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 the web deal exclusive ones are the worst, it's literally pay to win you buy two assault squads and get a datasheet that lets you assault after deep striking.

There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want". Worse still, there is some: "GW can never get better because they *insert grudge*".

Prices are bad, 40k is a mess and AoS did not launch well.

If 40k 8th is bad, I'm out. The point is that they are working on the problem though.

AoS is currently doing well and growing, because GW took note and changed what needed changing.

GW is not going in the direction you (or I) want; they are going in the direction that suits them and they have every right to. I the new direction does not suit you then it's up to you to change, not GW. Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want". Worse still, there is some: "GW can never get better because they *insert grudge*".

Prices are bad, 40k is a mess and AoS did not launch well.

If 40k 8th is bad, I'm out. The point is that they are working on the problem though.

AoS is currently doing well and growing, because GW took note and changed what needed changing.

GW is not going in the direction you (or I) want; they are going in the direction that suits them and they have every right to. I the new direction does not suit you then it's up to you to change, not GW. Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

"Get better" is subjective. So everyone is going to judge it by their own standards. For myself, GW hasn't gotten noticeably better. Warhammer is still dead. Their new models continue to get bigger and sillier (and more difficult to transport). The current 40K rules aren't enjoyable enough to play for me to pay the steep entry cost. If nothing they "improve" affects me, then naturally I won't consider it an improvement.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want".

I think you missed the mark here. It's not "take my codex the way I want" it's "fix the bloody obvious balance issues" and "make my army not suck so I have a chance of winning a game without needing to get my opponent's to handicap themselves first".

Whether GW have improved or not is subjective because different people have different criteria, if someone's gripe was prices then they're going to have the same gripe now as they had before. Whether the rules for 40k are fethed or not I don't think is subjective, of course they're fethed, the only subjective part is how much you care.

I actually think that the prices are pretty reasonable... If, like me, you play Space Marines. You can get most of what you want in their various Box Sets that are coming out, giving incredibly good deals on models. (Calth and Prospero both cost roughly half the MSRB of their non-box-set counterparts, for example.)

I love the Deathwatch kits. I loved the Calth kits when they came out. The Prospero kits look really promising, too.

Is there rules bloat? Well... Yeah, sure, but at least at my LGS I've never considered that to be a problem. The owner comes up with silly, fun, fluffy campaigns. (Every tax season he comes up with rules that let us steal or remove parts of our opponents army, just for giggles.) Nobody plays to WAAC. I can regularly break out my Sisters of Battle or my Orks and still have a reasonable chance of winning, in part because I'm pretty good at the game but also because I don't have to worry about someone bringing whatever the most-powerful-possible-list of the day is.


40k has never, ever, ever been a competitively balanced army. I started playing in early 5th edition, and I've heard stories from 4th and 3rd that make it pretty clear that things weren't different before then. Blood Angels came out and trounced everyone. Then Space Wolves came out and trounced them. Then Dark Eldar was the best thing ever. (Remember when DARK FRIKKIN ELDAR was the best thing ever? It happened.) Then Grey Knights became completely unstoppable. 6th Edition rolled around, and Chaos Space Marines were briefly on top of the dogpile, along with Necrons. Then there was TauDar. Then there was... Crap, I don't even remember. Some other BS, I'm sure. Tau seems to still be on top.


The point is that, yes there's bloat now, but there's always been bloat. Having more units, more models, and more fun things to try out can't seem like a bad thing to me. I liked it when I got to fight Mechanicus for the first time. I enjoyed fighting Genestealer cults and Deathwatch. I'm looking forward to seeing Custodes on the board.

 DarkBlack wrote:
GW is not going in the direction you (or I) want; they are going in the direction that suits them and they have every right to. I the new direction does not suit you then it's up to you to change, not GW. Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

I did, and so did my usual gaming buddies.

