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.

 Vankraken wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
If specific issues are repeatedly brought up when discussing 40k, that is a sign that there are problems with the game.

Could you provide an example of such an issue that existed before the marine books? (Note: I'm not asserting issues dont exist)

I think the most agreed upon is the poor excuse for terrain rules in the core game. It also ties directly into the lack of game mechanics in the core rules as the core rules are extremely bare bones for a tactical table top war game.

That's a good one.

It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.

I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.

I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?

A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.

Blastaar wrote:


Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.

no actually io's crap feedback that will get ignored. because it provides no information, why are grey knights crap? the more feedback and info you provide GW the easier ti is to address it

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's a good one.

It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.

I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.

I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?

A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.

Oh, I miss having cool terrain rules.

But as bad as it is that 40k doesn't have terrain rules- it's the fact that Kill Team doesn't.

KILL TEAM. You have all the opportunities in the world here, in a game where at a MAX someone puts down 20 miniatures (and that's really rare, and probably dumb). My Kill-Team is 5 dudes, unless I take a commander- and then I use 6. And we get terrain rules that are pretty much as weak as the 40k rules.

Yeah, Kill Team is one of those things I really complain about a lot. It was an absolute waste of paper. It seems like it was an afterthought to just throw it out there, and claiming it has a "campaign" is like calling McNuggets "Chicken". Sure, it kind of is. If you're playing real fast and loose with the words.

FFS, I wish they'd make a "Shadow War" type of add-on to Kill-Team, and take a bunch of cues from Necromunda.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That's a good one.

It's why I do ITC most often. Given a good number of people want competitive games where is the harm in having a separate body govern that? Especially when they're closely connected to GW.

I see a lot of people criticize ITC, but often they dont play it or they like to hate the personalities behind it.

I'd like to see something like forests give -1 to hit against units inside it, but is that fair for Orks if their opponent gets all the areas with forests?

A lighter touch with terrain could be the intention and we're left to get into weeds for more demanding games.

Oh, I miss having cool terrain rules.

But as bad as it is that 40k doesn't have terrain rules- it's the fact that Kill Team doesn't.

KILL TEAM. You have all the opportunities in the world here, in a game where at a MAX someone puts down 20 miniatures (and that's really rare, and probably dumb). My Kill-Team is 5 dudes, unless I take a commander- and then I use 6. And we get terrain rules that are pretty much as weak as the 40k rules.

Yeah, Kill Team is one of those things I really complain about a lot. It was an absolute waste of paper. It seems like it was an afterthought to just throw it out there, and claiming it has a "campaign" is like calling McNuggets "Chicken". Sure, it kind of is. If you're playing real fast and loose with the words.

FFS, I wish they'd make a "Shadow War" type of add-on to Kill-Team, and take a bunch of cues from Necromunda.

I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.

I mean I could be completely and totally wrong about that, but I never thought it was lacking in Kill Team.

40K has Cities of Death with lots of other terrain rules layers, but i'm still not sure that's exactly what the game needs for all varieties of armies to flourish.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.

That's my other complaint. The absurd -1 to hit at half range. Why? Just... what the hell?

This is a dumb rule, IMHO. A lazy, slapped-together dumb rule. One that wouldn't exist if actual time was spent developing Kill-Team as a proper standalone game rather than a copy/paste of most of 40k's rules with useless fixes slapped on to make it hold together. I'd be shocked if KT saw support outside of White Dwarf magazine.

If it were my decision to make, they'd have "Combat Patrol" which would be a slightly-modified version of 40k for independent units, and then actual Kill-Team which would be a more altered version of the game, and "Shadow War" which would be a way to turn Kill Team into "Necromunda with 40k units".

