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.

Mario wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Azrael13: do you really think that it is daft for me to think hat an author might want to do a Google search of the words "Space Marine" when thinking of using that in the title of the book, even just to see whether the term is being used by an existing company, and know what they may be in for, or are you just trying to be argumentative???

@MWHistorian: when i Google "Space Marine" i get a whole page of GW links and pictures of Adeptus Astartes artwork, right up until a Gears of War dude pops up at the bottom of the page...

wasn't Hicks a Colonial Marine???

That's probably the result of you googling (on your hardware) for space marines and they anticipating that you are looking for GW space marines (due to trackers/search history), somebody else who has no connection to this hobby would get something totally different, probably really generic, and not related to any of this.

was n't really convinced that the above would be quite true and was also kinda curious to see what a google search would turn up if done by someone (well, some computer) that had no connection to the hobby whatsoever. So I gave it a bash. Tried it out at work. Classroom computer in an all girls high school in Korea (where I work). Safe to say there wasn't gonna be history of 40k searches on that. Cleared history, cookies et al anyways. Did a google web search first of the term 'Space Marine'. It wasn't until the 5th page of results that a non-GW space marine result came up. One - and that was someone talking about 'Space Marine Colonial' (ie from the Aliens movies) after that the results went back to GW related. Next - an image search using the same term. I got bored after the first 15 pages of results but in those 15 pages there were only 3 non_GW Space Marine hits (pages 8, 9 & 13) and they were all images from deviant art of artists' idea of what a Space Marine looked like (all looked rather Imperial Guard-y, but nice work). This is not to say that GW should be allowed to totally own the term "Space Marine' and sue the bejesus out of anyone who dares to use those two words together but it certaibly shows how much the term and the GW concept of said term are now inextricably linked in the web/peoples/media/whatever's minds.


*edit* oh and OP's original question - Hells yes I'm still buying. Just got back into the hobby 6 months agao after a looong hiatus and loving it

I will only buy if i cant build from my bits. As a DA collector i gonna be buying some grav stuff as DA may be getting it.

Its not about morality, its about community. GW does everything they can to trash the netdy gamming community I love.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Its not about morality, its about community. GW does everything they can to trash the netdy gamming community I love.

To be fair, I don't think gw wants to 'destroy' the community, they seem to just want it to self govern, and look after itself. They'd seemingly rather put the game in the hands of their players and let them play the games they want to play. They have no interest in 'organised play'. This is not a 'bad' thing...

Now, as to how they're doing this; it's being done in a rather ham fisted way if you ask me, but not against the principle of letting the community organise itself...

GW tried "community", and it was a gakshow. Remember the GW forums?

GW tried tournaments, and it was another gakshow, because the FAQs never did what people wanted.

GW's "beautiful game" was being destroyed by mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging ingrates (in their view).

GW decided to let the community do it's own thing, and I'm much happier for the whole situation.

Even if that author did a search and found GW Space Marine stuff, 'Space Marine' is not (however much they want to think otherwise) a term owned by Games Workshop.

Deadnight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Its not about morality, its about community. GW does everything they can to trash the netdy gamming community I love.

To be fair, I don't think gw wants to 'destroy' the community, they seem to just want it to self govern, and look after itself. They'd seemingly rather put the game in the hands of their players and let them play the games they want to play. They have no interest in 'organised play'. This is not a 'bad' thing...

Now, as to how they're doing this; it's being done in a rather ham fisted way if you ask me, but not against the principle of letting the community organise itself...

I would say that trying to get websites/forums closed down through C&D letters would be classed as actively aggressive. This is well documented.

Believe there were also C&D letters sent to sites that featured unofficial images and discussion of Finecast before that went on sale.

If you spent a lot of time on various forums, as I did, there was actually something of an atmosphere-shift on some of them during that time. Some became ultra conservative, started using heavy-handed moderating, others started to distance themselves from discussing GW entirely. The whole thing was just really ugly and to some extent it's still going on, all this put on to people that really are just trying to discuss the hobby and pastime that they enjoy..

One coukd imagine it's different departments though. I'm sure jervis would have more respect for the community than gw legal...

Bear in mind as well-Online forums don't represent the entirety community though - clubs, societies and friends meeting in each other's houses. That's what gw sees as their community. Gw got burned online. They don't want to be a part of it. And if the community can chop change and modify, and play the game that they want to play, then let them do it. Gw probably don't want to impose an 'organised play' attitude on their players. At least, that seems like their thinking to me. How they've gone about doing this? Lol, different story!

