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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

He says, while ironically attacking all members of the thread.

There can be only war, and war never changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
It's amazing how fast you guys turn from attacking GW to tearing at each other.

My criticisms of GW have largely been answered by GW and their increased transparency on how the game is developed.

My issues with the community is that a portion of them still think it's 7th edition and that Kirby still has a deathgrip on the studio.

Gone are the days of waiting three to ten years to see a codex update, and while GW is still trying to find their footing to update armies more frequently the fact remains they are actually trying to meet player demands in a more timely manner.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a new business model, especially when you have to balance customer and shareholder demands.

What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I am not a big fan of defending any organization whose net worth out weighs my own, but when it comes to the misrepresentation of facts involving a hobby I partake in then I'm going to call BS when people keep making stuff up and presenting it as "fact".

I suspect the campaign idea is for GW to inject new models and rules into the game (much like how FW campaigns do) between codex updates. My concern is that if this is the case and the space between updates is too long then it could require too many books to play the new stuff, but if it's too short it defeats the purpose of the campaign book as a means of adding things to the game.

I don't know the best approach here, at least not one that satisfies the consumer bases' preference for print media, and I don't know if GW does either.

I do think that they don't expect people to buy every book thst comes out anymore and the faster release schedule reflects that.

I am not sure about the transparency part though. For example in the case of Grey Knights design all GW said, was that they thought a normal smite would make them too powerful, so they nerfed it. There was zero explanation to other nerfs, and I mean stuff that wasn't linked to nerf to exect same type of rules or units other factions or marines have. Plus later on the put out 1ksons who have normal smite, multiple psychic schools to pick powers from etc. It is as if the design did a 180 at some time, and the anwser they give to any question on the GW facebook page is alsways something like we aren't currently planing to X with Grey Knights.

GW pod casts are full about how they focuse on primaris design, how they enhance marine faction, both in lore and rules. Great stuff. But when they go to GK and say they won't be getting primaris, and they aren't making any new non primaris marines, and design says we are not planing, then what the hell are they planning ?

Karol wrote:
I am not sure about the transparency part though. For example in the case of Grey Knights design all GW said, was that they thought a normal smite would make them too powerful, so they nerfed it. There was zero explanation to other nerfs, and I mean stuff that wasn't linked to nerf to exect same type of rules or units other factions or marines have. Plus later on the put out 1ksons who have normal smite, multiple psychic schools to pick powers from etc. It is as if the design did a 180 at some time, and the anwser they give to any question on the GW facebook page is alsways something like we aren't currently planing to X with Grey Knights.

GW pod casts are full about how they focuse on primaris design, how they enhance marine faction, both in lore and rules. Great stuff. But when they go to GK and say they won't be getting primaris, and they aren't making any new non primaris marines, and design says we are not planing, then what the hell are they planning ?

Transparency in how they make the game and what goes into it doesn't mean complete transparency on what they plan to do in the game itself.

I can imagine GW knows that there is a problem with Grey Knights as they currently are and if anyone would need the psychic supplement to fix their army it's likely them.

There have been no facts falsely given, at least by me. So I'm really not sure what the fight is we are having about when you've already agreed with my point. I went out of my way to say " opinion " on pretty much everything I said.

That doesn't stop me from making my best guess on precedent to their intentions and policies heading into the future which is all anyone can use to judge the future.

The bloat is an issue of contention as well for some and yeah it feels like this might be an issue with it all.

If they didn't believe most of their player base would buy at least one or more of the books, I doubt they'd make them though. Hence why they were very sure to let people know at least one book would be out for everyone.

I don't expect every player to buy every book but I suspect most will get at least one because of the nature of improvements that they'll put in each book as they will feature only two armies in each one.

I don't think they will all have models released with them either, like I doubt some factions will get new models for awhile yet. I'd be surprised to see any new guard stuff for instance, just a feeling on that though.

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

never said you did, I was more pointing out that accusing anyone whose not immediatly dogpiling on GW for doing the campaign books thing, and instead actually defending it might simply just be fine with, or even happy to see this.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

You do understand that criticisms of behavior in this thread aren't all aimed at you, right?

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

never said you did, I was more pointing out that accusing anyone whose not immediatly dogpiling on GW for doing the campaign books thing, and instead actually defending it might simply just be fine with, or even happy to see this.

Well you did quote me with that statement I figured it had to be in relation to something I've said. If not, no worries was just wondering. No one is actually dog piling on GW, at least not me. If they are doing well I'll praise them if they do bad I'll say that too. At this point I think most who picked up what I wrote have my point pretty clear and it isn't that I hate GW or think they are the devil. I'm not going to say it again but I got my point across so it's all good for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:


What is amazing to me is that people feel like a massive corporation needs defending by its fans as opposed to just debating the policies they enact.

I don't think you understand what that word means if you think people whom are "defending GW" aren't debating the policies they enact. Not everyone sees "new content for your armies!" as a bad thing.

Find me where I ever said new content was bad, please.

You do understand that criticisms of behavior in this thread aren't all aimed at you, right?

You do understand he directly quoted me, so I was responding to that yes ?

You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Transparency in how they make the game and what goes into it doesn't mean complete transparency on what they plan to do in the game itself.

I can imagine GW knows that there is a problem with Grey Knights as they currently are and if anyone would need the psychic supplement to fix their army it's likely them.

okey, but then it is going to be just like the fixs in the first CA. Yes Grey Knights did get point drops on HQs and dreads, but so did everyone else, plus a lot of other units got point drops. This ment the top of the top armies stayed the same, the mid tier armies got better, and in proportion to that GK at best did not move on the power scale. If everyone is going to get psychic or what ever rules, then what the Grey Knight rules would have to be exeptionaly good, everyone else would have to be at least a tier or two weaker, and the GK ones would probably have to be more numerous then those for other armies. Because a single psychic power that can take an army from meh to good, would have to be so broken, I can't even imagine what it could be.