I get most of my hobby enjoyment from building, painting and playing. I add to that with participation in on-line forums (fora?). There are several Youtube channels and FB pages that have a mostly positive spin while providing me with insights on the game. Perusing Dakka, on the other hand, gives me the recommended daily intake of "salt" for my on-line 40K diet. I think it's a good balance for the other sites I go through. As long as the half-dozen or so true hard-cases stick to General Discussion its OK, and even a broken clock is right twice a day (assuming its analog). When they invade Tactics threads it gets a little annoying, since Tactics is usually a mellow and helpful place. YMDC has turned into a bit of a farce due to a few folks, but it's amusing to read nonetheless.

I trust the Mods to look after the place on behalf of whoever pays the rent here. Its up to each of us to decide if we want to participate.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not really sure deep terrain belongs there either. The extra negatives to hit would only be exacerbated or good cover would force heavy weapon packing to the detriment of melee.

That's my other complaint. The absurd -1 to hit at half range. Why? Just... what the hell?

This is a dumb rule, IMHO. A lazy, slapped-together dumb rule. One that wouldn't exist if actual time was spent developing Kill-Team as a proper standalone game rather than a copy/paste of most of 40k's rules with useless fixes slapped on to make it hold together. I'd be shocked if KT saw support outside of White Dwarf magazine.

If it were my decision to make, they'd have "Combat Patrol" which would be a slightly-modified version of 40k for independent units, and then actual Kill-Team which would be a more altered version of the game, and "Shadow War" which would be a way to turn Kill Team into "Necromunda with 40k units".

Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.

 argonak wrote:

Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.

I honestly think it's more popular because, well, unlike Necromunda- you probably already have the models. Most people just pluck models out of their collection and use them. And the only support I've seen since Elites was in WD mags.

In terms of what is a better campaign game, Necromunda makes Kill Team look like a joke. As far as a game you can prep and play in a few minutes? Kill Team is the clear winner. Its rules are a bit stupid- I think they were trying way too hard to keep it as similar to 40k as possible (for people to transition, I suppose). Overall, Kill Team's capable of scratching an itch, but not a very big one for me. I think they're kind of wasting an opportunity by not building on to it and making it capable of being its own entity.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 argonak wrote:

Kill team has seen a lot of support, and anecdotally it’s very popular. Is it perfect? No... but I enjoy it more than 40k for a lot of reasons. I also like it better than necromunda partly because it’s still fundamentally connected to full 40k. It makes it easier to play for any veteran player.

I honestly think it's more popular because, well, unlike Necromunda- you probably already have the models. Most people just pluck models out of their collection and use them. And the only support I've seen since Elites was in WD mags.

Elites was only 6 months ago. They can't be pumping stuff out constantly and honestly there is only so far to go until they're just doing unique specific kill teams like Rogue Trader.

making it too much it's own entity would be a mistake, kill team seems popular as a "building block" to 40k.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Elites was only 6 months ago. They can't be pumping stuff out constantly and honestly there is only so far to go until they're just doing unique specific kill teams like Rogue Trader.

Terrible things like... Inquisition, Arbites, and those other minor factions within and outside of the Imperium that would never otherwise see models on the tabletop- where something like Kill-Team would be the ideal place to showcase them?

That's exactly what Kill Team should be cranking out, IMHO.

BrianDavion wrote:
making it too much it's own entity would be a mistake, kill team seems popular as a "building block" to 40k.

Which is why my idea would have been to make an expansion module to it, to further modify and add to the rules to turn it into more of a campaign-based game with deeper customization options.

I guess we are well and truly off-topic now!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I guess we are well and truly off-topic now!

Maybe, but I do feel like I'm demonstrating a way to be positive AND have a complaint by showing how you can offer a possible solution and ideas.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I guess we are well and truly off-topic now!

Maybe, but I do feel like I'm demonstrating a way to be positive AND have a complaint by showing how you can offer a possible solution and ideas.

No one could faithfully argue that premise.

The problem is that some cant accomplish that. There were some humdingers on page 6/7, but the conversation has been more muted ever since those types of posts went away.

You can see that those with pejoratives involving "trash/rubbish/matt ward is the worst human being alive" etc usually never have anything to offer other than burn the conversation down.

