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.

"I've never seen a competitive player say allies are a problem"
They don't think it's a problem that mono factions can't compete with allied factions...Because they are all using allied factions.

Don't get me wrong - a few factions can compete mono. The majority can't

I mean - if "they" don't think that is a problem - I guess we really shouldn't listen to what they say. The majority of players want mono faction to be viable.

It really is as simple as giving mono factions some buffs - perhaps penalizing allies in the form of CP. Or perhaps - limiting the % of your army that can be allies. Plus - some interactions should not cross book lines. Like doom for example. Doom should not work with DE and harlequins. GSC spells should not work with tyranids. This is how unintended combos come about. Eliminate them.

 techsoldaten wrote:
My point was that these armies don't improve with soup. Either they would handicap an allied force or an allied force would handicap them.

Let's pretend you could ally Tau with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Likely not, they have good shooting already and the cost of infantry units would be taking away from points for drones. You would be better off with monolist Tau.

Let's pretend you could ally Necrons with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Probably, but then you still have the problems you have with Necrons. You would be better off just playing Guard.

OTOH, if Necron Warriors went down in cost by 33%, got an extra point of toughness and an additional point of AP, then you would have something interesting to put on the table. Let's say GW buffs other units in a similar fashion. At that point, why would you need Guard?

I suspect even if Necrons got buffed, there might still be a motive to take in IG (or other faction) psykers. The same for Tau too. I'd also speculate that guardsmen might be a better screen than fire warriors - although I rate fire warriors quite highly.

But yeah - right now Guard are probably better than Necrons to the point where any Necron unit is a downgrade (Destroyers might be worth looking at maybe).
But if Necrons were better than Guard you would have the same issue but just reversed. You are playing "soup", why bother with "faction"? Ad Mech are probably the best example of an Imperial Faction which might as well not exist even though Skitarri are reasonable enough.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Sigh. I didn't compare them. I gave an example of how just because something can sell well, doesn't automatically mean it's well designed, as you are literally claiming. I'm sure that same statement is applicable to whatever medium you choose, not just Freemium mobile games. However, as another poster has said to you:

I find difficult to have a discussion if you keep changing the cards on the table.

It's difficult to even keep up with the loops you keep spinning.

Correct. You took an example from a completely different genre, which is irrelevant to the conversation, and used it to make a point. To which I responded: apples to oranges.

It feels like I have an adequate understanding of the back and forth between us. It's probably unnecessary for you to continue explaining the conversation to me.

Perhaps you could consider making an actual point in response. Right now, this just feels condescending and patronizing.

What? I asked you a question that completely deconstructs that entire response, and you completely ignored it. I did make an actual point. The question is why did you ignore it?

I'll ask again.

Why is sales a reflection of good design in tabletop wargaming, and tabletop wargaming alone? Why is this not the case for video games? What are you basing your assertion of? Can you verify this at all, or at least explain the logic you are trying to push here? Explain why you think people would willingly pay for an advantage in P2W video games, but nobody would dream of doing so for 40k. If you're going to say the example is invalid, you have to explain why, just saying "apples to oranges" isn't an explanation at all. There's zero reason why that isn't an excellent example of how people are more than willing to spend plenty of money on poorly designed games. Explain why people wouldn't do the same in 40k. Thanks.

Sure. I believe my previous posts answered your first question, but I'm happy to reiterate.

As for the second question, this might require you accepting the idea that video games / mobile apps / etc are a completely separate market that invites no meaningful comparison. I'm not sure I could convince you of that and don't really want to waste my time trying to prove it. But ask yourself if a video game enthusiast who is used to paying $70 for a title is really going to spend thousands on a 40k army. For the majority of people, the answer is no. That means these are separate markets where buyers and sellers have entirely different motivations.

Back to the first question, "Why is sales a reflection of good design in tabletop wargaming, and tabletop wargaming alone?"

This is my argument. Any references I make to game design are purely related to tabletop games. (I'm going to forget the second half of the question, the part about 'tabletop gaming alone.' That has nothing to do with anything I said, I'm just not going to argue with you about video games. We're talking about soup in 40k and anything else is irrelevant and OT.)