That doesn't mean we don't hold out hope that GW will move to form of decision making on prices, rules and models that we agree with and want to engage with. They have a great IP.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want".

I think you missed the mark here. It's not "take my codex the way I want" it's "fix the bloody obvious balance issues" and "make my army not suck so I have a chance of winning a game without needing to get my opponent's to handicap themselves first".

Whether GW have improved or not is subjective because different people have different criteria, if someone's gripe was prices then they're going to have the same gripe now as they had before. Whether the rules for 40k are fethed or not I don't think is subjective, of course they're fethed, the only subjective part is how much you care.

No. Weather GW suits you or not is subjective. An organization can get better even if they have not addresses the issues that bother any particular person.

Waaaghpower wrote:
40k has never, ever, ever been a competitively balanced army.

The problem is 40k sells itself as a game that can be played competitively.

It has points values. It has victory conditions. It has a winner and a loser.

If there was a warning on the box "WARNING: This game is meant to be a joke and is completely unbalanced" then you'd have less complaints.... because many people wouldn't buy it in the first place

The problem is, unless someone tells you upfront right at the beginning that 40k is an unbalanced mess, your average gamer will be hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours investment deep in the game before they figure it out themselves. It's not like a video game where you can play it for a few hours before figuring out that it's junk and the reason you're losing isn't because you suck and need to improve but rather because you chose a crap army that GW randomly decided was going to be Eldar's punching bag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want".

I think you missed the mark here. It's not "take my codex the way I want" it's "fix the bloody obvious balance issues" and "make my army not suck so I have a chance of winning a game without needing to get my opponent's to handicap themselves first".

Whether GW have improved or not is subjective because different people have different criteria, if someone's gripe was prices then they're going to have the same gripe now as they had before. Whether the rules for 40k are fethed or not I don't think is subjective, of course they're fethed, the only subjective part is how much you care.

No. Weather GW suits you or not is subjective. An organization can get better even if they have not addresses the issues that bother any particular person.

I disagree. If someone's core issues aren't addressed then any improvement the company makes is superficial while other issues have actually gotten worse.

Prices (especially regional prices) are worse than they ever have been, so if that's your criteria you can easily make the argument GW has gotten worse. WHFB is dead, so if you were a fan of WHFB you can make the argument GW has gotten worse for killing their longest running IP.

Waaaghpower wrote:
40k has never, ever, ever been a competitively balanced army. I started playing in early 5th edition, and I've heard stories from 4th and 3rd that make it pretty clear that things weren't different before then. Blood Angels came out and trounced everyone. Then Space Wolves came out and trounced them. Then Dark Eldar was the best thing ever. (Remember when DARK FRIKKIN ELDAR was the best thing ever? It happened.) Then Grey Knights became completely unstoppable. 6th Edition rolled around, and Chaos Space Marines were briefly on top of the dogpile, along with Necrons. Then there was TauDar. Then there was... Crap, I don't even remember. Some other BS, I'm sure. Tau seems to still be on top.

Unless the Dark Eldar thing happened in 4th edition, no, it didn't happen at least on a global level. It might have happened at someones meta level.

However, as bad as things were in 3rd and 4th edition, they weren't as astoundingly bad as they are now. Blood Angels beat everyone, but not to the point where it wasn't worth unpacking your stuff. Right now, balance has gotten so bad where that is now a reality.

 -Loki- wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
40k has never, ever, ever been a competitively balanced army. I started playing in early 5th edition, and I've heard stories from 4th and 3rd that make it pretty clear that things weren't different before then. Blood Angels came out and trounced everyone. Then Space Wolves came out and trounced them. Then Dark Eldar was the best thing ever. (Remember when DARK FRIKKIN ELDAR was the best thing ever? It happened.) Then Grey Knights became completely unstoppable. 6th Edition rolled around, and Chaos Space Marines were briefly on top of the dogpile, along with Necrons. Then there was TauDar. Then there was... Crap, I don't even remember. Some other BS, I'm sure. Tau seems to still be on top.

