So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?

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.

**Lord Kragan**

jreilly89 wrote:
SKR.HH wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication,

???????

What? The rules for AoS are pretty straightforward and much easier to play than 40k. Now that it has an actual points system, it's a pretty good game. It even addresses a lot of the Monstrous Creature issues with monsters getting weaker as they take wounds.

In anticipation of the following comments:

But, but, but... it has only four pages... it has to be shallow and bad ... yadda-yadda-yadda...

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.

**Stormonu**

I was putting together a spreadsheet to do some math hammer unit testing, and in doing so got the shock of my life how much going first in 40K affects a single units effectiveness is (I was testing 10-man marine vs. 10-man marine; the unit going first killed 80% more than the unit going second over 5-7 turns). I can imagine how alpha-striking in a IGOUGO game can really skew the probabilities of winning.

And while GW does seem to be trying to swing the boat away from the ice burg its been grinding against, it's been too slow for me. They have priced themselves out of my willingness to buy; on Black Friday I bought the Keilerkopfh APC to run as a Taurox, and I recently had an epiphany to use my Bolt Action germans as IG instead of buying the ugly GW Cadians. Top it all off, I'm not even playing using the 40K rules, and have been instead developing my own system.

So I am one of those folks GW is driving away with their continuing practices; I do really like some of their model lines (Adeptus Mechanicus, Tyranids) - but I'm not willing to pay for the overpriced models - even the SC and battleforce boxes are still ridiculously priced, IMO. And moreso, the rules are bad.

In other areas, I've been keeping up with X-wing; I'll pay their prices because the models are already assembled, painted and the rules are worth a damn.

**Blacksails**

jreilly89 wrote:

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

There couldn't possibly be a middle ground, could there? I mean, this may be madness, but there a whole giant area between 'bloated mess' and 'half step above toy soldiers in the sandbox'.

Maybe I'm going crazy with some sort of reasonable middle ground, but its probably easier to just label everyone as a hater and not have to engage in any critical discussion.

**jreilly89**

Blacksails wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

There couldn't possibly be a middle ground, could there? I mean, this may be madness, but there a whole giant area between 'bloated mess' and 'half step above toy soldiers in the sandbox'.

Maybe I'm going crazy with some sort of reasonable middle ground, but its probably easier to just label everyone as a hater and not have to engage in any critical discussion.

Beyond what I've tried? I argued that AoS cleaned up a lot of 40k's mistakes and got back "Yeah, but it's still IGOUGO, so it's bad". Sure there's a middle ground, but there's also people that until GW writes them a check for all the money they spent, they'll never be happy.

Look at the new Sisters' rumor and Traitor Legion rules people are complaining about. Yeah, 40k is still a mess, but they're actively delivering armies/changes people wanted, and people still complain.

**Blacksails**

Of course there'll be people complaining. But the overall sentiment with the latest release is one of overwhelming positivity.

Having complaints isn't a bad thing, especially if the complaints are valid and explained reasonably. I can praise GW for releasing plastic Sisters and then complain that the game is still a mess. That isn't a bad thing. It certainly beats mindless praise.

**jreilly89**

Azreal13 wrote:

If by "holy grail" you mean "address severe playability issues with their core product" then you're correct.

I'd love an excuse to buy some of the new stuff, but if I were to buy most of it "just to paint" then I'd be sacrificing my chance to buy some genuinely extraordinary product from other companies that aren't, at their core, rather chunky and busy (as much of GW proper stuff tends to be, even the good stuff, it's just the good stuff tends to play into those traits.)

But, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I look at some of the lovely stuff coming out (Ahriman = , and my CSM are Emp Children) and think "what am I actually going to do with it?" I've never been a FB player, so AOS was never likely to draw me in, and 40K is still a misshapen lump of unbalanced bloat that doesn't present anything like the engaging gameplay of pretty much every other game I try.

I don't think waiting for/hoping for/expecting a genuine attempt to fix the large effort in vs low enjoyment out problem 40K currently has is the holy grail, I think it's looking for an attempt to fix the foundations rather than just repainting the doors and mowing the lawn.

