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.

... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

So basically a force organization chart? They did that, and the fan base bitched. So in order to cater to the people who disliked the FOC and to sell the massive kits coming out, they've pretty much thrown that to the wayside. And if the fan base operates historically, they will again complain about a new FOC method. My recommendation is play an older system where those checks and balances WERE in place.

So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:

No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.

I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.

Well, what did you expect? It's such a woolly question. What is the defining metric for 'better'? Everyone's definition of 'better' is different. It doesn't take intelligence to realise such a thread is doomed to failure. Much like any popular forum, there are polarising viewpoints who probably will find it hard to come to a common middle ground where GW is concerned.

Anyway, the value in the thread is not whether the OP's question can be answered (hint: it can't) but rather more as a discussion on what the different criteria people consider to be important.

 filbert wrote:
Well, what did you expect? It's such a woolly question. What is the defining metric for 'better'? Everyone's definition of 'better' is different. It doesn't take intelligence to realise such a thread is doomed to failure. Much like any popular forum, there are polarising viewpoints who probably will find it hard to come to a common middle ground where GW is concerned.

Anyway, the value in the thread is not whether the OP's question can be answered (hint: it can't) but rather more as a discussion on what the different criteria people consider to be important.

Which I'm fine and dandy with but in my honest to god opinion even that is doomed to failure as people will still be focused on their own view and will rarely (if ever) take the points of the other in this kind of discussion. I for sure can't really remember that much of (for the sake of pointing someone I've disagreed strongly here) Kaiyanwang's criteria and ultimately we won't really know much because for each thing we say we most likely forget about another half a dozen.

Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
3rded. 40k was an infantry game when I started it. The few tanks in the game were serious threats

Probably the reason so many 40k players seem to have moved to Bolt Action. The game era/background isn't the same but the gameplay is so much more like 40k was and should have become.

We all 'know' the next edition of 40k won't go back to that style of game, with the amount of huge kits GW now peddle. If anything it will be more 'unbound' gameplay with use of all the best stuff you can buy from any faction in a huge mix.

Its one of the reasons why I'm eyeing Antares, konflikt 47 and Warpath Firefight.
It may take a while before I make an investment in those, however; they are all in their early stages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.

I would like to see dropzone commander's way of army composition, where each faction has a subtle difference in how their forces are distributed. PHR, for example, can take a command unit in their heavy battlegroup, scourge can take scouts in their special battle group, etc.

Its one of the reasons why I liked the idea of alternate FoCs that appeared for a short time after 6th. But then they got replaced by formations and unbound, which threw list building and strategic army composition out of the window in favor of "buy these models and you get BUFFS!" and "You want to spam cheese units? GO NUTS!"

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
3rded. 40k was an infantry game when I started it. The few tanks in the game were serious threats

Probably the reason so many 40k players seem to have moved to Bolt Action. The game era/background isn't the same but the gameplay is so much more like 40k was and should have become.

We all 'know' the next edition of 40k won't go back to that style of game, with the amount of huge kits GW now peddle. If anything it will be more 'unbound' gameplay with use of all the best stuff you can buy from any faction in a huge mix.

Its one of the reasons why I'm eyeing Antares, konflikt 47 and Warpath Firefight.
It may take a while before I make an investment in those, however; they are both in their early stages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

Mangod wrote:... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

That is horrible. One thing I hate about CAD is not all armies play the same. Why do Tyranids have to play as if they were humans? Also this "tax" stuff you need to take this to take that just needs to go. Just make a proper game, make it fair, costed appropriately and balanced. This way anyone can take anything they want.

I would like to see dropzone commander's way of army composition, where each faction has a subtle difference in how their forces are distributed. PHR, for example, can take a command unit in their heavy battlegroup, scourge can take scouts in their special battle group, etc.

Its one of the reasons why I liked the idea of alternate FoCs that appeared for a short time after 6th. But then they got replaced by formations and unbound, which threw list building and strategic army composition out of the window in favor of "buy these models and you get BUFFS!" and "You want to spam cheese units? GO NUTS!"

Can highly recommend Antares. It plays very well and is a good little game. More and more people I know have moved across to it.

 Mangod wrote:
... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.

I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.

That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.

It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.

Honestly I think that each Army should probably have its own FOC which it kind of does if you think about core formations that almost every faction has. The problem is all the other take these things and get a huge buff formations but if you got rid of those extra formations and then the decurion style detachments, and updated the primary formation that is like the FOC to also allow even the standard 3 Elite 3 fast attack 3 heavy support it might balance things out a little bit and still allow for some variety per faction.