Unless the Dark Eldar thing happened in 4th edition, no, it didn't happen at least on a global level. It might have happened at someones meta level.

However, as bad as things were in 3rd and 4th edition, they weren't as astoundingly bad as they are now. Blood Angels beat everyone, but not to the point where it wasn't worth unpacking your stuff. Right now, balance has gotten so bad where that is now a reality.

Maybe it was just my local meta with Dark Eldar, I didn't spend as much time on the internet talking tactics back then as I do now.
And... I can't say that I believe you about 3rd and 4th, from what I've read. Stories about Rhino Rushes that absolutely demolish opposition with total impunity (So much that they had to change how transports work in 5th to rebalance them,) or Space Wolf Guard with unstoppable amounts of heavy weapon firepower are pretty easy to find and read about. I don't think I ever won a game against Blood Angels with my Orks. (I did tie, once, but it was literally by having so many models that he couldn't kill enough to remove me from the objectives, I could not damage him in any significant way.)

And maybe it's the local meta at my shop, (Like I said, we're not uber-competetive,) but even looking at lists online, I don't see anything that seems totally unbeatable unless you have a completely counterpicked army and refuse/lack the models to use formations. Even then, it's mostly just a couple armies that are too strong, (From what I see, mostly Tau,) and a couple armies that really aren't usable, (From what I can see, mostly Tyranids,) and everyone else is doing fine in the middle. (Not perfectly balanced, but able to play without a guaranteed loss.)

The rebalance didn't happen in 5th, it happened in 3rd via Chapter Approved, where they added the rules for assaulting from transports and access points.

I didn't have too many issues with Rhino Rush, though the Chapter Approved article certainly helped. Space Wolves with laods of heavy weapons are the same problem of any army with loads of them (Iron Warriors from the 3.5ed codex were the same). If you have enough terrain, they're not that bad. If you have too little, they blow you off the table. The solution was adding more terrain to the game.

Both of those were both not as bad as you're making out, nor as bad as 40k has gotten now. Making a few more bits of terrain isn't the same as 90% of the Tyranid codex being unfeildable garbage.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want". Worse still, there is some: "GW can never get better because they *insert grudge*".

Prices are bad, 40k is a mess and AoS did not launch well.

If 40k 8th is bad, I'm out. The point is that they are working on the problem though.

AoS is currently doing well and growing, because GW took note and changed what needed changing.

GW is not going in the direction you (or I) want; they are going in the direction that suits them and they have every right to. I the new direction does not suit you then it's up to you to change, not GW. Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

Yeah GW going their own way sure did work out well over the last decade didn't it, oh wait no ignoring customers has them circling the drain.

We've zero proof yet AoS is doing better and won't till icv2 and the half year report comes out.

And we've seen them work the problem with the ghb and that's still an unbalanced rule set so excuse us if we don't hold our breath for 8th to be a panacea for all 40k's ills.

hobojebus wrote:


Yeah GW going their own way sure did work out well over the last decade didn't it, oh wait no ignoring customers has them circling the drain.

We've zero proof yet AoS is doing better and won't till icv2 and the half year report comes out.

And we've seen them work the problem with the ghb and that's still an unbalanced rule set so excuse us if we don't hold our breath for 8th to be a panacea for all 40k's ills.

We're not talking about the last decade, the point of the thread is that they are moving away from that.

I said AoS is doing better after they made changes to AoS ("GW took note..."), I based that on an increase in players in clubs that had not even considered it before GHB and on interest on social media,

The balance in GHB is not perfect, but it is adequate for what AoS is intended to be.

If someone thinks that differences in power between codices did not exist in 3rd, is deluded.

If someone thinks that the extent of the difference in power between codices in 3rd is the same as in 5th, and in 5th is the same as in 7th, is severely deluded.