And you don't think the FAQ's are a sign that they're trying to clear up and fix some of the rules? I'd argue 8th will probably fix a lot of errors, but there will be still mistakes/problems, because 40k is a narrative game (in GW's eyes) and not a competitive one.

So yeah, I think it's still a holy grail that GW will fix every error and win over disgruntled fans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blacksails wrote:
Of course there'll be people complaining. But the overall sentiment with the latest release is one of overwhelming positivity.

That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?

Having complaints isn't a bad thing, especially if the complaints are valid and explained reasonably. I can praise GW for releasing plastic Sisters and then complain that the game is still a mess. That isn't a bad thing. It certainly beats mindless praise.

Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.

Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.

**Blacksails**

jreilly89 wrote:

That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?

You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.

Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.

Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.

I didn't say you did, I was simply stating I'd prefer a lot of complaints over mindless praise in a general sense, not targeted at anyone.

**Azreal13**

So yeah, I think it's still a holy grail that GW will fix every error and win over disgruntled fans.

Which isn't what I said.

It's much easier to win strawman arguments, but sadly one doesn't get away with it for very long as a rule.

For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.

**Lord Kragan**

Blacksails wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?

You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.

Having complaints isn't bad, it's the valid/explained reasonably part that I see a lot of people arguing against.

Also, where did I mindlessly praise them? I admitted that 40k was a mess, but I am hopeful/optimistic that the FAQ's and Start Collecting boxes are signs of change.

I didn't say you did, I was simply stating I'd prefer a lot of complaints over mindless praise in a general sense, not targeted at anyone.

Sure let's ignore the several posts that were critizing the look of the models and every other post complaining about them being used as a sandbag/not going to get gak at all. Any sufficiently large community becomes unpleasable.

**Blacksails**

Sounds like you guys are looking for the negativity.

The thread seemed very positive to me and the reception was overall very positive.

**jreilly89**

Blacksails wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

That's cute. Half the posts in the Sisters' rumor thread is how GW is only going to release the models shown and plastic Sisters will never come. Oh and then there was the thread about how Sisters were being released just to be fodder in the new Fall of Cadia book. That's overwhelming positivity?

You mean random speculation about something no one knows anything about? Sure, let's call that complaining and ignore every post that praised the models for being excellent and lots of hope for future plastic sisters.

I'm not ignoring the half that praised it, I'm saying for every 1 or 2 praising it, there was another complaining about Celestine getting squatted, no new models coming, the fluff being ruined, etc.

**Blacksails**

You can pretty soundly ignore the people complaining about something we literally know nothing about.

**Lord Kragan**

Blacksails wrote:
Sounds like you guys are looking for the negativity.

The thread seemed very positive to me and the reception was overall very positive.

I've seen plenty of both. My point is that you won't be able to find that middle ground because no one has an actually clear idea of what it would constitute.

**jreilly89**

Azreal13 wrote:

For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.

Then don't play 40k? I mean, is it really that much of a strawman that you'll pretty much never be happy with any 40k release? I doubt they'll ever "fix severe errors with the core product" to your level of satisfaction, either in FAQ or rules updates. And I'm pretty sure the IGOUGO system is here to stay.

**Blacksails**

Lord Kragan wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
Sounds like you guys are looking for the negativity.

The thread seemed very positive to me and the reception was overall very positive.

I've seen plenty of both. My point is that you won't be able to find that middle ground because no one has an actually clear idea of what it would constitute.

For rules? Sure we do. There's a slew of other games on the market that have a strong ruleset that could be adapted in some way to 40k. Further, even a simple re-costing of the point values to appropriate levels would fix most of the obvious balance issues. That alone would be a strong start towards a middle ground.

**jreilly89**

Blacksails wrote:
You can pretty soundly ignore the people complaining about something we literally know nothing about.

So, pretty much all of DakkaDakka?

**Blacksails**

jreilly89 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
You can pretty soundly ignore the people complaining about something we literally know nothing about.

So, pretty much all of DakkaDakka?