- Financial success in manufacturing tabletop games is very rare. The vast majority of people / companies who have done it never see a profit. The vast majority of games that are ever made do not last.

- Most players don't play dead games. There is no point in designing a game no one will play except personal satisfaction. That's just selfishness.

- The companies that are successful at selling tabletop games are focused on profitability. Games Workshop is the best example, channel economics and sales channels have a huge influence over the company. Ask any FLGS owner who sells GW product.

- The companies that are not successful at selling tabletop games are focused on something besides profitability. Some of them had products with great rules, others with terrible rules. That factor - the quality of the rules - has very little to do with success in and of itself.

- So any definition of "good design in tabletop wargaming" that does not include "profitability" is off. TT game companies have to survive in a very competitive market and no one is going to enjoy a game if there's no one to play against.

- While GW appears to be the TT game leader, it does operate in a market. It's possible to compare their success with that of other companies. This is a measurement of the quality of game design.

- Therefore, 'good' game design is quantitative. It's a function of whether or not consumers see the game as something worth spending money on. It's also a function of whether or not the company sees value in continuing to produce the game.

Ultimately, any game goes away if people don't like it. If people do like it, the game continues to exist, unless the company can't find a way to make a profit. And that's really it when it comes to design, it's a question of whether or not the company is satisfying the needs / desires of players. Any definition of quality based on a game no one buys is just nostalgia.

What proves this to be true is the changes to the rules that happen between editions. Players get tired of the same thing game after game, their definition of 'good' changes. Previous editions of had ways of more accurately modelling reality with USRs, standardized movement, cover, scatter dice, templates, etc. Those went away because players favored a set of rules that are streamlined, work off data sheets, and soup.

By definition, that is good game design. It satisfies the desires of players profitably.

If you want an example of a game with high quality rules that no one plays, look at Warzone. Heartbreaker (the original manufacturer) was very competitive with GW for several years and had a great line of miniatures. Top flight talent with Kev Watts and Phil Lewis. I liked the rules a lot, they improved on just about everything in the current edition of 40k.

They just fell apart one day, a lot of that had to do with sales cycles. It was always boom or bust, they just hit a wall where it was no longer possible to operate the company.

When's the last time you found a pick up game of Warzone at your local FLGS? Quality in game design means a lot right up until the market punches you in the face.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
My point was that these armies don't improve with soup. Either they would handicap an allied force or an allied force would handicap them.

Let's pretend you could ally Tau with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Likely not, they have good shooting already and the cost of infantry units would be taking away from points for drones. You would be better off with monolist Tau.

Let's pretend you could ally Necrons with Guard. Would they benefit from Guard spam and some heavy weapons teams? Probably, but then you still have the problems you have with Necrons. You would be better off just playing Guard.

OTOH, if Necron Warriors went down in cost by 33%, got an extra point of toughness and an additional point of AP, then you would have something interesting to put on the table. Let's say GW buffs other units in a similar fashion. At that point, why would you need Guard?

I suspect even if Necrons got buffed, there might still be a motive to take in IG (or other faction) psykers. The same for Tau too. I'd also speculate that guardsmen might be a better screen than fire warriors - although I rate fire warriors quite highly.

But yeah - right now Guard are probably better than Necrons to the point where any Necron unit is a downgrade (Destroyers might be worth looking at maybe).
But if Necrons were better than Guard you would have the same issue but just reversed. You are playing "soup", why bother with "faction"? Ad Mech are probably the best example of an Imperial Faction which might as well not exist even though Skitarri are reasonable enough.

I didn't want to go there... when you face Slamguinius and a bunch of Leman Russes, is it Blood Angels or Cadia? I think a lot of people's reservations about soup have to do with not knowing what to call the army.

Objectively, the fact 3 Xenos armies don't get soup doesn't have that much of an impact on the game. Even if you took it away from Imperials, Necrons / Tau / Orks still are what they are.

 techsoldaten wrote:


- Financial success in manufacturing tabletop games is very rare. The vast majority of people / companies who have done it never see a profit. The vast majority of games that are ever made do not last.

