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.

SKR.HH wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But that's not the point you were making.

You were trying to argue that Australian GW is more expensive because of in-country cost factors.

Using the method you cited, I showed that, in fact, they're broadly similar.

That GW cannot (hint: they actually can) get product into Australia without commanding an enormous premium is a flaw with their model, not down to any inherent macroeconomic factors for doing business in Australia.

Or, they're charging a premium because they can, and are prepared to artificially limit competition in order to safeguard that.

Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

It might simply be that they're a bigger market, and that GW considers them "together", at least from a logistics / market size perspective.

I'm really curious to get GW's answer on this though, there might be decent reasons, such as a fixed exchange rate for the duration of the supply contract and whatnot.

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

Several reasons...

1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.

2. GW insists on having a lot of stores in Australia which makes Australia unprofitable in spite of having a reasonably high revenue and sales volume. Australia has 46 stores with a population of 23 million, North America only has 100 stores with a population of 320 million in the USA and 35 million in Canada.

Stores are more expensive in Australia, there's no doubting that, rent is high and you have to pay your employees more.... GW fails at running stores in Australia so they compensate by overcharging independent retailers. If they charged a more a globally competitive wholesale rate to independent retailers, the price discrepancy in Australia would be negligible because independents would actually be able to compete. But if they did that, their own stores would be losing even more money.

3. GW games are actually more popular in Australia than the USA. Our population is smaller, but per head of population Australians buy a lot of wargaming products. I think GW might have actually started expanding in to Australia BEFORE they expanded in to the USA. So GW probably thinks they can capitalise on Australians being more enthusiastic about wargames, but on the flip side they've actually driven a lot of Australians away with their pricing.

You can see GW push the limit of how far they can push Australian enthusiasm, sometimes you get stuff selling out here in spite of stupid prices, other times you get something like Space Hulk which was priced so high that in spite of being a much loved game, it sat on shelves for many months.


This is why I tried to cut the discussion short with my post....

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Oh great, this discussion again, here, let's just get it out of the way quickly...

"GW has absurd Australian prices!"
"But you have a higher minimum wage!"
"Yeah except cost of living is so high that you aren't left with much discretionary income"
"Well other companies overcharge too"
"Yeah and those companies suck, good companies have more fair pricing and GW prices are high to begin with"
"But you have to pay more to employ people in Australia"
"But GW's wholesale price in Oz is higher than the bloody retail price in other countries!"
"It's expensive to ship to Australia"
"I can import stuff myself for a fraction of the cost"
"Well just import it"
"But GW's trade conditions won't let independent retailers sell internationally"
"Oh well, sucks to be you"
"Well at least we have awesome beaches and fething kangaroos"
"Feth you"
"Feth you too"

*New Zealander speaks up* "Well it's even worse here!"
"No one cares, go back to the Shire you filthy hobbit"

...because yes, international trade has lots of reasons why you might get discrepancies but any critical analysis of those reasons in this specific circumstance lead to the conclusion GW charge more because feth you.

GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.

I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.

We often overlook the fact that Britain and Australia share a common language, so there's no translation costs to factor in, plus I imagine that UK standards for things like safety in aerosols and superglue will be almost identical to Australian standards for these kind of things.

Yeah, I get that the strength of the Australian economy should see a slightly higher price, but not this high...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.

I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.

fethed us over, instead of fething over their business partners, seems fair.

The problem of the exchange rate is not simple.
If overnight GW changes their AU prices to match UK, with the current weaker pound, tomorrow, all of the stock purchased by any AU store will have to be sold at a loss.

That isn't something you sweep under the rug.

I talked about this in more detail in another thread, but the solution is nowhere close to "just change AU prices to match current UK prices" because that's counter-productive.

morgoth wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


GW used to actually allow shipping to Australia direct from their UK webstore. I assume they abolished it because when the exchange rate started improving it made the UK online store significantly cheaper than local prices, instead of adjusting pricing to be more fair, they just fethed us over.

