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.

Karol wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


I think he meant core rules in that particular instance, hence why he quoted buildings.

The core rules don't seem to be much better then the codex ones. Can anyone explain to me while a termintors that touchs a wall is harder to hit then one that is half a milimeter away from it, and have his whole unit anihilated because someone can draw LoS to the tip of his halabard. I mean technicly one should model his model crawling or turning in to armadilos.

Don't get mad at me dude! I was just pointing out!

I wasn't aware they were LoS issues.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

I'm not sure what you mean. As it stands, huge character models (Old One Eye, CCBs, Guilliman etc.) can't be picked out because they're behind infantry that barely reaches their knees.

 vipoid wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

Isn't it already the case in sole way since the smaller a model the harder it is to see and vice versa? Or do you mean something else?

I'm not sure what you mean. As it stands, huge character models (Old One Eye, CCBs, Guilliman etc.) can't be picked out because they're behind infantry that barely reaches their knees.

Hm get what you meant, nevermind dude.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SuspiciousSucculent wrote:
I see no reason to shut down criticism of GW. The only way they are ever going to get better is if we tell them how. And the only way they'll actually listen is if we moan loud enough to wake the primordial demon of discord and greed they keep locked in the forbidden sublevels of their headquarters.

Agree in principal, but more than half the criticism is baseless. And almost always steeped in absolutes and nostalgia.

That's the super-secret second function of moaning, it lets us, the community, figure out which criticisms are valid and which are bogus through the terrifying trial by fire that is an internet argument. So not only are we rousing the ageless monstrosity that lies dormant at the heart of GW, but we are also tempering our critique in the forge of the forum. Win-win if you ask me

I think that to a degree all voices are worth to hear, but on the flip side I do see the difference between saying that they wished they orc biker army would work, and a tzeench player saying that exalted flamers should cost less, because they can't fit them in to their army.

I saw this on another forums but we have now developed a theory that GW purposefully destroyed and wrecked their company and image so that they could start doing normal things we'd expect any other company to just normally do but we all clap and cheer for GW like it's a child learning to poop for the first time.

What else could explain many of their decisions and actions in the past that anyone could have told them was super mega stupid.

 lolman1c wrote:
I saw this on another forums but we have now developed a theory that GW purposefully destroyed and wrecked their company and image so that they could start doing normal things we'd expect any other company to just normally do but we all clap and cheer for GW like it's a child learning to poop for the first time.

What else could explain many of their decisions and actions in the past that anyone could have told them was super mega stupid.

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

 LunarSol wrote:

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

I don't think that saying stuff like we, we don't do market research is the norm in other companies. And the stuff like "they will buy our stuff anyway" policy was enforced by comic companies to drastic market shattering results.
Not saying companies don't do anything to save on production, lie if they don't get caught etc , but from what I have been told GW was doing stuff that was pro activlly lowering their sells.
With my little expiriance with the game, I see some of their stuff and I am mind blown. They have machines to print plastic crack, that is legal, and they still do stuff like GK codex. I look at it and ask myself, do they not want to sell GK models?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

Karol wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Nah. Prior actions are just the kind of things you see fairly often in publicly traded companies. Enough people want to see their stock spike so they can cash out and the board brings in a CEO who's happy to trade in the company's reputation for short term gains and sell before they have to face the consequences. This happens all the time, but in most cases the damage is too severe to recover from after the swindlers leave (TRU being a recent high profile example).

I don't think that saying stuff like we, we don't do market research is the norm in other companies. And the stuff like "they will buy our stuff anyway" policy was enforced by comic companies to drastic market shattering results.
Not saying companies don't do anything to save on production, lie if they don't get caught etc , but from what I have been told GW was doing stuff that was pro activlly lowering their sells.
With my little expiriance with the game, I see some of their stuff and I am mind blown. They have machines to print plastic crack, that is legal, and they still do stuff like GK codex. I look at it and ask myself, do they not want to sell GK models?

Well the overpricing of the models is mostly sign of greed. The citadel range is a high quality one on the whole nowadays, although the style sometimes get ugly and goofy to my personal taste, but still, I wonder what on earth they could be paying for that would requie them to price them sky high: production, raw materials, design before hands, I mostly see that and other comanies that just have the very same things to pay will still sell you miniatures for half GW's price. Small companies can't always do that, but according to the size of GW, the book sells... I firmly believe that's pure greed.

Actually m post is more a question, since it hasn't been unoticed that the models are getting always more expensive, and I wonder how one could logically account for it- apart from said greed.