Evidence for this? A game could be successful but limited in its release. Even GW does this with Space Hulk.
A small company could release a game, have a financial gain, but not the means to expand into the market.
If the market is such a minefield, why people keep trying?

Also, concerning specifically GW, why we cannot admit there are degrees of profitability? Part of the customers are only attracted by the mere models and universe, disregarding the rules. That can be a factor.
But other customers are attracted by the rule component and not writing good rules can be determining in chasing away those people. This could result in a loss of revenue (not total loss, but compared to a potential).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I think a solution to the IG CP battery would be to re-introduce Platoons.
It wouldn't inhibit our ability to field Guardmen as the Guard, but reduce the rate at which they generate CP [specifically, doubling the cost of a CP battalion, bring the cost/5 CP's roughly into line with the cost per 5 CP's that Astartes pay].

 Kanluwen wrote:
Alternatively if we have to be stuck with this garbage, add in rules preventing a Guard character from being Warlord. Add in rules preventing them from sharing CPs. Make it so these leeches can't use Guard for anything but board control.

IG are undercosted. The presence of a few even more in undercosted available to imperium lists does absolve ig of their criminally undercosted units. Like guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
5 or 6. I'd have to see play testing on both. IG is a faction where everything costs a pack of skittles, there by gaining a huge number of aggregate wounds. What could go wrong with letting ig field more wounds than many lists can deal out over six turns unhindered?

So you honestly think that a 30-60 point increase in the cost of the CP battery would make it a tough decision and not an auto-include?

(Correct answer: it would still be an auto-include.)

The characters need to go up in price, too.

Martel732 wrote:
IG are undercosted. The presence of a few even more in undercosted available to imperium lists does absolve ig of their criminally undercosted units. Like guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
5 or 6. I'd have to see play testing on both. IG is a faction where everything costs a pack of skittles, there by gaining a huge number of aggregate wounds. What could go wrong with letting ig field more wounds than many lists can deal out over six turns unhindered?

So you honestly think that a 30-60 point increase in the cost of the CP battery would make it a tough decision and not an auto-include?

(Correct answer: it would still be an auto-include.)

The characters need to go up in price, too.

If something is still auto include after a 60 point increase. It should be immediately hot-fixed to that price. lol. Not wait 1 1/2 years to make the change.

CA is coming. Guardsmen being 5 points in Kill Teams is probably a solid indicator of the change to come. At this point i don't see the reason to beat it up any more.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


- Financial success in manufacturing tabletop games is very rare. The vast majority of people / companies who have done it never see a profit. The vast majority of games that are ever made do not last.

Evidence for this? A game could be successful but limited in its release. Even GW does this with Space Hulk.
A small company could release a game, have a financial gain, but not the means to expand into the market.
If the market is such a minefield, why people keep trying?

Anecdotal evidence based on experiences with other entrepreneurs including FLGS owners, game designers, distributors and retail goods marketers. Never met anyone who thinks you can make money introducing a new game, it's an uphill battle to get a single store to stock it. The only recent, visible success I can think of is Cards Against Humanity.

Yes, there are a lot of niche games out there and it's possible they made some kind of a profit. As in $1 or more than they spent to produce the game. I'm sure a few people found a way to live off this for a year or two.

But no, there are not a lot of companies like this and they are not growing past the small business stage to become public companies. I can say I'm not absolutely sure of my answer here and should probably do some actual research at some point.

As far as why people keep trying... my first company out of high school was a t-shirt business. We sold shirts at the beach. I made a lot of money one summer, but we could not get into retail so it dried up. Something I learned from that is the mix of inexperience and enthusiasm causes people to take risks doing things they love. It's easier when you are young or past the point of needing to care about money.

The motivation is not to dominate the market so much as do something neat, I think that's called a lifestyle business or a hobby. I say that because I don't see a lot of these companies taking off. Comparing that to what GW does doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Also, concerning specifically GW, why we cannot admit there are degrees of profitability? Part of the customers are only attracted by the mere models and universe, disregarding the rules. That can be a factor.
But other customers are attracted by the rule component and not writing good rules is a factor in a loss of revenue (not total loss, but compared to a potential).