 Asmodai wrote:


I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.

This does not fix Phil Kelly and Jeremy Vetock undercosting Eldar and Tau stuff because are their armies.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Asmodai wrote:


I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.

This does not fix Phil Kelly and Jeremy Vetock undercosting Eldar and Tau stuff because are their armies.

And that is why should not be allowed to write those codices / have control over a project.

Lord Kragan wrote:
So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:

No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.

I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Mangod wrote:
... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.

I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.

That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.

It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.

I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

But GW have already screwed up on it, it's easy to go from a system that has restrictions to one that doesn't, it's difficult to go backwards though.

With the tearing down of restrictions 40k the game became less a game and more an excuse for lining up your bestest toys opposite some else's bestest toys.

But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

RoninXiC wrote:
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.

Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.

Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.

(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.

Well of course if the points are fethed everything's fethed, but in a world where the points are better balanced I still vote for % over FoC.

Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.

(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)

0-1 is basically the same as a FoC, placing limits based on number you can take rather than % of your force (it could be 0-1 or 0-2 or 1+ or 1-3 or whatever, I just used 0-1 as an example).

Also don't get your knickers too twisted, I said "0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah", I thought it was obvious what "per blah blah" meant but perhaps not, it could mean "0-1 per 500pts" or "0-1 per 1000pts" or "0-1 per HQ choice" or "0-1 per tactical squad".

It's just a way to stop people taking armies that are purely made up of something that's supposed to be uncommon. Combined with a % system it might stop people taking multiples of something that is rare but actually cheap in terms of points.

herjan1987 wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.

*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.

Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.

Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.

(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)

"Absolute" 0-1 can have problems, but as stated, is enough to put such limits for every FOC (is used). Imagine a FOC like in 6th; doubled when you go above 1999 points. A 0-1 per FOC limit would change to a more reasonable 0-2.
Same, selecting X as a HQ choice would make an Elite a Troop, but 0-1 per every other troop. It worked for Longbeards in WHFB Dwarves, could work for stuff like the Windriders.
I think is in the interests of everybody to avoid Spamhammer 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:


*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.

Some page ago, you defended my criticism to AoS sating that it will improve in next editions.

Do you think Bretonnia and tomb Kings will be there next editions?

They have gotten much better in my book.

Some of the new releases like TS GC and DW have gotten me to up my spending limits.

I am liking their new approach to the online community with the live streams and spoilers.

The White dwarf has also come on leaps and bounds this year, I actually started buying it again.

I very rarely make GW impulse buys however, and that is pretty strange for me as I buy a lot of other stuff on a whim when im out and about.
I guess the price is one of the reasons for this, they are still pretty steep, and the fact that GW never has much of the range in stock and even Warhammer World becomes just a glorified order point at times.

I do not actually play 40k that much, I am more of a collector and modeller so the rules discrepancies do not really affect me that much, nor am I that interested in balance, Its not essential for my enjoyment of the few games I do actually play. I play BB mostly and much of that game is far from balanced and pretty random at times.

It would be nice to see them make some sort of changes to the rules, a lot of people do not seem to like them, but then again I am pretty sure that no matter what they do, GW will never please some people, as is evident in this thread and others like it.

All in all for me, they have come on leaps and bounds, I just hope they keep it up, there are not many other games or genres that interest me and it would be a shame for 40k to go down the pan like WFB did. I do not think they would be stupid enough to kill the cash cow mind you.

I am looking forward to seeing what they release in the new year, if 2016 is anything to go by there will be more cool releases on the cards, with the exception of them bringing back loyalist primarchs ofc ...

Lord Kragan wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
But balance is not imporant.
AoS shows us that GW doesnt give 0 F about it. No, the GH is not a proper atempt to balance stuff. The point costs are quite random and are still super imbalanced.
FORGE YOUR OWN NARRATIVE and stuff.

Really? So that is the reason they nuked a world and two factions along with it. I guess GW is not about forge your own narrative.

*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.

*Rolls eyes* As person who wants to start these armies, I feel a bit sad. Since I have a hard time buying the models that I am wanting to forge my narrative.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:

No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.

I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:

 Mangod wrote:
... would some kind of revised "core tax" help here?

Like... all non-Character units in your army are divided into Common, Uncommon and Rare categories; for every 2 Common units in your army, you get to add 1 Uncommon unit; for every 3 Common Units, you get to add 1 Rare unit?

Nah, that sort of thing just leads to people taking squads of 5 Scouts to unlock the good stuff. It doesn't solve the stuff that many units are miscosted and super-heavies and gargantuans shouldn't exist in small games.