 DarkBlack wrote:
There seems to be a lot of "NO!!! GW is terrible and can do nothing right till they: give my codex x/go in the direction I want".

If you are really into your 40k, you usually have a couple armies on the go at least.
What becomes an irritant is when say your second army has such a difference in power level they collect dust.
It isn't just that my wolfy-wolf army is not wolfy enough, it is important they can last 3 turns or so against Eldar or Tau (or insert an codex flavor of the month.

Worse still, there is some: "GW can never get better because they *insert grudge*".

Some of us have long histories with GW.
They have done fantastic things in the past, there is a tendency to ask why they do not keep track of the good and bad "lessons learned"?
Usually, people have so much invested in the game and can see many easy ways to improve the current state of affairs.
It would not be a "grudge" more like, "you got it right before, what is wrong now?".

Prices are bad, 40k is a mess and AoS did not launch well.

Prices had been prohibitive for new players and people like me who have been around a bit would REALLY like to see new players.
40k codex/rules are clunky and lack balance.
The rules can afford to streamline a bit (remove a few and less random).
AoS: I have no special interest in this: rarely played fantasy, but I can see the rage of throwing out the old system and messing up most people's fantasy armies.
I hear the rules are getting tweaked, so it may work out in the end, rules-wise.

If 40k 8th is bad, I'm out. The point is that they are working on the problem though.

I think the proper words are "they are working on 8th" not necessarily "the problem".
Rules updates are usually meant to make possibly a newer more interesting game or a multitude of tweaks.
BUT it has been demonstrated in some revisions it is change for change sake to promote sales of the Big Rule Book and/or push sales on a multitude of models like for this revision, playing more Apocalypse style games rather than a squad based game.

AoS is currently doing well and growing, because GW took note and changed what needed changing.

Of course it would grow, it killed most of everything and started over: it can only improve.
The real kicker is if we could compare the sales of the old fantasy game at a BRB update vs the new AoS.

GW is not going in the direction you (or I) want; they are going in the direction that suits them and they have every right to. I the new direction does not suit you then it's up to you to change, not GW.

"Voice of customer" is usually a driving force for any company.
It is important to try to find a way to go in the direction that suits them AND their customers.
Failing to heed that is foolish for a company and it is good that their customer base is willing to express their wants and preferences.
My prior "mature" response to them doing things their way was to not buy their stuff.

Insisting that anyone does things MY WAY is childish and engaging with that mentality is fruitless.

It is my money to spend.
They supposedly aim their product at hobbyists like myself.
GW was not producing things "my way" so I stopped buying.
Now they changed and are making a few things "my way" and I am buying again.
I see nothing childish about this and GW is "engaging" with their customer base who turned away a bit more.
I see nothing fruitless with the olive branch they are extending here.
I fully expect to see their annual financial report to reflect this.

Talizvar; I agree, but you're not the kind of person I was referring to.

Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

 DarkBlack wrote:
Talizvar; I agree, but you're not the kind of person I was referring to.

Good to know there was a target for those notes.
I would just expect that a very emotional tirade against GW would be as well considered as with any other company: raging customers with no logical basis for their complaint = ignore.
I would focus on pointing out how helpful criticism can be fielded with the hopes for change.
I have found through the years the #1 effective means for change is hitting them in the pocket book: give them no money and they correct their issues rather quickly or die as a company.
Usually accompanied by some communication to this affect and some suggestions on how they can get your money in the future.

I rather fear for GW, every time they get it really wrong some of us eventually say to ourselves "aw, forget it" and go hunt down another game.
We are spoiled for choice lately and many players may not come back to them.

I am rather invested in this game way too much and have trouble fighting my feelings of entitlement.
Anyone who has played their games for a decade or two could easily point to how the "golden years" worked and how the last few years had not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:
Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Ouch!
I hate to admit, that is rather correct.