The fact that some people buy models and some people play the game doesn't really matter, does it?

No one pays to play a game of 40k. They pay for books, models, paint, cards, dice, etc. Each of these items has a channel economics attached, there's a cost of goods and services, cost for distribution, cost of administration / sales / marketing, and margin that goes into decisions about what to manufacture. The company is no more or less profitable based on whether or not people are buying dice, they are profitable so long as the cost of dice do not exceed the revenue generated from them.

Sure, if everyone bought dice from GW, the annual revenue would go up. But I suspect dice sales are incidental to model sales, there's no company without that. Dice are probably more a function of marketing than actual line of business, it's swag they get you to pay for. Swag that comes with rounded corners, doesn't roll statistical averages, etc.

It's an auto include in a mono-ig list, too, if they just want 5 cp. IG players are really tripping in 8th.

If they wanted Soup to be the thing for the game they should have branded it.

I think if GW had changed the billng of the game so it was a fight between Imperium, Eldar, Nids, Ruinous Powers,Orks and Tau...

And then insteed of codex, they should have put out detachment books. Detachment: Space Wolves, Detachment: Goffs, Detachment: Harlequins, Detachment: Flesh Tearers.

Simple branding, but a good fix.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If something is still auto include after a 60 point increase. It should be immediately hot-fixed to that price. lol. Not wait 1 1/2 years to make the change.

They're making a strong showing. Not absolutely obliterating everything in their path.

Additionally the IG codex came out a year ago and immediately received some nerfs on conscripts. The March Big FAQ was pretty close and address the REALLY big problems like Fire Raptors and Dark Reapers. Then comes the Sep FAQ, in which they did not address points for anyone, because CA is less than 2 months away. So, GW has addressed problems in the space allowed and this December is when we should expect them to handle that situation.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

If something is still auto include after a 60 point increase. It should be immediately hot-fixed to that price. lol. Not wait 1 1/2 years to make the change.

They're making a strong showing. Not absolutely obliterating everything in their path.

Additionally the IG codex came out a year ago and immediately received some nerfs on conscripts. The March Big FAQ was pretty close and address the REALLY big problems like Fire Raptors and Dark Reapers. Then comes the Sep FAQ, in which they did not address points for anyone, because CA is less than 2 months away. So, GW has addressed problems in the space allowed and this December is when we should expect them to handle that situation.

Fireraptor only became a problem because they made them cheaper than storm ravens in the first CA - which was an obviously idiotic move - they are strictly superior to storm ravens.
Another idiotic move - nerf conscripts to the same points as infantry...infantry are obviously superior to conscripts. Really...not a lot of intelligence coming out of any of these changes.
Yeah reapers needs to go up in points - fancy that...they were cheaper than every comparable bs3+ shooter with amazing special rules. Thought this game was play tested?

IG infantry squads are the most dominant unit in 40k right now. No other unit even comes close to the number of selections.

I have very little faith much with change after CA. 5 point IG might be on there. However - 95% of issues will go untouched and they will probably create more issues - kind of like every major rules update they have had so far in this 1 1/2 year period.

Reemule wrote:
I think if GW had changed the billng of the game so it was a fight between Imperium, Eldar, Nids, Ruinous Powers,Orks and Tau...

That would be kind of ok if ...

1) There weren't fundamental game rule balance differences between books in the same faction (i.e. one book written to work with ~6 CPs and the second generating two dozen with ease)
2) The books weren't explicitly and excessively self contained (i.e. deathwatch not being ordo xenos, the rogue trader death cultist being incompatible with death cultists, etc)
3) The codex balance being so wonky that entire factions boil down to two or three good choices and a whole lot of filler
4) GW had used chapter approved to keep all books in the same broad faction on part between releases
5) And finally, if there weren't so many damned units. Particularly repeated and minor variants of the same unit, each with their own slightly different rules and restrictions depending on which source they were taken from.

If grand alliance was their goal they've not a half assed job of it.