Pretty much

**Azreal13**

jreilly89 wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:

For the record, no, I don't think the FAQs are all that positive. That they made the effort to do them is, but they're inconsistent, erratic and only exist to address a lack of clarity or an unusual interaction, that neither address balance problems or the fact that there's actually nothing to do in a 40K game for half the time, and that what you get to do in your own turn isn't remarkably engaging or challenging.

Then don't play 40k?

I don't. That doesn't mean my armies have gone up in smoke, I've stopped liking the universe or I'm not keen to see what changes 8th brings.

I mean, is it really that much of a strawman that you'll pretty much never be happy with any 40k release?

Yep. It's a ludicrous assertion that presupposes a complete lack of reason or critical thinking on my part. It's an assumption that I'm impossible to please, when the fact that I've found several games that I enjoy immensely, even if there's valid criticisms to be levelled at those games also, completely discredits that assumption.

I doubt they'll ever "fix severe errors with the core product" to your level of satisfaction, either in FAQ or rules updates. And I'm pretty sure the IGOUGO system is here to stay.

Well, given that 8th is bringing in substantial change, I'm happy to wait and see for now.

**hobojebus**

jreilly89 wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:

Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

Why? Pretty much every other prominent wargame has alternate activation, or at least has features the help keep the inactive player engaged. In X Wing the gambit for activation advantage is a whole other sub game to consider when list building. Why was IGOUGO to be expected when GW had literally thrown away the rules and started from scratch, and long periods of inactivity is a frequent criticism players make of IGOUGO games?

Because building a ruleset that doesn't revolve around IGOUGO would be a whole new undertaking for them? Bloodbowl also has IGOUGO, Mordheim has IGOUGO, pretty much every game by GW I can think of does IGOUGO of some sort, so thinking AoS wouldn't have IGOUGO is ridiculous (it does, kinda, you end up rolling to see who goes 1st each turn).

Note: I'm not saying IGOUGO is a better system, just that it is to be expected in GW games.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
So, now we have plastic Sisters coming. With their release, Genestealer Cults, and Blood Bowl, I feel like GW is really swinging back towards the "Good" side. Rules in 40k are still bananas, but if AoS and the General's handbook is any indication, hopefully 8th will balance it out some.

Prices however will continue to lock kids out because you can't buy anything but a pot of paint for pocket money, prices will continue to keep vets from returning.

On the major kits, sure, but Battle for Vedros addressed exactly that point.

I honestly dread 8th edition of 40k after AoS, having left the walled garden and playing good games it made me realize how bad GW's devs are.

Sisters getting plastic sets is nice but it's not fixing the big problem that makes GW the lowest standard the wargaming community has, prices must drop rules must improve the rest is just irrelevant dross that won't long hold the attention of people.

AoS did improve on the rules, but I get it: nothing GW does will appease you.

Dropping prices and improving the rules will appease me I've been super clear on this point.

**Mario**

jreilly89 wrote:Either "The rules are too bloated!" or "It's too simple, it's for kids!". Basically just "GW IS BAD!"

Or go for simple but not simplistic rules and chose a level of complexity appropriate for the amount of miniatures in use. 40k has grown and now looks like Epic but still uses rules that are better suited for a skirmish game. You, for example, simply don't want D&D levels of complexity and book-keeping in a game about hundreds of miniatures. That's just a bad choice for the game. It's not magic but it seems like GW has neither learned from all the editions of their own games (they accidentally solve problems by randomly introducing new ones) nor looked an how game design has overall evolved. At the moment GW is bad at writing good rules, that has been the case for quite some time and all along it has been in their power to change that but instead we got new editions that just piled on another layer of conflicting complexity on top of whatever was there before.

**Kaiyanwang**

Lord Kragan wrote:

Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.

Mock me does not make a parody of a ruleset good, or GW designers more competent. None of you brought believable arguments.

I strongly suggest to try new things. You could be surprised.

You can write a small ruleset that is functional and efficient, or intead just one that is poor and half assed, that needs patches, specific units rules without coherence, and a point system as an add-on, an aftertought. AoS is the second.

You can write a big ruleset that can be complex, but not complicated and appeals to gamers that want depth. Or you can write a clunky, unbalanced mess. 40k is the second.