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

 DarkBlack wrote:

Spoiler:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

The salt mines run deep, indeed. All joking aside, asking "can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" is stupid, because short of giving away 40k minis for free, some people will NEVER change their minds, no matter how much "good" GW does.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Spoiler:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

The salt mines run deep, indeed. All joking aside, asking "can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" is stupid, because short of giving away 40k minis for free, some people will NEVER change their minds, no matter how much "good" GW does.

To be fair (I just went through this entire thread), the people who refuse to be pleased are a minority and there are plenty of people calling them out. There will never be unanimous agreement, but the consensus seems to agree with the OP.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Spoiler:

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

I've read the thread too you know.

Obviously there are people that do not consider GW to have gotten better at this point. And mostly, those who aren't singing GW's praises for introducing a few discount boxes etc. are acknowledging that some stuff has gotten better but simply points out that these improvements matters little as long as the main issues remain unfixed.

It's disingenuous to claim that people say GW can never get better/good no matter what they do.

I personally for example, have little hope that GW will ever turn around 40K into a rules system I'd want to play again. If they do though, I'll play it of course. Even if i'll probably never forgive GW for the AoS debacle.

 Zywus wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Spoiler:

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

I've read the thread too you know.

Obviously there are people that do not consider GW to have gotten better at this point. And mostly, those who aren't singing GW's praises for introducing a few discount boxes etc. are acknowledging that some stuff has gotten better but simply points out that these improvements matters little as long as the main issues remain unfixed.

It's disingenuous to claim that people say GW can never get better/good [b]no matter what they do. [/b]

I personally for example, have little hope that GW will ever turn around 40K into a rules system I'd want to play again. If they do though, I'll play it of course. Even if i'll probably never forgive GW for the AoS debacle.

Is it? I've seen PLENTY of posts on this site from users claiming that 6th was the death of 40k, then 7th, and from what I can gather/read from other users, this happened even back with 4th.

Is it that disingenuous to imagine some people are so angry at a company they'd never give them a second chance (not you, specifically)?

It's been stated that prices will never be reduced in Australia and New Zealand, instead they have increased. It's wonderful some of you think this is an improvement, but here it still just means people look at the price and say the hobby is too expensive.
You can try and justify it with all the crap you can come up with, it makes zero difference when you can't play the game because you have no opponents.

I thought we'd covered that any of us discussing prices that don't have an Australian or NZ flag were talking about our price market. In which GW has generally gotten cheaper and more accessible.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Zywus wrote:Perhaps because you were referring to a straw man?

Spoiler:

Trondheim wrote:No they have not gotten any better, considering the insane prices, the less than stellar rules and their whole skulls on skulls on wolfes with skulls policy

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Well they killed WHFB just over a year ago, so it's going to take more than 1 year of incremental improvements before they ever see my money again.
Add to that...

- Prices are higher than ever, especially if, like me, you live in Australia (and say a prayer for those poor bastards in New Zealand).

- 40k is still a bloated mess of a game.

- They've reintroduced board games, but they still haven't brought back any specialist games which to me added a lot of flavour to GW's range back in the day. (Necromunda, GorkaMorka, Epic, Mordheim).

So GW have improved, just not in any way that I find significant.

Traditio wrote:The price of the new Kharne the Betrayer indicates that they aren't doing all that much better.

Davor wrote:

GW has finally made its presence known on social media in the last year, making them feel like a far less bitter, backwards, and impersonal company. The recent announcement of plastic sisters on facebook is a good example of modern marketing from GW.

This is where the smoke and mirrors come in. The illusion of change. So now that GW embraces social media it shows GW has changed. A Mugger can use social media. Does that make them a good person after stealing your money?

Mitochondria wrote:They are like the cheating girlfriend who only five dudes this last weekend, instead of the eight she the weekend before.

Better in a very subjective and narrow point of view.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Prices still absurdly high for little plastic men, so no, they haven't gotten any better.

Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:They kicked FFG to the curb and cut me off from more Conquest. Bugger them.