I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.

fethed us over, instead of fething over their business partners, seems fair.

The problem of the exchange rate is not simple.
If overnight GW changes their AU prices to match UK, with the current weaker pound, tomorrow, all of the stock purchased by any AU store will have to be sold at a loss.

That isn't something you sweep under the rug.

I talked about this in more detail in another thread, but the solution is nowhere close to "just change AU prices to match current UK prices" because that's counter-productive.

Did you stop at "fethed us over" and miss my 2nd paragraph?

I don't expect GW to follow all the small fluctuations in exchange rate, but it seems they're more than happy to follow the fluctuations in exchange rate when it results in charging Aussies more, they're not so quick to follow the fluctuations that result in them charging us less. Even if they were just consistent and used something like a 5 year average instead of just picking the worst exchange rate for the past 20 years.

You can't use exchange rate as an excuse when it hasn't been those levels in over 11 years. There's kids playing 40k now that weren't alive when the exchange rate was last at those levels.

I think you should probably read my post, one does not simply adjust their prices.

You just said you talked about it in another thread? I'm sorry I'm not psychic, I have no idea what you've said on the topic in other threads.

But I'm not advocating GW just suddenly change their prices nor try and follow every fluctuation.

Every year or two they should evaluate their trade prices based on the last several years of exchange rate data. That way they wouldn't have to suddenly change their prices by 50% because they never would have let them get so bad.

EDIT: GW used to frequently have "price adjustments", they did away with them (preferring to raise the price on new kits) likely because the "adjustment" was always upwards where as they should have just frozen the prices in Australia when the exchange rate was improving year after year after year.

@Skink: i love history, and would be interested if anyone knows how long GW have had shops in Oz...

does anyone know when the first GW store opened Down Under???
I'm not sure about the East Coast here in the US, but on the West Coast, we got our first GW store in 1990...
it made trips to Santa Monica a must on weekends, because they had dedicated painting space and visits from HQ guys like John Blanche...
compared to Independents like The Last Grenadier and Paul Freiler's Historical Models (where i bought my first Citadel minis in 1985), where there were no dedicated painting tables, it made that first GW store in California like Mecca for us in high school...

Ral Partha began distributing Citadel into the US in 1979, while Citadel imported Ral Partha into the UK...
it would be interesting to know if both brands ended up in OZ around the same time...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Skink: i love history, and would be interested if anyone knows how long GW have had shops in Oz...

does anyone know when the first GW store opened Down Under???
I'm not sure about the East Coast here in the US, but on the West Coast, we got our first GW store in 1990...
it made trips to Santa Monica a must on weekends, because they had dedicated painting space and visits from HQ guys like John Blanche...
compared to Independents like The Last Grenadier and Paul Freiler's Historical Models (where i bought my first Citadel minis in 1985), where there were no dedicated painting tables, it made that first GW store in California like Mecca for us in high school...

Ral Partha began distributing Citadel into the US in 1979, while Citadel imported Ral Partha into the UK...
it would be interesting to know if both brands ended up in OZ around the same time...

cheers
jah

I'm not sure about the origins, I was more thinking when GW were expanding by opening stores in the 90's. But I could be wrong about that too, I just thought there was a time GW were opening stores more in Australia than they were the US.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

Several reasons...

1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.

That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


2. GW insists on having a lot of stores in Australia which makes Australia unprofitable in spite of having a reasonably high revenue and sales volume. Australia has 46 stores with a population of 23 million, North America only has 100 stores with a population of 320 million in the USA and 35 million in Canada.

Stores are more expensive in Australia, there's no doubting that, rent is high and you have to pay your employees more.... GW fails at running stores in Australia so they compensate by overcharging independent retailers. If they charged a more a globally competitive wholesale rate to independent retailers, the price discrepancy in Australia would be negligible because independents would actually be able to compete. But if they did that, their own stores would be losing even more money.

Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


3. GW games are actually more popular in Australia than the USA. Our population is smaller, but per head of population Australians buy a lot of wargaming products. I think GW might have actually started expanding in to Australia BEFORE they expanded in to the USA. So GW probably thinks they can capitalise on Australians being more enthusiastic about wargames, but on the flip side they've actually driven a lot of Australians away with their pricing.

You can see GW push the limit of how far they can push Australian enthusiasm, sometimes you get stuff selling out here in spite of stupid prices, other times you get something like Space Hulk which was priced so high that in spite of being a much loved game, it sat on shelves for many months.

Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.

SKR.HH wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

Several reasons...

1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.

That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)

My explanation would be that since the new terminator kit didn't exist before, it wasn't already locked at a specific price.

Is the new kit cheaper or more expensive than the old one ?

morgoth wrote:


Is the new kit cheaper or more expensive than the old one ?

Not particulary surprising: more expensive.

SKR.HH wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

Several reasons...

1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.

That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)

I don't know when Deathwing Terminators came out, it might be explained by what I said earlier where GW are happy to follow exchange rate fluctuations that result in customers paying more, but don't adjust to the ones that would result in customers paying less.

Deathwing maybe came out close to a period with downward fluctuation in exchange rate?

Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.

The thing that's "wrong" is GW have pushed their failing business model on to independents.

GW stores don't make money anywhere, but they're going to be even worse off in Australia. GW wouldn't be able to compete with independents in Australia if they charged a similar wholesale price as they do elsewhere.

So instead, they've forced local stores to compete with recasters from Asia and grey market importers.

Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.

No, it's not, because you're comparing two different markets. You have to look at supply and demand in Australia and supply and demand in the USA. Just because you can raise the price in Australia and still have SOME people buy it doesn't mean you couldn't lower it and have MORE people buy it.

So with the new FAQ out, I see a few Tyranid players complaining about poor or nerfing rules. So has GW changed for the better RULES WISE or are they the same in that regard?

When if finally comes down to it if GW has changed or not, it comes to rules first. Because if rules are solid, and written clearly and concisely price will be subjective because there will be more worth to it.

So has GW changed? From the looks of it from rules wise, no they haven't changed, they still get a lot of people's knickers tied in a knot. That is not promising going into 8th edition. Traitor's hate wasn't well received. Will see how 1K Sons goes rules wise for the next litmus test.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh, I certainly did not claim that this explains in it's complete entirety. But why would they do this in Australia, New Zealand and Japan, but not (to that extent) in Canada and the US?

I have made the comparisons based on a SC box (50 GBP equivalent) and the difference in the US and Canada are between about 25 and 15 percent (based on todays exchange rate) and about 15 and 5 percent (based on 1st of May Exchange rate) whereas Australia and New Zealand are rather in the range of 35 to 45 percent.

GW is using the same trade policy towards America but they don't follow the same pricing logic? Why?

Several reasons...

1. Back in 1998ish to 2004ish the AUD was weak. It seems GW picked that exchange rate and just stuck with it even though it hasn't been down at those levels in the past 11-12 years. There was a time when the AUD was strong vs the USD as well, and after being strong for several years GW finally started to equalise prices between the US and Oz (I think they were mainly raising prices in the US rather than reducing Oz, because GW is GW afterall ). But it only lasted a couple of months because as soon as the AUD dropped slightly the price hikes went full stupid again.

That does not explain why two different 35 GBP models cost differently --> see price for Deathwing Terminators and Rubric Terminators (?)

I don't know when Deathwing Terminators came out, it might be explained by what I said earlier where GW are happy to follow exchange rate fluctuations that result in customers paying more, but don't adjust to the ones that would result in customers paying less.

Deathwing maybe came out close to a period with downward fluctuation in exchange rate?

