster but they also removed the more aggravating parts of playing chaos, all the random tables, and then allowed players to actually join units of daemons with non daemons, also something that's been a bit of a gripe. I'm not saying that they've showered infinite presents on chaos or anything, but it does seem like a step in the right direction for them. Assuming they follow through and all the gods get a book with a new greater daemon, of course.

Experiment 626 wrote:
I think it's far more likely that the new Jetbike sprues were designed & cut well before any of the rules writing took place. Hence, if each sprue already contained all 3 weapon options, then the rules would thus be forced to allow players to represent their own units with every option available.

So the sculptors have free reign, adding an option that as far as I know Eldar Jetbikes have never had? Then management goes and greenlights the sculpt? Hardly. Someone directed the sculptor to add a scatter laser to the Jetbike sprue, most likely at the Design Studio's direction.

 Kain wrote:
Here I thought you were asking for my advice on using warhammer to improve your sex life from the title.

If 40k in it's current demented and palsied state is any indication, any advice gleaned would involve more d than anyone living could possibly handle.

 Kain wrote:
Here I thought you were asking for my advice on using warhammer to improve your sex life from the title.

oh dear, my wife may not appreciate that too much.

CKyle80 wrote:


It''s not just the Necron book though, it's the new layout, the combination of what were previously supplement rules with the base codex. the addition of new armies that people have been asking for such as harlies and admech, the new chaos book allows daemons and space marines to join the same units and removes randomness, and the increase in power actually seems to better reflect the fluff in the rules (except for the price of the WK, think they undercut that one by about 100 points). I feel like all this is a bit too much of a coincidence to say that GW just so happened to have it in the pipe.

Followed by dozens of examples and blunders. The factions like Ad Mech and Harlies could easily be chalked up to the company recycling old ideas for easy money, and likely has zero relevance on whatever internet presence was asking for them. We have nothing to indicate they're listening, because anything you may claim is an example of their changed ways, there's a dozen examples of them not listening. Coupled with their statements they do no market research nor care what their customers want, it paints a very clear picture.

And again, for the third time, I'm not blaming the players. GW is the one who took whatever information they got and created the product that we have, but let's not pretend that forums are a good source of intelligent and measured discourse resulting in constructive criticism. They are good places to judge what's bothering the community but an awful place to find solutions. I feel that it's more likely that GW is drawing information from store managers who are speaking with customers who play at GW stores.

Your original post did a pretty good job at trying to shift the blame onto the players. You're still trying to do it in a way, when the only thing you should be blaming is GW for their incompetence regardless of the players.

The forums, much to your surprise, are a great source of intelligent discourse and discussion. Certainly better than anywhere else online, and indeed even in person. It takes a little more work to filter through the gak posts, but its there, its plentiful, and its free. Don't pretend otherwise because of either your dislike of a certain opinion/point or view, or the gak posts that do appear. This forum is rife with free ideas and legwork done already for GW. The hobby section is nothing but a gold mine of inspiration and tips. The proposal section is home to a number of excellent fan projects and ideas. The tactics and army list boards to a fine job of hammering out what works and what doesn't.

There's no better place than a forum like this to find out what's wrong and how to fix it. Not all of them, or indeed even any of them may be the best course of action, but they're free ideas from customers and the solution probably lies in a combination or compromise of several popular or recurring themes. There's a reason many games host their own specific forums for just such input and feedback.

Again though, this is all speculation on my part, I'm just seeing a little bit of a pattern here wherein GW is trying, however imperfectly, to give us what we want. I'll leave the question of whether or not they've succeeded to other, more hyperbolic threads though as I suspect that we all already know what the answer to that would be.

Your problem is trying to find a pattern. Up until Necrons and now Eldar, people were convinced the new 6th/7th ed codices were trending to be more balanced externally (though lacking internally). GW doesn't do trends or patterns. They aren't trying to give us what we want, they're trying to make as much money as possible. Those two would normally be linked, but GW has admitted they do no research and don't care what the customers really want. They also believe the hobby is buying their models, not painting, not modelling, not gaming; buying.

I'll believe GW listens when official channels of communication are opened up, beta test teams created, and GW paying attention to organized events to see what's working and what isn't. Simple stuff really.