And the internet is just a fad too!

While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

 Azreal13 wrote:
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.

 Azreal13 wrote:


I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.

So, we agree?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.

Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.

I bought my first space marine tac squad 3 weeks ago. The price of ~20 paunds is fair. You have transfer sheets inside and you can convert in evertyhign you wanna actually. However im forward looking to some good second hand deals, cause some models are way too damn expensive. I really want to buy them new and ansemble them on my own... but cash is cash.

Yep, most of the boxes of core troops for 40K aren't terrible, but if you wanted to run a Lascannon in that Tac Sqd of yours you're SOL.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.

So, we agree?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.

Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.

Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yep, most of the boxes of core troops for 40K aren't terrible, but if you wanted to run a Lascannon in that Tac Sqd of yours you're SOL.

From experience Lascanon it never lands a wound or it's almost always a save...

 JamesY wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.

So, we agree?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.

Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.

Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.

Merret is head of IP, he's not involved with games design.

 DalinCriid wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yep, most of the boxes of core troops for 40K aren't terrible, but if you wanted to run a Lascannon in that Tac Sqd of yours you're SOL.

From experience Lascanon it never lands a wound or it's almost always a save...

Not really my point, my point was that while they're not bad value, relatively, they do lack a lot of options, rather than any commentary on the merits of Lascannon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW tried "community", and it was a gakshow. Remember the GW forums?

I do, and I remember a lot of good discussion going on there. It was onlywhen people started to voice concerns that GW shut down the forums so they wouldn't have to listen to negativity.

GW tried tournaments, and it was another gakshow, because the FAQs never did what people wanted.

And that IMHO is GW's fault for not properly testing and balancing.

GW's "beautiful game" was being destroyed by mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging ingrates (in their view).

They probably do think this, it doesn't excuse the behavior though. Their "beautiful game" basically works only if the stars align, there's a full moon and you sacrifice exactly the right things in exactly the right order and speak the incantation in exactly the correct tone, by which I mean if you play with a small close-knit group that don't mind creating your own rules and interpreting things in a certain way.

GW decided to let the community do it's own thing, and I'm much happier for the whole situation.

Perhaps but as a result the community fractured into at least two and probably many more splinter groups that want different things and have to try and shoehorn terrible rules into accommodating them.

There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.

Nomeny wrote:
There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.

With all due respect that's not really it at all. People are frustrated at GW's lack of caring to make a good game, constantly charging high prices while reducing value (e.g. 5 guys in a box instead of 10, not giving all available options in a box) and general treating their customers as rubes and plebs who don't know any better and will spend money on anything GW. I have said many times that I would gladly play 40k again if GW didn't act like they were trying to take advantage of me every opportunity and if they made a game worth playing. As it stands I can't in any way, shape or form justify spending as much as GW asks for their product when the game (which would be my primary focus, not just painting figures) is so poor.

Nomeny wrote:
There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.

This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?

Azreal13 wrote:
Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.

'Creative integrity' versus a mortgage and putting kids through college? Some things are more important than toy soldiers, and a decent mid level job that pays well is worth putting up with a lot of crap. Gw is a hire and fire company- rocking the boat too much, or at all is more than frowned upon... And it's a niche industry. No telling where he'd get something similar...

In any case, bear in mind the fact that the studio is generally treated as the promotions department of a toy company. Creative freedom isn't really a thing. Deadlines and project briefs are. And as departments go, it doesn't have much clout. I very much doubt jervis gets called in to a lot of meetings beyond his limited remit. Most department heads are a few steps down the ladder from things like the site executive committee or the board that make the real decisions. You're given a job and you do it. Disagree? Well, there's the door, and the have a hundred people who will take your job for half the pay.

Accolade wrote:

This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?

And yet, he isright. Some gamers are extraordinarily negative, and there will never be any pleasing for them. Plus there is no one 40k community - everyone wants tsomething different, and lots of groups approach the game in lots of different ways. Denying this is intellectually dishonest, and is its own fallacy.

I'm sure people think they have legitimate concerns with 40k. I don't think they're legitimate though. Which is my point is that different communities have different opinions regarding 40k. I don't think of the current release schedule as 'high-speed recycling of rules materials,' or as 'game bloat' either. I like the expansion to include material like the Adeptus Mechanicus and Harlequins, the quick turn-around of codices so that they're mostly up-to-date with the game, and the increased enthusiasm that I've seen in my community.