I'm sure white knights have their own ticks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can see that those with pejoratives involving "trash/rubbish/matt ward is the worst human being alive" etc usually never have anything to offer other than burn the conversation down.

"Matt Ward sucks" is an alternative version of "hey you remember squats?". It's just something people hear on the internet and like to repeat, most of the time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure white knights have their own ticks.

There certainly are "white knights" or "shills" for GW. But TBH, even if there are people on a forum that plant their lips to GW's buttcheeks for every release that comes out and hurl their money at them and berate anyone who doesn't feel the same way, they're irrelevant. Or, maybe just that kind of person that likes Warhammer a lot and likes all the stuff. It's possible.

The "Shills" and "White Knights" I am more concerned about are the ones that do "reviews" and "unboxings". I'm not expecting flawless objectivity here, but if you're going to claim to review something- I think that you should be honest and at least point out the deficiencies and flaws in a product and not act like another advertisement for the product. Even some of my favorite things GW has made, I can easily be honest about their flaws. As seen below, if you care to look.


I've thought about doing reviews for their products myself, but chances are- I'd get squashed and no one would watch. Because I can't just shill, and the shills are the ones that get the products early and beat everyone else to the punch. Which, IMHO, is kinda lame.

BrianDavion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:


Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.

no actually io's crap feedback that will get ignored. because it provides no information, why are grey knights crap? the more feedback and info you provide GW the easier ti is to address it

It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.

Blastaar wrote:
It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.

This statement right here is in no way realistic and sensible. At all. It's absurd, and that's the nicest way to put it.

And if players aren't good at diagnosing a problem, then there's no assurance that there's a problem in the first place, right?

I don't know what you do as a job, but if your boss walked up to you and said "you screwed something up last month, fix it" and then walked away, leaving you to figure out what the hell he meant and sift through everything... you'd have a meltdown. Actually, your boss would probably get fired if you went to HR.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


I've thought about doing reviews for their products myself, but chances are- I'd get squashed and no one would watch. Because I can't just shill, and the shills are the ones that get the products early and beat everyone else to the punch. Which, IMHO, is kinda lame.

If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.

Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."

Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."

Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.

Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."

Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."

Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."

Oh, that second one's not even accurate. Some of those weapons you'll want right off the bat, and you'll be baffled as to why you don't have them in the box.

FFS, the Enforcers didn't come with shields.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If I may critique - the opinions you present are valid, but they're presented in a very bludgeoning manner.

Something like, "Necromunda's slow release schedule leaves me longing for more gangs to come out, or, at least a sprinkle of additional mercs."

Or "The standard boxes don't carry all the weapons you'll likely want to equip your gang so plan accordingly by cannibalizing other sprues or opening your wallet up to Forgeworld add-ons. Don't fret immediately though, because your gang will need to gain ground before it can deploy all the dirty tricks of the Underhive."

Or "GW has been slow to FAQ the game recently so be prepared to get your questions out and join a forum to find out the latest rulings until GW can produce an official response."

Oh, that second one's not even accurate. Some of those weapons you'll want right off the bat, and you'll be baffled as to why you don't have them in the box.

FFS, the Enforcers didn't come with shields.

Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.

Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.

Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.

Let's put it this way, there are two kind of enforcers in an Enforcer squad. Palatines and Subjugators. Subjugators are pretty effective, and you'll want to upgrade a couple of guys, at least one, to subjugator. Subjugators are the only guys that can take shields and grenade launchers (and I think the heavy weapons, but those are 'meh'). So basically one of the major things that Enforcers SHOULD be running with (shields) aren't available in the kit, and now it seems the Subjugators are a completely seperate release coming with the new box, blah blah blah.

Point is, I would make it known that if players are looking at a book or something to decide what faction they want, then they need to be aware that the core box doesn't give you all the starting basic weapons and you'll have to spend more money or do some creative conversions.

