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.
Grimtuff wrote: Perri, a man who has never heard of UK employment law...
If UK employment law doesn't allow you to fire an employee who is incapable of doing their job then UK employment law is broken. But that's a subject for another thread, even if UK employment law is broken those employees should be fired.
Oh, you're so entertaining...
Unlike the USA, you cannot sack someone for trivial reasons like "they don't make a game the way I like". There are tribunals, do you really in your honest heart think GW should take their game designers into the office and let them go because some bird of prey on the internet said so?
What job do you do, other than pontificate on the internet? You really don't have an understanding of how this works. How would you like it if someone tried to sack you because you did something in a way they don't like but the company does?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Except that's not how it works. A big part of the issue is the incompetence of the existing employees and their mindset of "I don't think competitive play is fun, so I'm not working on it", replacing them with competent game designers would improve the quality of the rules without increasing costs.
Models are on the other hand 1 and done. afterwards you have negligible spending in producing them.
Do you honestly think that GW would sell as much as they do without the game existing at all? Of course not. GW can't survive with nothing but model designs.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
GW is smart enough to know that rules sell models. They have to see the sales difference between the Castellan and the Valiant. They are both Dominus class and the Valiant actually looks cooler. Yet, one is clearly outselling the other. Why?
Acting like they aren't aware of rules influencing sales is bonkers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:42:53
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Grimtuff wrote: Unlike the USA, you cannot sack someone for trivial reasons like "they don't make a game the way I like". There are tribunals, do you really in your honest heart think GW should take their game designers into the office and let them go because some bird of prey on the internet said so?
Yep, that's exactly what I think. GW's rule authors have demonstrated, over an extended period of time, an inability to create a good game and a refusal to do work they don't personally enjoy. Fire them and replace them with better game designers, just like any other employee would be replaced for poor job performance.
What job do you do, other than pontificate on the internet? You really don't have an understanding of how this works. How would you like it if someone tried to sack you because you did something in a way they don't like but the company does?
I'm an engineer, and if I consistently failed at basic engineering tasks or refused to work on a project because I didn't think it would be fun then yes, I would expect to be fired for it. And if the management of my company refused to develop a new product because it wouldn't be fun, or consistently ignored market demand in favor of settling for "good enough" profits then I would expect that management to be fired and replaced by people more capable of doing the job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:45:17
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'm an engineer, and if I consistently failed at basic engineering tasks or refused to work on a project because I didn't think it would be fun then yes, I would expect to be fired for it.
Well folks, lets just leave this in a quote for all to see as this explains everything...
One would think someone would understand that the standards of a field that people can potentially get killed in if something they design goes wrong applies equally to games designers.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Grimtuff wrote: One would think someone would understand that the standards of a field that people can potentially get killed in if something they design goes wrong applies equally to games designers.
The field of engineering I'm in is not one where there is a significant risk of injury or death. The primary failure would be a product that doesn't work and a customer that is demanding a refund. So your objection fails.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Considering that sales are higher then they have been in years, I'd say that GW's rules designers are doing exactly what the company wants them to do: make a product that sells. You are not the arbitrator of what constitutes a "good game"; the market is. The market seems to think the game is just fine.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
EnTyme wrote: Considering that sales are higher then they have been in years, I'd say that GW's rules designers are doing exactly what the company wants them to do: make a product that sells. You are not the arbitrator of what constitutes a "good game"; the market is. The market seems to think the game is just fine.
The casual side was always bigger in 40k as much as you don't like that perregrine.
That said more competent balancing Team would go a long way.
EnTyme wrote: Considering that sales are higher then they have been in years, I'd say that GW's rules designers are doing exactly what the company wants them to do: make a product that sells. You are not the arbitrator of what constitutes a "good game"; the market is. The market seems to think the game is just fine.