RoninXiC wrote:FaQ are nice, yeah. Like 5 years late.
BUT! They do not fix the messy, faulty, bloated and still inbalanced ruleset. They're making it even worse by adding factions after factions after factions...

NOTHING changed.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:When your scraping the underside of a barrel anything will "look" better...

Untill GW produces one edition with all codices acceptably balanced and non interpretive rules all they've accomplished is a fluke.

Davor wrote:

 Gitkikka wrote:
Sure, I guess. They still have years of ill-will to overcome, though.

This. So much this.

Draccan wrote:
I find GW to be severely lacking...

...For a decade they have done everything to bleed their customers dry and they even bragged about it in their yearly financial reports...

I just can't get genuinely excited about GW at the moment.
And I don't agree with their business decisions...

...GW could have had a unique position and a great relationship with their customers. Instead the went the short-sighted route of raised prices and min-max all releases for years on years... to the degree their core games suffered. One can question if 40k is a game anymore, or a parade and display of miniatures.

Ventus wrote:Why would I agree that GW is better? Forgetting the terrible mess of 40K and its rules for a moment (which have yet to be fixed - awaiting the rumoured 8th ed but will that actually fix the game?) and just looking at the codex for my army what do I see? ...

Mitochondria wrote:A gak sandwich without a side of pubes...is still a gak sandwich.

I've read the thread too you know.

Obviously there are people that do not consider GW to have gotten better at this point. And mostly, those who aren't singing GW's praises for introducing a few discount boxes etc. are acknowledging that some stuff has gotten better but simply points out that these improvements matters little as long as the main issues remain unfixed.

It's disingenuous to claim that people say GW can never get better/good [b]no matter what they do. [/b]

I personally for example, have little hope that GW will ever turn around 40K into a rules system I'd want to play again. If they do though, I'll play it of course. Even if i'll probably never forgive GW for the AoS debacle.

Is it? I've seen PLENTY of posts on this site from users claiming that 6th was the death of 40k, then 7th, and from what I can gather/read from other users, this happened even back with 4th.

Is it that disingenuous to imagine some people are so angry at a company they'd never give them a second chance (not you, specifically)?

Every edition sees people quitting the game since it takes it into a direction they don't agree with (which is simply the way of things). Some return in later editions, some never does.

There is a difference between quitting a game you don't like and refusing to give a company a second chance even after they've demonstrated that they've gotten the game right.

Even if 4th or 6th edition was the death of 40K to someone. That hypothetical player would be prepared to come back if 8th ed matches what they're looking for in a game. They won't give GW a second chance until they show they've learned to make a decent game and neither should they. But that doesn't mean there's nothing GW could do in order to win them back. There are of course people whom it doesn't make financial sense for GW to make the changes necessary needed to bring them back, but it's theoretically possible.

Has GW gotten better? Well I already said what I did there, but now seeing Planetary Onslaught, I swear Kirby is at the helm right now or whispered in the CEOs ear.

More proof of GW being Smoke and Mirrors? Didn't see the price for Planetary Onslaught but for GW to keep selling and regurgitating rules just seems like something Kirby would do. So same old GW showing their colours now?

Especially so close to a new edition. Didn't they do this in 6th edition combine two books nobody liked and then 7th came along invalidating the books? Stronghold Assault or something like that?

 Zywus wrote:

Every edition sees people quitting the game since it takes it into a direction they don't agree with (which is simply the way of things). Some return in later editions, some never does.

There is a difference between quitting a game you don't like and refusing to give a company a second chance even after they've demonstrated that they've gotten the game right.

Even if 4th or 6th edition was the death of 40K to someone. That hypothetical player would be prepared to come back if 8th ed matches what they're looking for in a game. They won't give GW a second chance until they show they've learned to make a decent game and neither should they. But that doesn't mean there's nothing GW could do in order to win them back. There are of course people whom it doesn't make financial sense for GW to make the changes necessary needed to bring them back, but it's theoretically possible.