I think the OP might be on to something. I actually quite like the new Necron codex. It lacked in fluff which was disappointing, reanimation protocols lost it's unique feel I loved so much, and wraiths got a toughness buff they didn't need (I'll admit though that I got major shiny toy syndrome from that T5 until I realized how it ruined every single game, even ones that Necrons didn't play in). I can't say that I didn't really appreciate the internal balance. The whole codex got a really nice synergy that made me happy as a player. It may be coincidence, but when I read the book, I felt the same satisfaction I felt with the 5th edition. This is something I did not feel with the 6th edition codex.
In conclusion, I think GW might be listening from a purely Necron standpoint.

Edit for grammar.

 Blacksails wrote:
Your original post did a pretty good job at trying to shift the blame onto the players. You're still trying to do it in a way, when the only thing you should be blaming is GW for their incompetence regardless of the players.

I don't believe it did, I simply pointed out a lot of complaints and requests that it seems GW is addressing, however in a ham-fisted manner. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect that, this is a forum for discussion and all, so I went out of my to make sure you understood where I was coming from. If you continue to disagree with me that's fine too, I'm not trying to sway hearts and minds, only killing some time online. But don't tell me how I should think, that is not cool.

CKyle80 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Your original post did a pretty good job at trying to shift the blame onto the players. You're still trying to do it in a way, when the only thing you should be blaming is GW for their incompetence regardless of the players.

I don't believe it did, I simply pointed out a lot of complaints and requests that it seems GW is addressing, however in a ham-fisted manner. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect that, this is a forum for discussion and all, so I went out of my to make sure you understood where I was coming from. If you continue to disagree with me that's fine too, I'm not trying to sway hearts and minds, only killing some time online. But don't tell me how I should think, that is not cool.

Perhaps then your original post should be worded clearer to as not insinuate that players are somehow to blame for the issues with 40k. I appreciate that you've cleared that up now, but people reading that bolded statement in your OP may be mislead in what you're trying to get across.

I'm not telling you how you should think, I'm pointing out that the way you're wording things is unclear and still leads me to believe you're blaming the players rather than GW, even if only a little.

I hope that clears it up.

I thought it was pretty clear... GW listened to it's players, but they didn't do a very good job. I think that's what was supposed to be interpreted.
I hope this doesn't come across as offensive. It wasn't meant to.

This is what I understand of the OP.
"The players say what they want. GW listens halfheartedly and mess up what they think the players wanted."
Correct summation?

 Blacksails wrote:

CKyle80 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Your original post did a pretty good job at trying to shift the blame onto the players. You're still trying to do it in a way, when the only thing you should be blaming is GW for their incompetence regardless of the players.

I don't believe it did, I simply pointed out a lot of complaints and requests that it seems GW is addressing, however in a ham-fisted manner. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect that, this is a forum for discussion and all, so I went out of my to make sure you understood where I was coming from. If you continue to disagree with me that's fine too, I'm not trying to sway hearts and minds, only killing some time online. But don't tell me how I should think, that is not cool.

Perhaps then your original post should be worded clearer to as not insinuate that players are somehow to blame for the issues with 40k. I appreciate that you've cleared that up now, but people reading that bolded statement in your OP may be mislead in what you're trying to get across.

I'm not telling you how you should think, I'm pointing out that the way you're wording things is unclear and still leads me to believe you're blaming the players rather than GW, even if only a little.

I hope that clears it up.

Me writing "So let me start by saying that this is not a "blame the players" post" at literally the beginning of the post is not clear enough? Nor "Now, to be fair, it does seem a little ham-fisted to thrust this at the community." How about when I said "which is what a lot of people have been asking for even if they weren't thinking we'd get something along the lines of the new Eldar book" to convey that they had missed the mark?

I made sure not to use words complaint or whining or anything to describe what the player base was asking for. And then I said twice after that that I'm not blaming the player base. I seriously don't see how I could have been any clearer without explicitly bashing GW, which I didn't want to turn this post into because there's plenty of that going on already elsewhere (and it's pretty evident that people are determined to do it anyways).

Szeras wrote:
I thought it was pretty clear... GW listened to it's players, but they didn't do a very good job. I think that's what was supposed to be interpreted.

Which leads to two conclusions.

