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.

Games Workshop does NOT test their products in a competitive environment, or any environment it seems.

I see click bait articles all the time complaining about one thing or another, ways they could improve the game, ect, and that would be wonderful it it actually accomplished a damn thing.

If you accept the above, why on gods green earth would you believe it will be improved? If i'm wrong i'd love to be proven so, please elaborate.

Grey Knights are the poster boys for GWs in-house test team and the perfect example of how completely out of tune they are with the competitive players who buy their products.

If you have a single faction that can't win tournaments for years on end you have a problem, and like i said it's been like this for years, the last GK winning list i saw ran 5-6 baby carriers so it was a while ago.

Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I buy a banana. I use the banana to clean wax out of my ears, and then complain loudly about how bad it is at that job. Is this Dole's fault, the banana's fault, or my fault?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

SERIOUSLY.

It couldn't possibly be more clear that 40k is meant to be a fun, narratively-oriented, mostly-casual kind of game about spectacle and cool battles and funny moments and nice memories to enjoy with friends. That's the priority. It's always been the priority. It always will be the priority. People are welcome to focus on tournaments and competition and winning, of course, but it's just so weird to keep seeing people expecting, or demanding, that the game completely alter itself into something it isn't and never has been just to better match their particular style, when they could just … go play a different game with a more technical, competitive focus to it.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

 Octopoid wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I buy a banana. I use the banana to clean wax out of my ears, and then complain loudly about how bad it is at that job. Is this Dole's fault, the banana's fault, or my fault?

That is a completely ridiculous comparison, but yes, if you knowingly sold a product to someone you knew was harming themselves with, yes, it's your fault.

I'm not using GW products to dig wax out of my ears. I use them to play a table top war game, i just play the game a little more "seriously", but i take the same approach to any game i play (i enjoy the competitive aspect of gaming).

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I buy a banana. I use the banana to clean wax out of my ears, and then complain loudly about how bad it is at that job. Is this Dole's fault, the banana's fault, or my fault?

That is a completely ridiculous comparison, but yes, if you knowingly sold a product to someone you knew was harming themselves with, yes, it's your fault.

I'm not using GW products to dig wax out of my ears. I use them to play a table top war game, i just play the game a little more "seriously", but i take the same approach to any game i play (i enjoy the competitive aspect of gaming).

So, you're saying you do everything one way (competitively), and you enjoy other games, but not GW's. Maybe the problem isn't with GW.

 Desubot wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I am genuinely amazed by the number of people I've seen who argue from the assumption that they and they alone represent the customer base and who GW ought be appealing to.

See also: "GW should get rid of the useless trophy racks on CSM terminators and give us something we can USE like more combi-plasma" as though there's no such thing as people who's focus is on painting and aesthetics…

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

It's the customers who are wrong!

I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I am genuinely amazed by the number of people I've seen who argue from the assumption that they and they alone represent the customer base and who GW ought be appealing to.

See also: "GW should get rid of the useless trophy racks on CSM terminators and give us something we can USE like more combi-plasma" as though there's no such thing as people who's focus is on painting and aesthetics…

Cannot Exalt enough!

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

 Desubot wrote:
I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I'd believe that if i wasn't watching the top selling products on GWs website for the last year or so, every single release you have some kind of meta breaking BS that just wipes out whatever stock GW had.

A good example of that recently was with the SM codices, IH hits and every single SM flyer in stock is gone within a day, and i don't think it was a bunch of casual gamers who just suddenly thought those flying bricks look really cool.

Another example would be with the IK release, for almost a year the top selling model on GWs website was the boogie man.


Casual players don't drop hundreds of dollars on the spot right after some new book drops, meta chasers do.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
I am genuinely amazed by the number of people I've seen who argue from the assumption that they and they alone represent the customer base and who GW ought be appealing to.

See also: "GW should get rid of the useless trophy racks on CSM terminators and give us something we can USE like more combi-plasma" as though there's no such thing as people who's focus is on painting and aesthetics…

Yeah, see also the wysiwyg thread where if you don't have every-fething-thing specifically modeled the painter fascists will tell you to go home.

The difference is, as a painter/modeler primary, you can take the paste pot and glue whatever the feth you want to your plastic models and make up whatever happy story makes them special to you. Who cares?

Sadly, the competitive players, they have to actually model proper weapons, GW official models, consistent basing, yadda yadda yadda. So yeah, trophy racks can get bent.

The competitive environment isn't the problem. It's loaded with plenty of people who are happy to go to a lot of time and energy shaving edges off GW's square peg to make it fit in their round hole, and the players are perfectly happy to buy stuff just because it's powerful.