So I feel like GW is making a good game, or at least one that's good enough for me and I've played quite a few of them (and continue to play a variety). I don't find their prices to be an obstacle, because I feel like I get a lot more value than the cost, and so as a fan I'm pretty pleased that GW is catering to people like me.

Which goes to prove that the 40K fan base must follow the infinite universe theory, no matter how odd the opinion about the game you can conceive, it must exist somewhere!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
While accepting your point that non-executive staff probably have a friendlier view towards the community, I'd say specifically in the case of Jervis, it would be quite easy to argue he may really dislike it, or at least parts of it.

I've met him, and he was an absolute gentleman. Very polite and friendly and enthusiastic about the hobby and our clubs approach to it. And keys say he dislikes part of the community - so what? I dislike large parts of the community. Gamers as individuals range from some pretty cool guys and girls to some utter morons. 'Gamers' as a brand have large elements that stink of smug self entitlement, as well as being fickle, toxic and unreasonable.

So, we agree?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I mean, look at his editorials, he seems to enjoy a lot of the aspects of 40K that are roundly criticised (all the randumb most prominently) and it appears that one can link the rise of that sort of approach with his tenure as head of the studio and custodianship of 40K without what now appears was the balancing influence of Rick et al.

As 40K is now ostensibly his baby, and a lot of people are vocal in their dislike for it, it isn't a leap to consider he may be a bit resentful.

Editorials? PR. where he has to tow the company line. White dwarf etc is a catalogue in order to sell models. And bear in mind - he is a famous face, but has very limited 'real' power. The design studio don't have that much creative freedom, just deadlines and dictates from management.

Well, that paints him either as a corporate puppet, who, unlike his peers, didn't value his creative integrity sufficiently that he needed to move on or that he fundamentally agrees with the direction he endorses.

Alan Merret is in control of 40k, and generally is the final word on everything that the design studio release, not Jervis.

Merret is head of IP, he's not involved with games design.

Alan has the final say in anything that comes out of the studio, games, models and everything else. If he says no, it has to be changed. I never said he was involved in the design process, just that he is in overall control.

@Deadight: I suppose there is a group that will never be happy, just as there is a group who would be happy even if GW sold the rule books at $500 every year. But I think this is a small group of people, and if they are a small group, then why are we talking about them? I feel the only reason this argument comes up is to try to say that those who have issues with 40k are the same group of people as the malcontents. And that idea is very mistaken.

 Accolade wrote:
@Deadight: I suppose there is a group that will never be happy, just as there is a group who would be happy even if GW sold the rule books at $500 every year. But I think this is a small group of people, and if they are a small group, then why are we talking about them? I feel the only reason this argument comes up is to try to say that those who have issues with 40k are the same group of people. And I think that idea is very mistaken.

I was more commenting on the fact that there is no one community - everyone wants something different...

Right, I agree that there is no one community. But why are we pointing out this one group of 40k malcontents other than to try to make a point that 40k fans who have issues with the game are unreasonable?

 Accolade wrote:
Right, I agree that there is no one community. But why are we pointing out this one group of 40k malcontents other than to try to make a point that 40k fans who have issues with the game are unreasonable?

You were the one who overreacted, and leapt to conclusions, calling 'straw man fallacy' on a poster who suggested that there is no one community, and thst elements of the community would complain over anything...

I made the point that he had a point.

And you've just backtracked and agreed to the first...

 Accolade wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
There's no community. There are, however, quite a few communities out there. Some of which, it sometimes seems, would complain if GW just sent them money every week for no reason.

This is a straw-man fallacy that does not represent the legitimate concerns people have with 40k. Unless you think that high-speed recycling of rules materials and game bloat are positive attributes of 40k?

Okay, lot of accusations there.

Look, I stand by what I said. The pointing out of this group of malcontents is an attempt to straw-man out those who have issues with 40k. Otherwise, why bring it up at all? Why not bring up the other fringe groups (so-called apologists, etc.)- why does this group get pointed out unless it's trying to make a point- that people's issues with 40k are frivolous.

I feel that there is no reason to add that identifier of "even those vehemently against 40k" onto the statement "there is no one group of 40k fans." It's no different than the white knight comments and does nothing other than to enchance the point

EDIT: I'm not trying to argue he didn't have a point in "there is no one community", but what I did have issues with was that last identifier as an attempt to marginalize those with concerns.

I'm going to point out that if you're arguing over how you are arguing, than the conversation is probably about done.

As always, there will be those that always have a critique of even the finest products, and those that will defend products or companies against any and all attacks. leave those people be, for they are merely playing a part.