The first is that there still isn't compelling evidence they listened. Using the page layout in one codex, or some minor balance tweaks in a single codex does not make for a solid foundation to build a case on. What we do have are statements said under oath and in their financial reports about how they operate, and dozens of other codices and rulebooks that have been met with mixed reviews at the best of times. And that's not even touching on the pricing issue/value/entry point for the game.

The second is that even if we had enough evidence to solidly agree that GW did indeed listen and we still received this, it only shows how deep their incompetence runs, which leads to many other questions best left unanswered.

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive. It wasn't meant to.

Why would it be?

Questioning or having a differing opinion is not offensive and shouldn't be seen as such. Not by anyone worth talking to anyways.

 MWHistorian wrote:
This is what I understand of the OP.
"The players say what they want. GW listens halfheartedly and mess up what they think the players wanted."
Correct summation?

More or less accurate.

CKyle80 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
This is what I understand of the OP.
"The players say what they want. GW listens halfheartedly and mess up what they think the players wanted."
Correct summation?

More or less accurate.

Right on.
I still don't see enough evidence that GW actually listens at all and feel that the evidence supports the idea that GW listens to what makes money and what doesn't and don't care about why something sells or doesn't.

 MWHistorian wrote:

CKyle80 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
This is what I understand of the OP.
"The players say what they want. GW listens halfheartedly and mess up what they think the players wanted."
Correct summation?

More or less accurate.

Right on.
I still don't see enough evidence that GW actually listens at all and feel that the evidence supports the idea that GW listens to what makes money and what doesn't and don't care about why something sells or doesn't.

I won't completely disagree with that, maybe the problem is more that they're trying to somehow do both which creates a sort of two headed monster situation here. One who wants to give the players what they want and another who wants to give it to them for a profit.

*Edit*

MWH sorted my thoughts on and we're on the same page.

 Blacksails wrote:
*Edit*

MWH sorted my thoughts on and we're on the same page.

Cool, and I do apologize if I accidentally offended you or anyone, seriously not trying to start any fights, just putting my theory out there to the ether is all.

You're going to offend me if you don't stop apologizing!

Disagreements are fine. They're healthy in fact. gak happens, and the internet can be a poor place for potentially heated discussions without the subtleties of voice, tone, and body language.

Between you and MWH clearing it up, and I can't fault what you're driving at, but I disagree in every way that GW is even attempting to listen. I'd need several more data points to paint that picture before I'd believe it.

As I said earlier, beta teams and community reps from the company would go a loooooong way to getting myself, and several others I know, back on board. Personal and anecdotal certainly, but it is what it is.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're going to offend me if you don't stop apologizing!

Disagreements are fine. They're healthy in fact. gak happens, and the internet can be a poor place for potentially heated discussions without the subtleties of voice, tone, and body language.

Between you and MWH clearing it up, and I can't fault what you're driving at, but I disagree in every way that GW is even attempting to listen. I'd need several more data points to paint that picture before I'd believe it.

As I said earlier, beta teams and community reps from the company would go a loooooong way to getting myself, and several others I know, back on board. Personal and anecdotal certainly, but it is what it is.

I have good feelings about what Frontline Gaming is doing on the West Coast in trying to sort of standardize the game for large events and things are trending in that direction more and more it seems to me personally. I also have confidence that they'll put out some crowd sourced comp for the "dex that shall not be named" and that that will have a good chance to filter through the community to a certain degree. It is VERY unfortunate that the player base are the ones who have to take the reigns since GW has completely abdicated that position, but there it is.

And yes, I do believe the new Eldar 'dex needs to be fixed a little, not nerfed to the ground, but toned down for sure. Not to get off topic or anything, but just to present some non-fanboy cred if you will, lol.

All reasonable.

To be a little back on topic, I wished GW did peruse these boards, as I know of a few excellent examples of one or two individuals creating beautifully laid codices that were almost universally superior to GW's. It was free too, and GW could have taken a look, play tested with it, and implemented some of the changes.

Though I also can't help but feel that if and/or when I have a close knit group to play with, most people would be on board for home made changes anyways, which would open the door wide open for cool additions to the game. GW's loss, but I'd likely post it all online anyways in some vain attempt they'd read it.

 Blacksails wrote:
All reasonable.