The casual narrative scene isn't the problem. Those people are perfectly happy to fiddle with things, build their own scenarios, and otherwise disregard GW's mistakes.

The problem is and always has been with pick-up games. If I go down to a game store and play a game on the fly with someone I haven't met before I have to negotiate the fine details of what I can and can't use or one of us is going to steamroll the other one because GW can't be bothered to make two armies of equal points be roughly similar in power.

 Octopoid wrote:
So, you're saying you do everything one way (competitively), and you enjoy other games, but not GW's. Maybe the problem isn't with GW.

I enjoy enjoy their games, but if i'm honest i got into Warhammer for the lore.

 Octopoid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

So it’s just bad at it.
Even in fully narrative games, it should not be as bad as 40k is, I do not even think most other GW games are as bad

 Octopoid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

Yep. There's also just… you know… degrees of priority. 40k prioritizes having a wide variety of distinct and characterful factions, units and special rules, and rules with a strong sense of narrative immersion in mind, over a more limited range of more comparable unit options, or more abstracted but competitively balanced rule systems, because they know the main "fun" of the game that draws people to it is the setting and the models and the aesthetic and such. That doesn't mean they disregard balance when designing rules and play testing, it's just not their sole and primary goal.

Also… if people really hate 40k and think it's such an awful game, why are they still playing it? There's lots of other games. You can even continue to collect the models and enjoy the IP without having to play the game.

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
So, you're saying you do everything one way (competitively), and you enjoy other games, but not GW's. Maybe the problem isn't with GW.

I enjoy enjoy their games, but if i'm honest i got into Warhammer for the lore.

Then don't worry about the competitive rules, just play for the lore and not to win, and you'll be fine.

(Now, if you want to discuss how their LORE has some holes in it....)

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I'd believe that if i wasn't watching the top selling products on GWs website for the last year or so, every single release you have some kind of meta breaking BS that just wipes out whatever stock GW had.

A good example of that recently was with the SM codices, IH hits and every single SM flyer in stock is gone within a day, and i don't think it was a bunch of casual gamers who just suddenly thought those flying bricks look really cool.

Another example would be with the IK release, for almost a year the top selling model on GWs website was the boogie man.


Casual players don't drop hundreds of dollars on the spot right after some new book drops, meta chasers do.

While its a clean assumption, its also entirely possible that:

IH: a faction that was horrifically under represented for a long time finally got a book and long time fans finally jumped into a full army.
Flyers: GW is known for being REALLY bad at stocking properly.
IK: Are Really cool. enough so that most collectors will probably end up getting one.

"casual" players may not be the ones dropping hundreds of dollars. but fans and collectors can and do.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:


Sadly, the competitive players, they have to actually model proper weapons, GW official models, consistent basing, yadda yadda yadda. So yeah, trophy racks can get bent.

Mate that isnt a GW thing thats your local or regional tournament rule as THEY decided that WYSIWYG is in effect.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem is and always has been with pick-up games. If I go down to a game store and play a game on the fly with someone I haven't met before I have to negotiate the fine details of what I can and can't use or one of us is going to steamroll the other one because GW can't be bothered to make two armies of equal points be roughly similar in power.

Yup, Blizzard had the same problem years ago, when they tried to turn WoW into an E Sport.

GW does not properly test their products in the enlivenment their customers (at least some of them) play in, so how on earth would it ever be balanced?

 Desubot wrote:

MiguelFelstone wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
I hate to break it too you but the competitive scene is probably not the majority of the customer base.

I'd believe that if i wasn't watching the top selling products on GWs website for the last year or so, every single release you have some kind of meta breaking BS that just wipes out whatever stock GW had.

A good example of that recently was with the SM codices, IH hits and every single SM flyer in stock is gone within a day, and i don't think it was a bunch of casual gamers who just suddenly thought those flying bricks look really cool.

Another example would be with the IK release, for almost a year the top selling model on GWs website was the boogie man.


Casual players don't drop hundreds of dollars on the spot right after some new book drops, meta chasers do.

While its a clean assumption, its also entirely possible that:

IH: a faction that was horrifically under represented for a long time finally got a book and long time fans finally jumped into a full army.
Flyers: GW is known for being REALLY bad at stocking properly.
IK: Are Really cool. enough so that most collectors will probably end up getting one.

"casual" players may not be the ones dropping hundreds of dollars. but fans and collectors can and do.

Also "top selling item" does NOT reflect "majority of overall sales", it just means that one particular kit sold more than any ONE other kit. That's all.

even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

 Desubot wrote:
Mate that isnt a GW thing thats your local or regional tournament rule as THEY decided that WYSIWYG is in effect.

You're right, GW tournaments are even stricter.