 Xenomancers wrote:


I have very little faith much with change after CA. 5 point IG might be on there. However - 95% of issues will go untouched and they will probably create more issues - kind of like every major rules update they have had so far in this 1 1/2 year period.

Here's the funny thing...

The community is so focused on the big killers like the Castellan & Ynnari that few have an idea what the next worse unit will be.

I challenge anyone here to predict what that will be. Also, I invite you to predict what Ork unit will be problematic, if any.

And we'll all find out in the shakedown at LVO.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I have very little faith much with change after CA. 5 point IG might be on there. However - 95% of issues will go untouched and they will probably create more issues - kind of like every major rules update they have had so far in this 1 1/2 year period.

Here's the funny thing...

The community is so focused on the big killers like the Castellan & Ynnari that few have an idea what the next worse unit will be.

I challenge anyone here to predict what that will be. Also, I invite you to predict what Ork unit will be problematic, if any.

And we'll all find out in the shakedown at LVO.

I'm sure that the Ork Codex will have a single over-performer. It's hard to tell what it'll be as I don't have access to the codex yet. There might be some news as to what Chapter Approved will contain at some point this month, which will help us decide more about the types of changes it will have. As it stands, all we're doing is speculating. Some people have little faith, some have lots. But we simply don't know yet, and can only guess based off of anecdotal extrapolations of Games Workshop's statements and activities.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I have very little faith much with change after CA. 5 point IG might be on there. However - 95% of issues will go untouched and they will probably create more issues - kind of like every major rules update they have had so far in this 1 1/2 year period.

Here's the funny thing...

The community is so focused on the big killers like the Castellan & Ynnari that few have an idea what the next worse unit will be.

I challenge anyone here to predict what that will be. Also, I invite you to predict what Ork unit will be problematic, if any.

And we'll all find out in the shakedown at LVO.

The little I've seen with orks I doubt any will be problematic. Much the same it will probably be shoota boys being the most powerful choice - probably with the advance and shoot army trait or FNP.

It's hard to predict the meta. Its not hard to figure out what units needs to be looked at though.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Its not hard to figure out what units needs to be looked at though.

It was easier back then. Less so now.

Knights stick out like a sore thumb, because you can't playtest them with allies. A Castellan at 625 is probably ok if it has no support other than being within a skew list. Knights might need smallish increases and a CP rework, which they already took steps towards on the latter.
Ynnari are also a more of a mechanics than a point issue.
Double hit mods are a mechanics issue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Its not hard to figure out what units needs to be looked at though.

It was easier back then. Less so now.

Knights stick out like a sore thumb, because you can't playtest them with allies. A Castellan at 625 is probably ok if it has no support other than being within a skew list. Knights might need smallish increases and a CP rework, which they already took steps towards on the latter.
Ynnari are also a more of a mechanics than a point issue.
Double hit mods are a mechanics issue.

One of the biggest missed opportunities of the Knights book was the lack of a Man-At-Arms unit and Sacristans.

 Kanluwen wrote:

One of the biggest missed opportunities of the Knights book was the lack of a Man-At-Arms unit and Sacristans.

Those exist, they're just in different book. You can find them under the names 'Tech-Priest Enginseer' and 'Infantry Squad.' (Or alternatively 'Skitarii Rangers' or 'Skitarii Vanguard.') You're welcome.

The current competitive scene feels more like open play with points.

There's really nothing "matched" in matched play atm. I think this is the basis for most people opinion against soup currently.

Competitive play should be what the name suggests - a competition, of strategy and luck. It shouldn't be a game of 'who has the money to swap out their army at every turn of meta to bring the most OP combination of things.'

This game has so much potential to be so much greater. As it stands right now, the competitive scene is nothing more than a 'pay-to-win' game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I challenge anyone here to predict what that will be. Also, I invite you to predict what Ork unit will be problematic, if any.

And we'll all find out in the shakedown at LVO.

Its a bit early and I still don't have the codex (roll on tomorrow) but I suspect mass smasha guns/tractor kannons are going to be broken - if people can stomach shelling out over 500 quid retail for them.