And again regarding other marines faction there is some transparancy, they do talk about cool new stuff. And that is good, it is very nice that they do that, and that people can always expect to get something extra over time. With GK the transparancy go down to them saying no, and no we are not planning anything. And if they plan to phase them out, they could at least say, so people don't invest in to books or models in an army that is never going to be good.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

When its quoting me and saying " you " Who should I assume it's directed at ? As well if I was defensive on something not directed at me otherwise for that I do apologize, not my intention he was very clearly talking to me though. I'll double check though.

The topic is truly silly.

I play AdMech as one of my armies. I don't use anything from the Vigilus book in my list.

Could it be? Could it be that I don't have to own a campaign book? Shock and horror.

 Ishagu wrote:
The topic is truly silly.

I play AdMech as one of my armies. I don't use anything from the Vigilus book in my list.

Could it be? Could it be that I don't have to own a campaign book? Shock and horror.

Do you own the first vigilus book though ? Now if anyone would, I'd assume you would as some of that stuff is good for primaris units the vets stuff from it.

I do actually own it, yes - but I love campaign books.

I didn't use the Vigilus formationd too often, but there was some good stuff for Astartes.

It isn't mandatory to play the game, hence my responses to this topic.

Hi all. I'm an old timer who started playing in the 1980s, not 40k mind you but Warhammer Fantasy. I may be remembering things wrong, but I struggle to think of a time when I've been offered the opportunity of buying new rules at such a high rate by GW. I say offered, as I agree no one has forced me to buy anything, and indeed I haven't bought a couple of books I probably should have.

However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

My other favourite game is Bolt Action. They released a 2nd edition of rules to fix a few things that were wrong with the first edition. They released a rule book for the armies. This gave the impression of a company that let things settle, took the time to listen, and try and nail it 2nd time around.

Does anyone else have examples of other wargame systems? Are GW alone in spitting out new costs for units at such a rate?

I would also add I thoroughly enjoy playing 40k, as I suspect we all do on this forum, there's no need to get nasty over all of this. We all want the best possible game, but should we be charged for it?

Why wouldn't you want to make the mathematically perfect army? Asthetics, narrative focus or because you collect more than you play. Not everyone plays solely to win games. Heck I'm.chasing improving my painting more than my army these days.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You've also gotten defensive when I was calling out specific behaviors in this thread while bot directly aiming anything at you.

Basically just because someone responds to you via quoting dowsn't mean that the entire conversating has to be directly about you.

When its quoting me and saying " you " Who should I assume it's directed at ? As well if I was defensive on something not directed at me otherwise for that I do apologize, not my intention he was very clearly talking to me though. I'll double check though.

ohh I totally was responding to you, but rather was addressing your comment that some people seem more intreasted in "defending GW then debating it" I simply argued that some people might genuinely be debating in defence of what GW's doing because they LIKE it

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

Don’t know about everyone else but as a GK player, having been ignored in vigilus, and the marine codex update and in general... I for one pray for a ‘supplement.’ Something that makes playing the army not a miserable demoralising experience in futility.

Whether the update is more than one sentence saying ‘GKs can psykic lolz,’ is yet to be seen.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

I thought it was masochism.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The entire point of a game is to use the rules of the game to achive a win state.

No it isn't. The point of game is to simulate anachronistic warfare in a cool setting using your beautifully painted miniatures.

BrianDavion wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

Fun is not in the RAW, so it is not allowed. Permissive ruleset, you see.

 Hollow wrote:

KirvesUK wrote:
However.. The fact my main opponent plays marines has shown me that yes, actually, you really do need to buy the latest book if you want to make the best possibly army you can. If you don't want to make the best possible army for yourself - why are you playing a wargame?

This really highlights the MASSIVE canyon between how different people think and approach these games. For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames.

STOP HAVING FUN IN A WAY I DONT LIKE FORGE MORE BEER AND EAT MORE PRETZELS.

Hey, at least we are not complaining about all the money GW forces us to spend on the pretzels!

BrianDavion 779687 10556735 wrote:

I thought the entire point of a game was to have fun?

the only way for it to be fun when your losing, is for either to be playing with family or friends, and it not being game time, but friend or family time. Or being paid to play.
There are few entice to go out and play, when you know your going to get whooped again. Specially in places where people don't buy new armies on a monthly basis, and where you know what your opponent are going to bring, you can be in a lose/lose situation for months, if not years.

For example, I think that if your main objective is to make the "best possible army" for yourself in order to try and beat your opponent into dust, then you probably shouldn't be playing wargames

What about people with armies which don't mechanicaly work in 8th edition, isn't that like the reverse of playing with an army with a 60% win ratio, but still just as unfun, only not for your opponents, but for you?

Some of us find challenges fun. I had a game in 6th where (between my dice and just how much stronger the Necrom codex is over over the Sisters one) I was getting stomped and ended the game with three models left, and I won on turn 6.

Not everyone derives fun from playing incredibly fine tuned and powerful armies. I honestly find it boring if my army is too strong because my choices matter less during the game.

Okey, but that is one game. What if you played 50 or 100 games, and you lost every one of them. And opposing army did not change, neither does your army. And you know the next 50-100 games are going to be a losing grind too.

I am not claiming that someone who loses a game should sell their army, because it doesn't have 100% ratio. But trust me losing every time is not fun. People at some point don't even want to play with you anymore, there is nothing to prove or check, as both you and them know that the chance of them losing to GK is like winning in a lotto.