By the way what about those quick refenrences to Frontline gaming (if I remember well)? How are they involved?

It is not even the price, though am not going to say that a prospect of a 3000$ army that is top tier wouldn't mean people would play it en mass.

IMO before the rules, and high end tournament meta, people have to want to play an army. And some armies even when they aren't eldar tier, are still fun to play. And it is great, because not everyone is training to win a GT event or even wants to play at that level of game play. And then there is stuff like orcs or GK, where I have no idea what makes people play those armies, other then that they bought the models ages ago. A GK army doesn't feel anything like its fluff, I could imagine people playing it still if it was super good, but it isn't. Yet GW makes a GK codex, then makes gold GKs on bikes, then makes GK spec ops Primaris edition. I just can't explain myself why they left GK in 8th, they could have removed them from the game, and at least some people would be spared starting a bad army.

Karol wrote:
It is not even the price, though am not going to say that a prospect of a 3000$ army that is top tier wouldn't mean people would play it en mass.

IMO before the rules, and high end tournament meta, people have to want to play an army. And some armies even when they aren't eldar tier, are still fun to play. And it is great, because not everyone is training to win a GT event or even wants to play at that level of game play. And then there is stuff like orcs or GK, where I have no idea what makes people play those armies, other then that they bought the models ages ago. A GK army doesn't feel anything like its fluff, I could imagine people playing it still if it was super good, but it isn't. Yet GW makes a GK codex, then makes gold GKs on bikes, then makes GK spec ops Primaris edition. I just can't explain myself why they left GK in 8th, they could have removed them from the game, and at least some people would be spared starting a bad army.

Well, as you state, not everyone plays Gt's, and so you can pplay your knights softly, giving them a few bonus yo agreed with your opponents. I feel bad posting this, as this has to be the number one overposted thing right now, but it holds true and each time makes wonder what on earth they are doing. But as you say this,once again we refer to those who moan -sorry for OP- because they have probably the best reason to feel slightly infuriated: their army is unplayable. It's not the same if you play IG or CSM, especially if yo play say CSM who have been getting the short end of the stick for 3 editions by know, rumours claim.

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Looks like most posters here have not been paying attention to GW’s financial statements over the past year. The release of 8th and a it’s negative reception cause a huge financial loss that GW is only now recovering from. The first few “balanced/overnerfed” codexes didn’t help at all, as GW was still reeling from AoS’s negative reception. GW did not start seeing an upswing in their financials until the new kits started arriving with the accompanying codex creep. Remember, GW change management just before AoS launched. AoS was the last new system launched by the Old management team, while 8th is the first system launched by the New management team
SJ

Can you post some quotes or documents to support that claim? Because thats hasn't anything to do with what it has been happening. GW has been gaining more and more profit since the release of the General's Handbook for AoS, before 8th edition.

8th was very well received and was a boom for GW financials, I have never seen that it was negatively received or that it was a loss for GW.

GW posts their quarterly earnings statement every quarter, they are a publicly traded company.

SJ

Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

Yeah like Galas I've not heard ANYTHING suggesting 8th was poorly received, just the oppisite in fact. yes you had some grognards who refused to accept the change but over all 8th has been a success.

does 8th have some large and obvious holes that need fixing in 8.5 or 9th edition? yes.

8th needs to address CP battery generation (hoards like guard etc are too valuable right now, likewise if Orks could be taken by any xenos army as allies you'd never see a Xenos army hit the table without a tiny battalion of Orks) needs to consider removing the supreme command detachment, maybe additional restrictions on detachments (like requiring you to fill detachment A before you may take detachment B. which would cut down on people playing accountant for CP gains. I think GW intended us to take 1 battalion with 3 troops, the 3 elites etc. rather then putting those elites into a vanguard detachment etc to maximize CP gain)

Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think GW intended us to take 1 battalion with 3 troops, the 3 elites etc. rather then putting those elites into a vanguard detachment etc to maximize CP gain)

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

You haven't seen it because its rubbish.
From the half year report published in January 2018:

6 months to November 2016 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £13.8 million. (I think the same period in 2015 was about £4.7 million.)
6 months to November 2017 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £38.8 million.

8th - and no doubt improvements to AoS, and other games, has been a license to print money.

GW's share price has been rising since mid 2016 - and with the release of 8th in mid 2017 went into overdrive. Principally because this year they are set to make 8~ times as much profit as they did in 2015.