**Lord Kragan**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

Don't forget to insert hack fraud or allude to the "Rountree meme" for safety.

Mock me does not make a parody of a ruleset good, or GW designers more competent. None of you brought believable arguments.

I strongly suggest to try new things. You could be surprised.

You can write a small ruleset that is functional and efficient, or intead just one that is poor and half assed, that needs patches, specific units rules without coherence, and a point system as an add-on, an aftertought. AoS is the second.

You can write a big ruleset that can be complex, but not complicated and appeals to gamers that want depth. Or you can write a clunky, unbalanced mess. 40k is the second.

Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.

You mean like my neverborn from malifaux? I strongly suggest you don't make assumptions without knowing the data at all. You could be surprised.

AoS' true balance laid on playing scenarios, not only points. Rules' for units were very streamlined. The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.

**Kaiyanwang**

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.

You.. I... I like the definition.

The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.

The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.

I see.

**SKR.HH**

Kaiyanwang wrote:

The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.

The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.

I see.

No, only one fraction of the combat rules.

**Lord Kragan**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

Mocking you is mocking you for being the website's closest equivalent of the fire and brimstone preacher.

You.. I... I like the definition.

The only "half-assed" things are shooting into combats (which is easily solved and is not that big of an issue since very few armies have relevant shooting) and measuring, and the latter seems more like an experiment that didn't stick out, as they clearly said they'd be dropping the concept.

The only "half-assed" things are basic combat mechanics in a game based on combat.

I see.

Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).

Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.

**Kaiyanwang**

Lord Kragan wrote:

Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).

Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.

The justification for such rules is... it will be fixed next edition.

**Lord Kragan**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

Half assed in quotes. They clearly stated they'll change the ruling to base to base when they get second edition (and actively encourage the use of base to base, as shown in official tournaments they held already).

Shooting I say it's halfassed because it lacks a bit of depth but the thing is that shooting is something minor or even non-esxistant for 90% of the armies and the only half assed part is almost a non-issue that can be solved whenever second edition hits with a single phrase. And even then, the only half assed part is that you can shoot while in combats, it's a scenario that rarely happens in my experience with dealing with shooty units.

The justification for such rules is... it will be fixed next edition.

Or next FAQ. Considering they had fixed the issue of the sylvaneth wyldwoods that started popping by novemenber this month, I'd not be surprised they'd just release a FAQ (actually I think measuring got FAQed as being b2b again). Though I won't hold my breath on shooting as they seem adamant on keeping it as it is. Then again, most shooting heavy armies are papier mache.

But to be honest the ruleset does improve with GHB/it's limitations. I mean, to begin with you save yourself the bs that is daemons bringing a 3000pts army to a 2000pts game. That's a plus. And there's no kill-them-all victory condition, so tabling doesn't count at all for victory purposes, meaning you need to play tactical or go home.

**Herzlos**

Does it result in a more tactical game than, say, Malifaux or Flames Of War?

**Lord Kragan**

Herzlos wrote:
Does it result in a more tactical game than, say, Malifaux or Flames Of War?

Mayhaps, depends on who you're playing . Some players will shove their armies up your ass and devolve this into a slapfest if you let them and, once they finish, take the points and try to snag a win. Others, the majority do a lot of maneuvering and tactics: slaaneshi armies are excellent for board control and I've seen a few nifty tricks here and there. The base is very tactic in matched play: you need to surpass your oponent in points, and for that you need to ensure board control while meeting the criteria (which vary from mission to mission but 83% require having more boots on the ground) and deployment restrictions. Just killing stuff won't cut it, but at the same time you need to deny points for the enemy so you need to strike a balance between objectives. Mobility is key to ensure early dominance in certain missions while there's 2 at least which would require you to muscle your way... as long as the enemy doesn't make a rearguard attack.

**TheAuldGrump**

jreilly89 wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.

GW is BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.

Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.

I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).

But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.

It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)

If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.

Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)

The Auld Grump

Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.

Seriously, yes - I did.

And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!

Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.

Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!

Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.

And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.

So, yeah, seriously. Crappy.

The Auld Grump