I'd like faction-specific FoC's, but I'm also good with a percentage system, e.g. >40% on Troops, <20% for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, Heavy Support, <10% Flyers, <10% Fortifications, <10% Lords of War. You could vary that for different factions.

That would restrict the huge things to larger games and prevent flyer-spam but also allow a huge amount of flexibility in how an army is built.

It would require some basic math skills, however, which probably rules it out.

I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

But GW have already screwed up on it, it's easy to go from a system that has restrictions to one that doesn't, it's difficult to go backwards though.

With the tearing down of restrictions 40k the game became less a game and more an excuse for lining up your bestest toys opposite some else's bestest toys.

So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:

No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.

I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago

Well, I think what's been resolved is that, yes, GW has improved, but not significantly enough for many people to change their view.

From any sort of objective or consensus based view, GW has improved in several areas, with the General's Handbook for AoS, the new 30k plastics, bundle deals, social media presence and the new boxed games. It's treaded water in some others (prices of new releases, rules/balance for 40k). Very little, if anything, has gotten worse. A lot of the comments from people seeing no improvement are focused on one area of being a miniatures company, for example the 40k rules. Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement.

I think we can agree that, yes, GW has gotten better, and based on this thread, we can also agree that many people don't understand what "getting better" means.

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
So I think we can safely answer the corpus' of OP's question:

No, we CANNOT agree that GW has gotten better in the last year.

I'd further elaborate but the fact that this debate has gone for 40+ pages and TWO MONTHS, and that we are still arguing about a bunch of details, just goes to prove we cannot agree on the matter.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar 20 or 30 pages ago

Well, I think what's been resolved is that, yes, GW has improved, but not significantly enough for many people to change their view.

From any sort of objective or consensus based view, GW has improved in several areas, with the General's Handbook for AoS, the new 30k plastics, bundle deals, social media presence and the new boxed games. It's treaded water in some others (prices of new releases, rules/balance for 40k). Very little, if anything, has gotten worse. A lot of the comments from people seeing no improvement are focused on one area of being a miniatures company, for example the 40k rules. Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement.

I think we can agree that, yes, GW has gotten better, and based on this thread, we can also agree that many people don't understand what "getting better" means.

You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I hated the FoC from the moment they came out with it and think a % system would be much better. You can even have a mixture where you have a % system but some units are still 0-1 or 0-1 per blah blah.

% is just as broken as FOC if points are incorrect(GW has tried that in the past as well). What's problem is bad balance in points.

Also % would cripple certain units that you would struggle to fit into normal game without even spamming and others you could then spam lot more than with FOC. You would basically have just shifted spamming from one type of units to others. Changing problem rather than fixing it.

Also no 0-1's. Those are HORRIBLE as they scale so badly to non-standard point sizes it's not even funny. Effect of 0-1 is "bit" different compared to 1000, 1500, 1750, 2000 etc points.

(especially stupid if point cost of unit is lowered "because you can only have 1". You can bet GW would be stupid enough for that justification)

"Absolute" 0-1 can have problems, but as stated, is enough to put such limits for every FOC (is used). Imagine a FOC like in 6th; doubled when you go above 1999 points. A 0-1 per FOC limit would change to a more reasonable 0-2.
Same, selecting X as a HQ choice would make an Elite a Troop, but 0-1 per every other troop. It worked for Longbeards in WHFB Dwarves, could work for stuff like the Windriders.
I think is in the interests of everybody to avoid Spamhammer 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:


*Rolls eyes* You know you can still play Tomb Kings and Bretonnia in AoS? Like, there's plenty of mentions of Bretonnian-esque nations spread across the lore and all. But yeah, they nuked them, that will make you happy.

Some page ago, you defended my criticism to AoS sating that it will improve in next editions.

Do you think Bretonnia and tomb Kings will be there next editions?

Now this depends on what you define as "being there".

If you mean rules wise the current model range is there to stay simple as that. If a guy had the models he will be able to play them as the time goes on. GW has assured as much, the updates to GHB's and the editions would be points and rules. Model availability would only be affected upwards (ie: we ain't losing anything else in terms of rules). You just need to grab the warscrolls compendium (and tomb kings is still available in their web, but you need to goggle it for some reason, despite the link directing to their page). Now if they back on their word is another matter, and I'd dare not speak about the issue because I don't have clairvoyance.