Currently making a profit =/= couldn't be making more profit.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You're assuming that changing the design philosophy of the most successful tabletop wargame of all time will make it more profitable. I guarantee you that suits with a way bigger investment in the game have done far more research than you ever could into how to maximize their profit. Guess which design philosophy won?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 23:05:57
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
. A big part of the issue is the incompetence of the existing employees and their mindset of "I don't think competitive play is fun, so I'm not working on it",
No, that's a narrative that you've made up, because it fits your worldview.
GW hires people based on their attitude. In other words, they hire people based on how well they fit into the specific hole that GW want them to fill.
So your assumption that designers are producing the game as is due to incompetence is far less likely than that they are producing exactly what their employer is telling them to produce.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 23:30:53
EnTyme wrote: You're assuming that changing the design philosophy of the most successful tabletop wargame of all time will make it more profitable. I guarantee you that suits with a way bigger investment in the game have done far more research than you ever could into how to maximize their profit. Guess which design philosophy won?
Given that the "suit" before 8th was a guy with no previous experience in the game industry who was universally criticized and oversaw GW run into serious financial problems, while the direction since his departure has been in favor of more recognition of competitive play. If the suits are so persuasive to you then I'll let their actions demonstrate that I'm right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: No, that's a narrative that you've made up, because it fits your worldview.
GW hires people based on their attitude. In other words, they hire people based on how well they fit into the specific hole that GW want them to fill.
So your assumption that designers are producing the game as is due to incompetence in far less likely than that they are producing exactly what their employer is telling them to produce.
Then GW's management should be fired for deliberately hiring people with an attitude of "we shouldn't pursue that market segment, I don't consider it fun" instead of WOTC's approach of "design for everyone and maximize profits".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 23:31:25
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'm an engineer, and if I consistently failed at basic engineering tasks or refused to work on a project because I didn't think it would be fun then yes, I would expect to be fired for it.
Well folks, lets just leave this in a quote for all to see as this explains everything...
One would think someone would understand that the standards of a field that people can potentially get killed in if something they design goes wrong applies equally to games designers.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Bro you don't understand! If they don't make MeQs good soon I will literally die.
I miss the cutlery chat from a couple of pages ago. I was hoping it was still going so I could chime in with “Sporks exist and function as a spoon, knife AND fork!” to explode all the analogies... two pages too late. Dayum.
Anyway, one fluffybad list isn’t worth getting riled up over. Just... don’t buy and/or play it?
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
EnTyme wrote: You're assuming that changing the design philosophy of the most successful tabletop wargame of all time will make it more profitable. I guarantee you that suits with a way bigger investment in the game have done far more research than you ever could into how to maximize their profit. Guess which design philosophy won?
Given that the "suit" before 8th was a guy with no previous experience in the game industry who was universally criticized and oversaw GW run into serious financial problems, while the direction since his departure has been in favor of more recognition of competitive play. If the suits are so persuasive to you then I'll let their actions demonstrate that I'm right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: No, that's a narrative that you've made up, because it fits your worldview.
GW hires people based on their attitude. In other words, they hire people based on how well they fit into the specific hole that GW want them to fill.
So your assumption that designers are producing the game as is due to incompetence in far less likely than that they are producing exactly what their employer is telling them to produce.
Then GW's management should be fired for deliberately hiring people with an attitude of "we shouldn't pursue that market segment, I don't consider it fun" instead of WOTC's approach of "design for everyone and maximize profits".
Whilest you might be an engineer your knowledge about markets or economics is bad.
It makes NO SENSE to pursue a tiny market Segment if you locked down the majority of the market allready if that tiny Segment requires more cost to be achieved then you gain via benefits of scale due to the other Segments you locked down.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Given that the "suit" before 8th was a guy with no previous experience in the game industry who was universally criticized and oversaw GW run into serious financial problems, while the direction since his departure has been in favor of more recognition of competitive play. If the suits are so persuasive to you then I'll let their actions demonstrate that I'm right.
Sure, the change from Kirby's approach to Rowntree's showed that the state of the game is certainly important. That doesn't mean that there isn't a point of diminishing return, though. In other words, having a good game is clearly better for selling miniatures than having a bad one. But having a better game than you currently have isn't always going to result in a big enough increase in sales to be worth the effort.