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

Yep. There's also just… you know… degrees of priority. 40k prioritizes having a wide variety of distinct and characterful factions, units and special rules, and rules with a strong sense of narrative immersion in mind, over a more limited range of more comparable unit options, or more abstracted but competitively balanced rule systems, because they know the main "fun" of the game that draws people to it is the setting and the models and the aesthetic and such. That doesn't mean they disregard balance when designing rules and play testing, it's just not their sole and primary goal.

Also… if people really hate 40k and think it's such an awful game, why are they still playing it? There's lots of other games. You can even continue to collect the models and enjoy the IP without having to play the game.

40k pays little mind to narrative, it’s kinda a joke. It really sells the idea.

But.. I am a narrative player, I play narrative in warmachine, infinity and dropzone. As well as a campaign in frost grave going for a long time now.
The idea that 40k does that particularly well of with much thought from design is just not really there.

But from a narrative perspective I loved turning up to games where purely on shoddy rules my army would lose with little thought from design on how my narrative focused army would function in even a quite soft environment. Or where I effectively had to quit one of my eldar army’s. Since bikes suddenly become a really good force. Despite not running it to its maximum and entirely within a narrative bounds of how it would function.

GW game design is just all over the place from a narrative point, with entire ranges left gutted narrative wise due to lack of access to models.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Mate that isnt a GW thing thats your local or regional tournament rule as THEY decided that WYSIWYG is in effect.

You're right, GW tournaments are even stricter.

Not just WYSIWYG, baseyWYG, seriously they don't even allow resin bases, everything has to be GW.

Apple fox wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Its a mystery to me as to why people keep trying to force something so staunchly not a competitive game into that niche. If GW wanted to make the game Warmachine levels of competitive they easily could but they don't for a reason.

At what point is 40k not competitive game, even in the most casual environment it is still competitive even if just for fun and with little to thought to the need to win.
At a certain point 40k is just kinda a bad game. Fun at times, but still kinda bad in so many places.

There is a difference between being a competition game, where one person wins and another loses, and being competitive, where all permutations of all possible combinations are balanced and fair, meaning that decisions, skill, and tactics are the only deciding factor. WH40K is the former, not the latter.

Yep. There's also just… you know… degrees of priority. 40k prioritizes having a wide variety of distinct and characterful factions, units and special rules, and rules with a strong sense of narrative immersion in mind, over a more limited range of more comparable unit options, or more abstracted but competitively balanced rule systems, because they know the main "fun" of the game that draws people to it is the setting and the models and the aesthetic and such. That doesn't mean they disregard balance when designing rules and play testing, it's just not their sole and primary goal.

Also… if people really hate 40k and think it's such an awful game, why are they still playing it? There's lots of other games. You can even continue to collect the models and enjoy the IP without having to play the game.

40k pays little mind to narrative, it’s kinda a joke. It really sells the idea.

But.. I am a narrative player, I play narrative in warmachine, infinity and dropzone. As well as a campaign in frost grave going for a long time now.
The idea that 40k does that particularly well of with much thought from design is just not really there.

But from a narrative perspective I loved turning up to games where purely on shoddy rules my army would lose with little thought from design on how my narrative focused army would function in even a quite soft environment. Or where I effectively had to quit one of my eldar army’s. Since bikes suddenly become a really good force. Despite not running it to its maximum and entirely within a narrative bounds of how it would function.

GW game design is just all over the place from a narrative point, with entire ranges left gutted narrative wise due to lack of access to models.

I… I am not sure you and I are using the word "narrative" with the same meaning.

nataliereed1984 wrote:

petrov27 wrote:
even if not competitive, shouldn't it have at least a balanced competent set of rules? Is it "fun" even in casual games to have to go "guys, my army is total garbage, can you please not play with your broken OP stuff?"

Sure. And, in general, they tend to accomplish that.

How? In what way? What evidence to you have to back that bold claim?
I've got evidence *points at the GKs in his closet*

Starcraft was not a competitive game. It was a game where the armies have different units when most RTS at the time usually had similar sides with maybe a few unique gimmicks, that had good back and forth unit balance. The people were surprised that a large scale tournament scene spawned out of it, because that's not what "it was made for"

Same with Street Fighter, same with Counter Strike. In every instance, they went on to make the game better balanced and interesting, and other people benefited. The idea of games "built for competition" is a recent one with stuff like Overwatch. At it's core, a game is built for what the user wants it to used for, and if it can be made better to benefit *the group as a whole* rather than trying to exclude people's desires because "that's not what it's built for",then it should.

I also fail to understand why painters/builders matter for how the rules should be done. Does making the rules worse make the people who don't play the game happier?