I'll let them decide if it's worth it or not, of course- but I will give my own opinion and alternative options.

I don't believe in sugar-coating. I'm not hyperbolic, but if something strikes me as scummy or lame I'm gonna make it clear.

And if people wanna get mad, they can be mad. I'm pushing out reviews and information, not trying to appease everyone.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It is the responsibility of the people who write the rules to know enough about what they produce, and to look at the data from events like tournaments, to see that a problem exists, understand the cause, and fix it. Players are not always adept at diagnosing problems, let alone fixing them.

This statement right here is in no way realistic and sensible. At all. It's absurd, and that's the nicest way to put it.

And if players aren't good at diagnosing a problem, then there's no assurance that there's a problem in the first place, right?

I don't know what you do as a job, but if your boss walked up to you and said "you screwed something up last month, fix it" and then walked away, leaving you to figure out what the hell he meant and sift through everything... you'd have a meltdown. Actually, your boss would probably get fired if you went to HR.

Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.

Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.

Blastaar wrote:

Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.

Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.

You're not real good with metaphors.

I'll keep it simple.

If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.

This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Well, just examples. Change to reflect the accuracy as needed. Do they need to come with shields? If they're absolutely necessary I'd present them as being a more expensive faction to play.

Let the players decide if that's something they want to deal with or not and you get to dodge both ends of the spectrum.

Let's put it this way, there are two kind of enforcers in an Enforcer squad. Palatines and Subjugators. Subjugators are pretty effective, and you'll want to upgrade a couple of guys, at least one, to subjugator. Subjugators are the only guys that can take shields and grenade launchers (and I think the heavy weapons, but those are 'meh'). So basically one of the major things that Enforcers SHOULD be running with (shields) aren't available in the kit, and now it seems the Subjugators are a completely seperate release coming with the new box, blah blah blah.

Point is, I would make it known that if players are looking at a book or something to decide what faction they want, then they need to be aware that the core box doesn't give you all the starting basic weapons and you'll have to spend more money or do some creative conversions.

I'll let them decide if it's worth it or not, of course- but I will give my own opinion and alternative options.

I don't believe in sugar-coating. I'm not hyperbolic, but if something strikes me as scummy or lame I'm gonna make it clear.

And if people wanna get mad, they can be mad. I'm pushing out reviews and information, not trying to appease everyone.

The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.

You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.

Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.

You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.

Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".

Not to be insulting at all here, far from my intent- but I've written and done reviews for a wide variety of things over my years and I don't need tone coaching, but I appreciate your intent.

I can include facts- "this box has X, Y, and Z" and I can include opinion: "It's a pain in the ass that it doesn't come with A, or B, because they're effective as hell".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The perception of scummy is subjective though. Whether or not it has value is determined by the purchaser. Whether or not they want Subjugators is their prerogative. If GW over-inflates too far they'll lose more customers.

You stand at a gateway that allows people to get accurate info so they can make better decisions. If you turn some away just by the dynamics of presentation you reach fewer people. I rarely watch unboxings, but when I do I'm more interested in knowing whats in it rather than why someone thinks it's good or bad.

Even codex reviews are risque, because they often don't have time to deep dive on some of the easy to miss changes so taking a hard opinion can bite them in viewership. "I think GW may have made this too strong" over "this is absolutely broken".

Not to be insulting at all here, far from my intent- but I've written and done reviews for a wide variety of things over my years and I don't need tone coaching, but I appreciate your intent.

I can include facts- "this box has X, Y, and Z" and I can include opinion: "It's a pain in the ass that it doesn't come with A, or B, because they're effective as hell".

Sure, I didn't want to presume your experience. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just discussing it from the perspective on this end.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.

Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.

You're not real good with metaphors.

I'll keep it simple.

If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.

This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.

But where are we supposed to post that feedback even? We dont even know where to go with it. Best approach we have os to "spam" complaints at as many GW related places as possible and hope they pick it up. And if they really are interested in finding out some of the problems then there sre many places of discussion where they could read. But you cant expect the players to spend the time to post good feedback without any response ever. Not our responsibility but theirs.