Techsoldaten, I am genuinely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. Also you kinda moved the goalpost from profit to becoming public, in regard of the game companies.

Same with the payment and revenue. The point is just that a well rounded sets of models for each faction, and a tight ruleset are a better bet for attracting a diverse array of customers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Its not hard to figure out what units needs to be looked at though.

It was easier back then. Less so now.

Knights stick out like a sore thumb, because you can't playtest them with allies. A Castellan at 625 is probably ok if it has no support other than being within a skew list. Knights might need smallish increases and a CP rework, which they already took steps towards on the latter.
Ynnari are also a more of a mechanics than a point issue.
Double hit mods are a mechanics issue.

My personal opinion is that the biggest issue with IK is their relics and warlord traits.
Cawls Wrath is too much for a relic upgrade (have it keep str 8 or have it keep 2 damage)
Ion Bulwark is OP as feth - (make it max of 4++ save)
(forget it's name) The fight at full power regardless of degrading stratagem should be nerfed to -1 to your degradation profile.

I don't see Ynnari as being a big problem. Spears need a 5-7 point increase and probably should not be able to use craftworld stratagems (once they get their own this wont be an issue)

-1 to hit army trait needs removed from the game entirely. Too powerful to get for free.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Techsoldaten, I am genuinely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. Also you kinda moved the goalpost from profit to becoming public, in regard of the game companies.

Same with the payment and revenue. The point is just that a well rounded sets of models for each faction, and a tight ruleset are a better bet for attracting a diverse array of customers.

Honestly, it feels like I am spitting in the wind. The exact same argument would apply to what you just said about well-rounded sets models and tight rulesets.

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful. If it has those qualities and it's not commercially successful, it's not a game, it's just some selfish endeavor that will lose money.

Don't tell me a game is well designed just because you think those qualities apply. Someone is always going to have a different opinion and your opinion doesn't mean anything more than the next persons. In fact, people will say it's not well designed just because you think it is.

'Well designed' means nothing unless it emphasizes profit. And if you define profit as $1 more than it cost to build the game, it was never worth your time to begin with.

 techsoldaten wrote:

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful.

See above, actual revenue vs potential.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful.

See above, actual revenue vs potential.

You would need to explain that to me.

To give an example.

I think infinity has a "better" ruleset than 40k. Mainly because it does something about the I go you go system.
Unfortunately you almost need a PhD to understand the various interactions and there is a tendency to get butchered if you don't know what you are doing - so the takeup is relatively low.

But really I don't think this is an issue for balance in 40k. 40k is a successful game. I don't want the superior lists to be Soup. I want mono faction to be competitive.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful.

See above, actual revenue vs potential.

You would need to explain that to me.

Company has good models and bad rules: sells X
Company has good models and good rules: sells X+Y

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Techsoldaten, I am genuinely unable to understand the point you are trying to make. Also you kinda moved the goalpost from profit to becoming public, in regard of the game companies.

Same with the payment and revenue. The point is just that a well rounded sets of models for each faction, and a tight ruleset are a better bet for attracting a diverse array of customers.

Honestly, it feels like I am spitting in the wind. The exact same argument would apply to what you just said about well-rounded sets models and tight rulesets.

It doesn't matter if a game has those qualities so long as it's commercially successful. If it has those qualities and it's not commercially successful, it's not a game, it's just some selfish endeavor that will lose money.

Don't tell me a game is well designed just because you think those qualities apply. Someone is always going to have a different opinion and your opinion doesn't mean anything more than the next persons. In fact, people will say it's not well designed just because you think it is.

'Well designed' means nothing unless it emphasizes profit. And if you define profit as $1 more than it cost to build the game, it was never worth your time to begin with.

I think you are conflating commercial success with "good" game design. Commercial success for a game isn't entirely dependent on how good the game was designed, especially for a game like 40k where there are people who buy the models used to play the game to paint but never play the game itself.

A game like Settler's of Catan is arguably a more well designed game than 40k, but it isn't anywhere near as successful commercially for a number of factors that don't have to do with it's design.

Edit: Spelling.