If you mean will they available for sell: no and yes. As we know them they are gone forever, because all this big shuffle of names they did was to Copyright the hell out of their ranges (fyreslayers' name being the most glaring example). Now, here's where the devil lies: it is possible we see see them "return" by the hand of spiritual successors whenever the forces of the realm of light. Allarielle had her model removed only to return with a brand new model and a raging beetle. Tyrion is stated to be worshiped by some groups of human that consist mainly of noble knights and warriors. So the chance of seeing bretonians as questing knights in service of an elven deity (only that they actually know they are doing so) is within the realm of possibility. Not a certainity (because if so I'd be a diviner and host a 3-to-5 a.m. program on a gakky tv channel) but a likelihood.

Tomb kings are a bit thorny matter. Nagash is stated to have cohorts of liches under his service, de-facto rulers on par with the vampires in terms of authority, and said vampires follow a very Nekhekaran aesthethic, which may be the norm there. They may conform themselves with just a few models to complement the existing skelletons with a tomb king-esque aesthetic or just make a whole range or nothing at all. Mayhaps too? I'm less sure about this one.


herjan. Get them from ebay and/or perry miniatures. I like citadel miniatures by and large and prefer them to others (matter of taste, like the aesthetics, nothing "objective" about it) but I say that the official bretonnians' metal models was a bit... bad barring a few exceptions.

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.

Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.

Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.

The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
....Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement....

And to others it does, thus the thread has proven that no we can't agree that GW have gotten better

Wayniac wrote:
You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.

The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.

*snip*

Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop

The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.

What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.

And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.

 Polonius wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.

The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.

*snip*

Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop

The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.

What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.

And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.

This guy gets it, GW is doing better in 40k, most recent box deals, tac squad rhino and DA upgrade sprew for 50 bucks?!?! Hell yes good sir, is a great example.

AoS, charging 50 bucks for a set of chaos warriors who's cast is how old now, but charging that much just because the box says AoS, really gakky.

Like i said, they stopped digging down, but they still have a big ass hole to climb out of.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[

 Polonius wrote:
....Forgive me, but not overhauling their flagship ruleset does not preclude improvement....

And to others it does, thus the thread has proven that no we can't agree that GW have gotten better

Deciding that your own taste is the best way to measure the improvement a company is borderline narcissistic. By digging in on your own view of what improvement does just shows a limited ability to see a bigger picture. And the big picture is basically: while 40k/AoS still be around, with a global player base, either under GW or under another party. That's the game of marbles here. And the future of GW's games looks far better now than 12 months ago.

That doesn't diminish the complaints or dissatisfaction of people for whom GW is failing. People are pissed at the best run companies, and their complaints are still valid. there are plenty of good reasons to walk away from GW. It's also fair to say that the rules are just as bad, and since rules are important to you, you cannot see any real value in their improvement. That's totally fine.

But think of the GW community like a big old house, with people living on every floor and basement. Last winter, the furnace didn't work very well, and about 3/4 of the people were too cold. This winter, after some work, only 1/2 of the people are too cold. If you're in the at 1/2, the improvement for the 1/4 that got heat might be of little value to you, and that's fair. But that doesn't change the fact that the furnace did improve! things got better, just not for you.

People wonder why we're in a "post truth" culture now. It's not just the media. It's the idea that each person's perceptions, experiences, and opinions, are not just totally valid as subjective input, but have the same value in the same ways as facts and objective reality. And that idea is why a simple question generated two months of discussion: because people want to deny an objective reality that conflicts with their subjective experience. There's room for both, but you can't just throw one out for the other.

Well, a friend of mine wants to dial back the clock and use 5th edition rules for 40k with a few "house rules" to allow for the newer units (already a rule of no formations).

It will be a neat experiment to see if it works out ok.
That is back in the day when fliers are treated like fancy skimmers.
We shall see how it goes.
We are also getting our friend's Squat army dusted off for use.

I see many things that are good about 7th edition especially how Monstrous Creatures are handled so it will be interesting to see how the unholy blend works out.

I would say the biggest issue is how points vs capability of units / formations and the way they can be attached to each other makes for some truly broken combinations. I understand the want to be able to put together your dream mix of units but the "zoo" mix of units is getting silly.

I am not at peace with the idea of say a Deathwatch squad would include a bike with a bunch of foot sloggers... it just makes no sense.

I guess the true test of GW getting "better" is really where is your focus.

Good looking models to build and paint? Sure they are getting better.

Some good entry level games so you do not need a full army is great too.

Low cost has not been addressed much BUT the army starter boxes are a great start.

I want my 40k rules to get better but these have not seen much love there.

AOS people seem to be warming to so maybe that could be considered an improvement.