Okay? Case in point, World of Warcraft has been dropping in players recently. The newest expansion, Legion, has been hugely successful and reinvigorated the player base. And yet, here's three threads from people saying it'll suck.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/534914-world-of-warcraft/72782762

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/18300178803

https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/3g0vhb/legion_looks_bad_right_im_not_going_crazy_am_i/

C'mon man, it's not that hard to imagine that even if GW fixed EVERYTHING, there'd still be some salty players refusing to admit it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Is it? I've seen PLENTY of posts on this site from users claiming that 6th was the death of 40k, then 7th, and from what I can gather/read from other users, this happened even back with 4th.
Is it that disingenuous to imagine some people are so angry at a company they'd never give them a second chance (not you, specifically)?

GW has "gotten better" but for some: not where it matters.

I would say the greatest impact to 40k are those who quietly lose interest and get distracted by the various fabulous tabletop games out there.

6th and 7th are a bit hard to point to for a trend: they are not all that different and I think 6th and 7th are the closest BRB release dates we have seen to date.

I am unsure where people would have claimed 4th edition would be the death of 40k.
It was like an enhancement of the 3rd edition rules with all the "Chapter approved" stuff that was released.
The 4th edition vs 5th edition boils down to moving away from a tight tournament ruleset to casual so it really depends on where your gameplay preference lie.
6th and 7th only continues the trend almost to the max.

I would say the "anger" camp are the people who have much GW product and the game rules have evolved to something they do not like.
I would suspect for the "slightly competitive" would be the most upset.
The VERY competitive will just buy the best army and take it to the max no matter what the rules so it kinda has little impact on them.
You are left with those who like casual play and it works as long as you negotiate what "casual" means.

Being able to field whatever you want with no real balance in points makes for some extremely strange power level games.

The pivotal point in this discussion is if "pickup' games for mild "competitive" people and the mild "casual" folks can pick what they want as middle of the road and no-one gets tabled.
That requires us waiting for the BRB and the requisite Codex changes.

The model collecting folks will be just fine.
The models are good, there is a little less derp to any releases lately so all is well.

The mini-games will make people happy that wanted to "try" 40k but did not want to build/buy an entire army.
That too is going quite well.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

Every edition sees people quitting the game since it takes it into a direction they don't agree with (which is simply the way of things). Some return in later editions, some never does.

There is a difference between quitting a game you don't like and refusing to give a company a second chance even after they've demonstrated that they've gotten the game right.

Even if 4th or 6th edition was the death of 40K to someone. That hypothetical player would be prepared to come back if 8th ed matches what they're looking for in a game. They won't give GW a second chance until they show they've learned to make a decent game and neither should they. But that doesn't mean there's nothing GW could do in order to win them back. There are of course people whom it doesn't make financial sense for GW to make the changes necessary needed to bring them back, but it's theoretically possible.

Okay? Case in point, World of Warcraft has been dropping in players recently. The newest expansion, Legion, has been hugely successful and reinvigorated the player base. And yet, here's three threads from people saying it'll suck.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/534914-world-of-warcraft/72782762

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/18300178803

https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/3g0vhb/legion_looks_bad_right_im_not_going_crazy_am_i/

C'mon man, it's not that hard to imagine that even if GW fixed EVERYTHING, there'd still be some salty players refusing to admit it.

Neither GW nor Blizzard can fix everything for everyone at the same time, because people have different conceptions on what "everything" is that needs to be fixed. That's not the same thing as people being unwilling to play the game regardless of changes. For many WoW players, Legion apparently was a change that they agreed with, but not all. Had a different expansion been made, there would presumably still be people saying it sucked but it would (partly) be different people.

A game can never be what exactly what every player wants simultaneously. You can appeal both to player A and to player B. But maybe not both at the same time.