Oh, that was just a kit I found on a quick glance (and they are comparable)... I can search for a different (newer) kit if necessary but I don't expect any particular new insights...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Entirely possible. But as GW seems to see their shops essential for their strategy I can't see anythign wrong about them to try to keep them profitable.

The thing that's "wrong" is GW have pushed their failing business model on to independents.

GW stores don't make money anywhere, but they're going to be even worse off in Australia. GW wouldn't be able to compete with independents in Australia if they charged a similar wholesale price as they do elsewhere.

So instead, they've forced local stores to compete with recasters from Asia and grey market importers.

Why? (Local) Independents have to face the same prices... And no matter how low the prices are there always will be recasters...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Then it is the usual behaviour of supply and demand... Nothing "fething" about it.

No, it's not, because you're comparing two different markets. You have to look at supply and demand in Australia and supply and demand in the USA. Just because you can raise the price in Australia and still have SOME people buy it doesn't mean you couldn't lower it and have MORE people buy it.

Sure... But to serve this additional people I need to provide more supply (which usually ties up more ressources)... Catering more People is not necessarily optimal.

@Davor, if you check the FAQ, it's an immense improvement overall, with a few letdowns.

But, like 7th ed is a lot more accurate than 6th ed, 7.5 is a lot more accurate than 7th ed.

I feel people complain a lot about the rules problems GW has with 40K, although these are also present in board games with extremely good ratings... maybe wargamers have just devolved into rules lawyers (and I'm good at that) and that's something you can only combat with a team of lawyers to write the rules....

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.

Well, checking the post history of some users makes it rather easy to see that they are rather negative towards whatever GW does...

SKR.HH wrote:
Why? (Local) Independents have to face the same prices... And no matter how low the prices are there always will be recasters...

I don't know what you mean by "face the same prices"?

A customer can have a product shipped to their door from an international grey market seller at a price which is often cheaper than the independent store owner themselves can buy it.

And sure recasters always exist, but there's plenty of people who wouldn't have turned to recasters if they weren't feeling completely and utterly ripped off. It's not a toggle switch, it's a gradual decline as customers see your product as worth less and less than you're asking they start to seek alternatives, even questionable ones like recasters.

For all the potential excuses for high Australian prices, it just comes down to either "we can so we do" or "we don't know how to run our business so you have to pay for it".

Sure... But to serve this additional people I need to provide more supply (which usually ties up more ressources)...

Well to supply more plastic toy soldiers isn't a huge resource sink. To supply the FIRST plastic toy soldier is a huge resource sink, the 10,000 that come after him? Not so much

Catering more People is not necessarily optimal.

Of course, but I think GW well overshot the mark of "optimal" in Australia. You hear potential customers complaining they want to buy it but it's too expensive AND you have Australian stores outright condemning GW's shoddy practices. Some stores have gone down the road of shifting GW's product off the front shelves to the back shelves, saying outright they are sick of working with GW but continue to stock it in a limited capacity for their existing customers.

 Azreal13 wrote:

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.

Please.... if simple normal board games have rules issues that woud spark 3000 pages worth of threads in YMDC, why must you insist that some games, suspiciously the only ones I haven't read the rules for, are perfect and in no way require rules lawyering to guarantee a uniform interpretation ?

Besides, I read so many GW detractors mentioning the rules which they themselves haven't used or tried to understand.
That's not stopping you is it ?
Or is there out there one GW hater who is a 7th ed rules expert and who also loathes GW and doesn't play the game at all ?

I'm the local rules expert, I participated in many YMDC discussions, read and re-read the rules, even came up with several new interpretations which both changed the game AND were more accurate than previous interpretations - demonstrably so.

I can tell you, it's impossible to write rules that are not subject to rules lawyering if you don't have actual lawyers reviewing the rules and actively play testing them.
It happens in board games that have only 5 pages of rules.