Tyel wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I know, and I have read them, at least, on the surface, and I haven't read anything of what you are saying.

So if you don't provide quotes I can't believe what you are saying. If you do, of course, I'll admint you are right, even for my surprise after , at least here, 8th was a great success from the beginning.

You haven't seen it because its rubbish.
From the half year report published in January 2018:

6 months to November 2016 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £13.8 million. (I think the same period in 2015 was about £4.7 million.)
6 months to November 2017 - operating profit and pre-tax profit: £38.8 million.

8th - and no doubt improvements to AoS, and other games, has been a license to print money.

GW's share price has been rising since mid 2016 - and with the release of 8th in mid 2017 went into overdrive. Principally because this year they are set to make 8~ times as much profit as they did in 2015.

Yeah, thats why for somebody to claim that 8th edition was a failure at least initially was very shocking to me. Even the more hardcore haters of 8th edition all recognise it was an economically success for GW. This is the first time I have seen anybody claim otherwhise.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

Maybe am skewed at looking at it, but when I compare the GK codex to Custodes codex, the creep seems to be real. They are everything GK should be, only they move faster, have cool rules, good stratagems and people actually want to play with them. And yes I know that in some tournaments people soup them up to win. No one soups up GK to win. But other codex that came out after hte GK codex are worlds apart as power goes, the eldar books, the tyranids too. But even stuff like the blood angels seem to be at least fun to play with.
Not sure what a mini dex is, but armies seem to soup a lot. I think everyone told me that, If I have to play GK, I should take as few as them as possible and load up on IG.
Have no idea how problematic psychic powers in 8th are, so can't comment on that.

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

can you direct me where this was said, but it sure is not in the codex or the index.

It’s kind of hilarious to suggest that 8th edition was a financial disaster for GW. Same goes for AoS and Shadespire, really.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results/

Per the above link, on the last annual earnings statement, you can see the huge dip in earnings at the time of and just after 8th was launched, followed by a huge upswing to today’s numbers. Further breakdown shows that the upswing coincides with the release of new model kits and also correlates with new codex sales.

It’s not hard to read an earnings statement report.

SJ

Year on year income is up 50% following the release of 8th according to those figures.

Could you please point it out where, exactly, do you see that? I have trying to read them in detail but I can't find what you are saying.

Karol wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Perhaps more to the OP than the last few posts, but from my recollection:
In 7th, there were essentially 4 main complaints that were causing issues in the game:
Wild codex creep/imbalance
Psychic buffs
Codex mixing and matching (“Soup”)
The rise of the “mini-dex”

In 8th, GW has at least appeared to be aware of #1, and mostly stomped out #2. However, half of the things that caused major issues (for players’ wallets and their gameplay) have not only been retained but doubled-down on. There were some good changes in 8th, and good intentions. But some core issues from 7th are still there, and while whether this is due to GW’s ignorance/greed or their “TO consultants” trying to preserve a status quo is anyone’s guess; the issues still exist and are still causing problems.

Maybe am skewed at looking at it, but when I compare the GK codex to Custodes codex, the creep seems to be real. They are everything GK should be, only they move faster, have cool rules, good stratagems and people actually want to play with them. And yes I know that in some tournaments people soup them up to win. No one soups up GK to win. But other codex that came out after hte GK codex are worlds apart as power goes, the eldar books, the tyranids too. But even stuff like the blood angels seem to be at least fun to play with.
Not sure what a mini dex is, but armies seem to soup a lot. I think everyone told me that, If I have to play GK, I should take as few as them as possible and load up on IG.
Have no idea how problematic psychic powers in 8th are, so can't comment on that.

This seems unlikely given we were told pretty early on that pure Grey Knights was doing it wrong and they gave us more CP per Battalion when they realized players weren't maximizing the battalions they could take.

can you direct me where this was said, but it sure is not in the codex or the index.

But that's hardly the fault of creep, that's the fault of having some initial codecies not being as well made due to them not having any data to work with on what works, what doesnt and practically-no experience.

We are 19 codcies in with IK, lets look at the "creep" shall we?