What they're looking for is the game that is going to be popular enough to be good for sales while requiring the least effort to produce.
That's unlikely to ever be the game that you seem to be demanding. And that's nothing to do with the competence of the designers, and everything to do with the goals of the business.
JohnnyHell wrote: I miss the cutlery chat from a couple of pages ago. I was hoping it was still going so I could chime in with “Sporks exist and function as a spoon, knife AND fork!” to explode all the analogies... two pages too late. Dayum.
Anyway, one fluffybad list isn’t worth getting riled up over. Just... don’t buy and/or play it?
I have joined this thread a page ago for the very reason of linking in a spork
JohnnyHell wrote: I miss the cutlery chat from a couple of pages ago. I was hoping it was still going so I could chime in with “Sporks exist and function as a spoon, knife AND fork!” to explode all the analogies... two pages too late. Dayum.
Anyway, one fluffybad list isn’t worth getting riled up over. Just... don’t buy and/or play it?
I have joined this thread a page ago for the very reason of linking in a spork
Oh you excellent being, I see that post now! Great minds!
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: I miss the cutlery chat from a couple of pages ago. I was hoping it was still going so I could chime in with “Sporks exist and function as a spoon, knife AND fork!” to explode all the analogies... two pages too late. Dayum.
Anyway, one fluffybad list isn’t worth getting riled up over. Just... don’t buy and/or play it?
I have joined this thread a page ago for the very reason of linking in a spork
Oh you excellent being, I see that post now! Great minds!
How could I miss such a great opportunity to mock a [not mocking-] bird...
Galef wrote: Yeah, "viability" is completely subjective. There "competitive viability", which is probably the most commonly assumed on Dakka, even though that's still debatable. And then you have "can my models function/roll dice with the system viability and be fun" which has always seemed to be GW concern (even if they haven't succeeded in some cases)
Also remember that while online forums and tourneys are a large part of the demographic, there is a possibility that most sales GW sees have nothing to do with rule and more to do with collectors/painters. If the models look good, they will sell. Rules don't make a dent in the bottomline in most cases (with some very select exceptions)
-
The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.
Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.
Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"
People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better
The problem is still that some ''Theme'' are clearly better than other! Even for casual gamers, a Ynnari themed or Imperial Knight themed list will vastly outperform a marine Vanguard theme list, even if they're being played by completly new players. Doesn't that seem unfun to you?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/09 00:09:34
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Not at all, they base their business around collecting and playing they have never based it in regards to tournament play all though they pay lip service to it.
Again, the two are not in conflict. There is no excuse for ignoring tournament play when supporting it generates more sales with no cost to the collecting aspect of the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Perri, a man who has never heard of UK employment law...
If UK employment law doesn't allow you to fire an employee who is incapable of doing their job then UK employment law is broken. But that's a subject for another thread, even if UK employment law is broken those employees should be fired.
Calling for people to be fired because they're not making the product you personally want is ridiculous.
They should be fired because of poor job performance, just like employees in a similar situation in other fields would be fired. If you're an engineer and you can't do math you don't keep your job. If you're a customer service person and are rude to customers you don't keep your job. So why should GW be any different? Why should people who are obviously incapable of meeting reasonable job performance expectations, in large part because they refuse to do work that isn't "fun", continue to be employed?
I never said they ignore it, I said they pay lip service to it. If they focused on it, they would make universal tournament rules instead of having so many different tournaments by other organisers. They've never focused on tournament play as a business, they have been happy to let the other organisations deal with that.
As for UK employment law, you can absolutely fire someone for being incompetent, its a hassle to fire them as there are a lot of procedures that have to take place first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/09 00:41:49
EnTyme wrote:Considering that sales are higher then they have been in years, I'd say that GW's rules designers are doing exactly what the company wants them to do: make a product that sells. You are not the arbitrator of what constitutes a "good game"; the market is. The market seems to think the game is just fine.