The reason is that it's easy to write something, but extremely hard to uncover all the possible interpretations of what has been written, and then modify the text to eliminate every wrong interpretation one by one, then rinse and repeat until there can be no other "reasonable" interpretations.
And even that is still not absolute.


Personally, what I hate about 7th ed is that vehicles don't get overwatch for a bs reason, that they always get hit on rear despite moving at blazing speeds, that there now is officially a restriction on spells and grenades per unit and that planes get to fire more guns than FMC, that FMC get hit by blasts but planes don't ....

And those things aren't subject to interpretation unfortunately.

SKR.HH wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.

Well, checking the post history of some users makes it rather easy to see that they are rather negative towards whatever GW does...

No, it doesn't. Until recently GW have pretty consistently found a new way to piss people off on a monthly basis, with some fairly substantial long term issues (price, balance and communication being the big ones.) Someone who appeared relentlessly negative may simply have not existed online prior to GW turning into a giant douche.

It's equally unsurprising that some people remain cynical in the face of some superficially positive moves when there are still pretty fundamental issues which haven't yet been addressed, or fully addressed.

There's always going to be naysayers, as with much in life, but at this point in history it is impossible to separate them from people who are justifiably pissed off.

morgoth wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

Just like when they say balance is much better, then everyone runs the exact same combo > if you want to hate GW, just hate GW, you don't need an excuse like prices, rules, the merging of 40K and Apoc, whatever.

Ok, so my take away from that is that you rely on other people to tell you about games you don't play, and still feel comfortable defending the one you do despite zero experience of anything else allowing you to make an objective (or even subjective) assessment, and that you have just dismissed well founded, evidentially supported, criticism as irrational hatred because you lack the experience and/or perspective and empathy to understand those criticisms.

Please.... if simple normal board games have rules issues that woud spark 3000 pages worth of threads in YMDC, why must you insist that some games, suspiciously the only ones I haven't read the rules for, are perfect and in no way require rules lawyering to guarantee a uniform interpretation ?

Look at the evidence. Compare the YMDC section of WMH. There are far fewer threads and far fewer replies, that's because most discussions consists of "How does X work?" then a response of "like this" with the occasional "but what about when Y is happening?" or "don't forget about Z" follow up. Heck, X Wing has a YMDC thread where most questions are asked and answered in the span of two or three posts, and if there's a legitimate problem, you can bet there'll be an FAQ within a few weeks of it appearing. Or Guild Ball, where there's a dedicated lawyers guild of senior users and staff who give definitive rulings if there's a legitimate issue, and lock a thread once an issue is resolved, either by ruling or citation. There's currently one thread in that sub forum unresolved. It is 19 minutes old at time of writing.

Then take a look at the bloated cess pool that is 40K YMDC, the generator of more yellow triangles of friendship than any other sub section, bar maybe OT I'd speculate.

Besides, I read so many GW detractors mentioning the rules which they themselves haven't used or tried to understand.
That's not stopping you is it ?
Or is there out there one GW hater who is a 7th ed rules expert and who also loathes GW and doesn't play the game at all ?

Firstly, try and use the word critic, hater is inflammatory and frequently inaccurate. Secondly, I'm a veteran of 2nd (RT if you count rulesets owned rather than played) and I've played all the way up into 7th, 40K has been a part of my life for almost 30 years. At what point do I reach your arbitrary standards of "expert" so that I can declare I'm not enjoying the game? Or have an issue with pricing? Or the balance issues that an educationally challenged donkey can spot?

I'm the local rules expert,

I participated in many YMDC discussions, read and re-read the rules, even came up with several new interpretations which both changed the game AND were more accurate than previous interpretations - demonstrably so.

I can tell you, it's impossible to write rules that are not subject to rules lawyering if you don't have actual lawyers reviewing the rules and actively play testing them.
It happens in board games that have only 5 pages of rules.