And its not like many of the issues are hard to spot if you really try. Especially on point cost oversights. Some of those you dont even need to understand the army to see that something is wrong. Like look on the Sanguinary Guard in Blood Angels. For 9 extra points, 2 for death masks and 7 for "upgraded weapons", per model(from 32 to 41pts) or 90pts for a unit they get actually worse in melee and get a 3" - 1 to LD aura that really do nothing for a killy elite unit that have monsters/vehicles as primary target and already crushes anything that ever uses a LD score.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Your example is flawed. The rules team are not the "employee" of the players. They are people who create a product, that is then sold. If it is faulty, it is their job to understand why and fix it.

Recognition of the existence of a problem comes before the diagnosis, ie, determining the nature and cause of said problem, and best way to solve that problem. Players aren't always the best at solutions. And this is in no way "unrealistic." This is what Wizards does with Magic. Wizards accumulates masses of data through organized events, particularly the win rates for certain cards, combos, or decks. If one is too dominant, something gets banned. One in particular is expected to be banned soon for taking up 57% of the meta, and showing in 7 of the top 8 decks at a recent tournament. Games Workshop, on the other hand, sends people to attend conventions and tournaments, who are shocked to hear players' complaints, because they were clueless that such problems even existed in the first place.

You're not real good with metaphors.

I'll keep it simple.

If they aren't given feedback, with some degree of detail in where the problems are- then you can't expect any correction.

This is basic human interaction and I'm not sure why it eludes you.

Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.

Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.

And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.

Blastaar wrote:

Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.

I'm not sure how you believe you are entitled to be addressed, but I'm not sure it warrants me being super nice and positive. Rest assured, I'm being polite. Or at least restrained. Were I not, there'd be red letters here.

Part of me is curious about what makes a whole Codex "suck", but I'd rather ask someone else.

I'd say it's hard to explain why a whole Codex "sucks", and I highly doubt that's the case.

Blastaar wrote:
Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.

Ah, I'm sure those big official events by GW that happen all the time in detail without rampant cheating and points fudging are just untapped data.

Blastaar wrote:
And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.

I'm glad you're lacking an actual argument so had to find this error.

Point still stands.

Either way, we're done here. If I wanted to have this experience, I'd just go and have a discussion with the wall.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Stow the condescension. Not every cause is obvious. What if, as is the case with Grey Knights, an entire codex simply "sucks?" Do you expect players to write up a list of every problem with a codex that suffers from multiple systemic issues? I know this concept eludes you, but this is not their responsibility.

I'm not sure how you believe you are entitled to be addressed, but I'm not sure it warrants me being super nice and positive. Rest assured, I'm being polite. Or at least restrained. Were I not, there'd be red letters here.

Part of me is curious about what makes a whole Codex "suck", but I'd rather ask someone else.

I'd say it's hard to explain why a whole Codex "sucks", and I highly doubt that's the case.

Blastaar wrote:
Player feedback is useful, to an extent, mostly to know that a problem exists. However, no amount of feedback from players can substitute for proactive and continuous gathering of information, and a rules team competent enough to interpret the data and make adjustments.

Ah, I'm sure those big official events by GW that happen all the time in detail without rampant cheating and points fudging are just untapped data.

They are useful, to be sure, but GW's methodology, both in data collection as well as interpretation and applied solutions, leaves much to be desired.

Blastaar wrote:
And what you gave was an example scenario, not a metaphor. A metaphor is when a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable.

I'm glad you're lacking an actual argument so had to find this error.

If you had read the entirety of my previous post, you would have seen my "argument" that GW can do a better job gathering information with regard to balance, and that it is not the responsibility of the players, the people who are paying GW for their products, to spend their precious time listing the finer points of the game's problems.

Point still stands.

Either way, we're done here. If I wanted to have this experience, I'd just go and have a discussion with the wall.