1-4 are SM, CSM GK and DG are the initial 4, basically dropped on 8th release. they are not quite as well made as future ones, but most of them has something holding them semi-competitive yet.
5 is the first of the "really after realease" codex, he is more interesting than the first four, yet a bit weaker.
6-7 are guard and eldar-they WERE a large leap forward in both quality and in power level, but have both been tuned down in FAQs and CA.
8 is nids, excellently made codex, nothing unplayable, nothing too over the top-and a lot of interesting and verasitle ways to play.
9-10 are the BA and DA, basically variants of the SM codex (who were the first) and are similar in power level to him. not quite as inspiried as nids, but really more flavorful than SM-makes sense considering they are a more focused codex to begin with.
11 is demons-its not weak at all, but there is nothing overpowered there. each god has its own flavor and playstyle, and the codex is generally well made, except slannesh.
12 is the golden boys, who are more powerful the GK honestly, but they are not really stronger than the top dogs like guard and eldar-they are playable, workable and fun-but fair.
13 and 14 are the TS and Tau, both my armies and honestly both are flops. each for his own reasons-TS is too focused on the migrating goats from AoS and tau was just poorly designed overall. they both can pull some powerful lists though, go tow to tow with the best but are again-dont dominant.
15-18 brings a slide of necron, dark eldar, deathwatch and clowns. each is good, each brings power to the table, and not a single one is over the power curve, while each is interesting, flavorful and keeps to his unique flavor.
19, the IK is yet an unknown.


See, the issue of claiming a power creep, it demands that there is a constant increase in power level where every 2-3 codcies at worst you get a new top dog that dominates the field.
We don't have that. with each codex release after 6-7 we saw some new things being thrown into the mix of competitive, yet not a single time we had a new top dog dominating the field and forcing a major meta shift.
From codex to codex we see the same thing-a new army pops his head up, and all the old armies just refine a bit, but don't drop.

If we had a true creep, by now that we have over 10 codecies AFTER the "top dogs", they should have been long supressed into a niche, but they are really not. heck, gulliman ultra armies are STILL being played seriusly-that's the first codex, and we are nearly 20 in!


There is very little creep in 8th, if any at all.

Faction balance is the best it has always been, for armies with a Codex.

The worst ones in the high end competitive scene are space marines and space marines-like armies, but in middle of the road tournaments every army, even some index ones, can absolutely compete.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I'd venture that most people who hate 8th play a wee-bit more on the competitive side than not, or are in an area that does so. 8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese. Despite the decreased defense rules (feel no pain, cover, etc.), games go on for a good bit longer and are more competitive than they were in 7th. Your experience may vary.

I quite agree. 8th edition is not designed for competitive play, that is obvious. It works far better in a casual beer & pretzels style fun way. The problem is competitive players are trying to push a competitive play style where it doesn't fit properly and decrying that it doesn't work.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

GW is now experimenting a new mechanic for character protection (because let's be serious, AoS is the pathfinder for 40K).

The protection now is being tied to being within 3" of a unit with at least 3 models. I would be fine with that. Better than being able to protect your commander by putting a drone out of LoS somewhere.

I still think the size of the model needs to be taken into account.

This is the possibly paraphrased rule from the preview:



In 40K you could imagine this would be -1 to hit unless the model has 10 wounds or more, but I doubt it will become a thing in 40K with the prevalence of guns.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:
I'd venture that most people who hate 8th play a wee-bit more on the competitive side than not, or are in an area that does so. 8th edition is fantastic if you aren't playing cheese vs cheese. Despite the decreased defense rules (feel no pain, cover, etc.), games go on for a good bit longer and are more competitive than they were in 7th. Your experience may vary.

I quite agree. 8th edition is not designed for competitive play, that is obvious. It works far better in a casual beer & pretzels style fun way. The problem is competitive players are trying to push a competitive play style where it doesn't fit properly and decrying that it doesn't work.

40k is not a beer-and-pretzels game. Catan is beer-and-pretzels. Forbidden Island is beer-and-pretzels. Warhammer 40,000 (and AOS) is too expensive and, more importantly, takes far too much time and effort in prep to be so.

40k doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. Is it a casual, have-some-laughs-with-friends kind of game? Fine, go to cheap pre-painted minis ala Heroclix, with rules included to allow you to pay with them right out of the box. Is it a hard-core tactical game that you can get deeply invested in that simulates battles played with nice models you assemble and paint yourself? Great, let the rules reflect and reward that by being focused on player agency and decision making, with intuitive rules that do their best to bring the feel of combat to the table top. Instead GW tries to have it both ways by asking top-dollar for model kits that take your time and effort to put together and (hopefully) paint before they hit the table, and then giving you shallow gameplay in reward for all of your hard work to get to that point.

A “new” mechanic? Look out sir should have been #5 on things people hated about 7th, lol.