I'm sorry, I had no idea I was conversing with some kind of rules savant. Here's the thing, it is possible to write a tight ruleset, and it is possible to actively maintain a ruleset when unforeseen issues arise. GW, as creators of the largest, one of the oldest, and undoubtedly best resourced games in existence, have spectacularly failed to do so. That's without getting into issues where units are objectively measurably better than comparable units in other factions, where player agency has been eroded Edition by Edition to the point where in game decision making is almost redundant, or that some factions just outright overpower others, potentially even by accident.

The reason is that it's easy to write something, but extremely hard to uncover all the possible interpretations of what has been written, and then modify the text to eliminate every wrong interpretation one by one, then rinse and repeat until there can be no other "reasonable" interpretations.
And even that is still not absolute.

That's what FAQs and Errata are for, and the absence of which has been one of the reasons GW have rightly been criticised for years.

Personally, what I hate about 7th ed is that vehicles don't get overwatch for a bs reason, that they always get hit on rear despite moving at blazing speeds, that there now is officially a restriction on spells and grenades per unit and that planes get to fire more guns than FMC, that FMC get hit by blasts but planes don't ....

And those things aren't subject to interpretation unfortunately.

Wait until you play a good system, your "issues with 40K list" is likely to get a lot longer overnight.

Davor wrote:...they still get a lot of people's knickers tied in a knot. That is not promising going into 8th edition.

There will be someone with their knickers in a knot regardless to how good or bad rules are.

morgoth wrote:@Davor, if you check the FAQ, it's an immense improvement overall, with a few letdowns.

That sums it up nicely

morgoth wrote:...maybe wargamers have just devolved into rules lawyers (and I'm good at that) and that's something you can only combat with a team of lawyers to write the rules....

When people tell me their rulesets (warmachines, KoW, whatever) are perfect and not subject to rules lawyering, I must say I'm really dubious ...

There are always people who will be inclined to rules lawyer, regardless of the rule and possibly for the sake of it. That kind of thing is greatly reduced when the rules are written in a way that makes it difficult to find loopholes and interpretation isn't needed.
Simple and clear rules with clearly defined terms really help. The more convoluted or complicated the worse it gets.

A bit over a decades ago Field of Glory was produced for historical wargaming, it became more popular than the then popular DBM mostly because the rules were simpler and clearer (also NOT written like a legal document), there was a marked decrease in rules lawyering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azreal13 wrote:Wait until you play a good system, your "issues with 40K list" is likely to get a lot longer overnight.

This is true and it makes me sad.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/23/generals-handbook-feedback/

Now, Cmon people.
At this point you just sound ridiculously bitter if you claim GW didn't improve.

You'll get little argument that they've made steps forward.

The division is between whether they're meaningful steps, or whether they're changing the flat while the engine is still alight.

Pretty colours, tassels, bells and whistles do not change the fact that the engine is running on some hooch stolen from the local liquor store, and that the 'check engine' light's been on for the past 6 years.

Azreal13 wrote:You'll get little argument that they've made steps forward.

The division is between whether they're meaningful steps, or whether they're changing the flat while the engine is still alight.

''

Great way of saying it.

I always thought the tank commissar drive me closer meme was GWs business model. Now the commissar seems to have fallen out and things are nicer, but the tank is still facing our general direction and not slowing enough.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You'll get little argument that they've made steps forward.

The division is between whether they're meaningful steps, or whether they're changing the flat while the engine is still alight.

Well, reading through this thread I have a very different Impression (especially when the main claim is: no matter what GW does is an improvement as long as prices don't go down).

In response to your allegory: I never thought that the motor was alight... Maybe stuttering. But now we are on back on a smooth ride.

There seem to be two main currents here...
1) I hate GW so much
2) I don't hate them and I like the fact that they're improving lately

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that they're not improving, just that the haters need a lot more improvement to stop hating.

So haters please.... just say "I'm so pissed this isn't enough to quiet my anger" instead of attempting to downplay or disregard measurable improvements.