Funny thing about a market driven economy, if 40k sucked so bad I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have as much market share and killer financial returns as they currently do.
40k might as well be dead since the rules blow so bad.
Crimson wrote:Peregrine, I think more people would agree with the basic idea of your point if you wouldn't be so absurdly hyperbolic about it...
I think the reason the armies in this article are getting so much gak has nothing to do with them not being good tournament armies, and everything to do with the fact they aren't good lists at all. Even a casual player will curbstomp these lists. That's the problem.
There's nothing even remotely good about these armies. They are absolute trash lists incapable of performing at any level in the game, casual or otherwise. Nobody is expecting a competitive tournament list, but god damn we should expect at least some sort of understanding of the game to make a list that can actually perform.
A newbie who sees this article and thought this is good list building advice is going to spend a large amount of money, turn up for even the most friendly of pickup games at their local store, proceed to get the gak kicked out of them and then say feth this game and feel lied to and cheated after every single game they play they get crushed.
Wayniac wrote: I think the reason the armies in this article are getting so much gak has nothing to do with them not being good tournament armies, and everything to do with the fact they aren't good lists at all. Even a casual player will curbstomp these lists. That's the problem.
There's nothing even remotely good about these armies. They are absolute trash lists incapable of performing at any level in the game, casual or otherwise. Nobody is expecting a competitive tournament list, but god damn we should expect at least some sort of understanding of the game to make a list that can actually perform.
A newbie who sees this article and thought this is good list building advice is going to spend a large amount of money, turn up for even the most friendly of pickup games at their local store, proceed to get the gak kicked out of them and then say feth this game and feel lied to and cheated after every single game they play they get crushed.
This is exactly my point. This article is toxic to new players and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how to make a list that is FUN to play (i.e. has some remote chance to win a casual game).
A 40k army should not require your opponent to tailor their list and the mission to have some semblance of fair play. That kind of game would get old very quick as well. How many games like this can you realistically play with your $400+ investment?
Wayniac wrote: I think the reason the armies in this article are getting so much gak has nothing to do with them not being good tournament armies, and everything to do with the fact they aren't good lists at all. Even a casual player will curbstomp these lists. That's the problem.
There's nothing even remotely good about these armies. They are absolute trash lists incapable of performing at any level in the game, casual or otherwise. Nobody is expecting a competitive tournament list, but god damn we should expect at least some sort of understanding of the game to make a list that can actually perform.
A newbie who sees this article and thought this is good list building advice is going to spend a large amount of money, turn up for even the most friendly of pickup games at their local store, proceed to get the gak kicked out of them and then say feth this game and feel lied to and cheated after every single game they play they get crushed.
This is exactly my point. This article is toxic to new players and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how to make a list that is FUN to play (i.e. has some remote chance to win a casual game).
A 40k army should not require your opponent to tailor their list and the mission to have some semblance of fair play. That kind of game would get old very quick as well. How many games like this can you realistically play with your $400+ investment?
I have no problem with asking your opponent to tailor a list or the mission, but those are not the default scenarios for the vast majority of games played. A list should at least be able to work in friendly, non-competitive games. These lists cannot (maybe the Chaos one could, barely, and realistically that's more because I think it would look cool and *want* to believe it could. It probably couldn't).
There's building a fun casual list, and there's this where the list can't even do that.
To put it bluntly: These lists suck even for casual play, let alone competitive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/09 02:02:52
I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. With some armies if you do that you will lose every game which is part of GWs buisness model.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. .
So what happens if both players do this? Does the table implode?
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: I think it's more the fact that a list being this bad is even possible. People are told pick what you want, and the fact is if you do that you will lose most of your games. .
So what happens if both players do this? Does the table implode?
I suppose in that case you actually can have an equally matched game if both lists are terribad.
But let's be honest, how often do both people pick whatever the hell they want without any thought to how it performs? Outside of the GW Studio, I guess.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