To be a little back on topic, I wished GW did peruse these boards, as I know of a few excellent examples of one or two individuals creating beautifully laid codices that were almost universally superior to GW's. It was free too, and GW could have taken a look, play tested with it, and implemented some of the changes.

Though I also can't help but feel that if and/or when I have a close knit group to play with, most people would be on board for home made changes anyways, which would open the door wide open for cool additions to the game. GW's loss, but I'd likely post it all online anyways in some vain attempt they'd read it.

Even though me and my buddies enjoy tweaked maelstrom 40k missions, we're always down for a different style of play from time to time. Even if the game were perfectly balanced no matter how you sliced it, it gets boring playing the same thing over and over. We especially love playing Combat Patrol, which we even further tweaked to bring it more in line with 7th edition style. Though it would be nice for GW to take some of the money people spent on the game in order to improve the rules themselves, I feel like creating missions and imagining new ways to play is as much a part of the hobby for my group as the game itself.

No game will ever be perfectly balanced, let alone one that doesn't depend on mirror matches. Having good or even excellent balance would actually lend a lot to replay-ability of the game just due to the number of combinations you could use and still be a (mostly) fair fight.

But if I was getting bored of the game or wanted to shake it up, I'd probably play something else entirely, like a spaceship combat game, or RPG, or historical gaming.

Combat patrol is great spin off/variation of 40k though, agreed.

On the subject of GW perusing the forums, I just got an image in my head of a GW employee looking through here (surely someone at that company must like the game). He goes to work the next day and brings up all the good ideas and in return he gets a bunch of blank stares from scary men in suits. One pulls out a bolt pistol and mutters "heresy..."

Just maybe the Eldar book is as near perfect as it could be. People are upset because their fav book(s) didnt get the same treatment. Think about it for a moment. Do you really want them to rip out half of the special characters, nerf a whole bunch of models or just do a rush cut-n-paste job like daemonkin just so that all the books can be on par?

The issue is probably less abt the eldar book and more about how the other books didnt get the same treatment. Sure a couple o units might be mispriced ... overall it sound like a great book.

Look at the DE version of "decurion"... it requires one of each formation. No one will field that. They learnt from that and we got a much improved version starting from Necrons.

I'd agree with that, but that's always the problem isn't it? Some books are done well and some aren't. I'd say jeremy vetock is going to be the new matt ward if this continues.

People ask for faster updates, because their armies suck and GW knows not external or internal balance. GW speeds up its book making, by giving people bland or bad updates or cuting stuff out of a codex and selling it as something bad. People get angry that army books are mono build even more, and because of the mono builds they buy fewer different models. Behold GW adds decurion style, which IMO are a copy of warmachines theme armies, the problem for people is that two of of three such armies are already realy powerful, so the updates for necron and eldar seem unfair to people not playing those factions. I can asure people that in a few years there is going to be a ton of new dex and they will be just as bad as the harli ones.

IMO what would be best for players would be a dex that lets people play 2-3 different armies for the same faction. Then the number of dud models would be much lower, armies would get boring a lot slower, heck even people who already own 1500pts may buy more to try this other way to play their faction. Right now if your army is made out of 4-5 types of models, then the only expending is buying a knight or ally. And It realy sucks, if you know that adding ally and a knight does not make your army good.

But I guess GW just wants people to buy a 1500 army every 2-3 months.

 Desubot wrote:
The only players they listen to are the GW inhouse players.

aka the writers

and they dont play like everyone else.

They never have, either. And that's the problem. They design a game based around how they play, which is the deviation not the norm and expect everyone else to play the same way, yet they never actually state what that way is (apart from hints indicating that it's generally terrible play). Even 20 years ago they would talk about that stuff in White Dwarf battle reports.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
The only players they listen to are the GW inhouse players.

aka the writers

and they dont play like everyone else.

They never have, either. And that's the problem. They design a game based around how they play, which is the deviation not the norm and expect everyone else to play the same way, yet they never actually state what that way is (apart from hints indicating that it's generally terrible play). Even 20 years ago they would talk about that stuff in White Dwarf battle reports.

I think looking at the battles in the 3rd edition rulebook gives a good indication.

The marines pretty much curb stomped the eldar. Neither side took many tanks (one vyper?), and the tactics were just god awful. I remember deciding to play eldar after that since I assumed marines must be overpowered, and I didn't want to be that guy.