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:

Rihgu wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.

Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.

Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.

2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...

Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.

Yes, because SOOOOOOO much has fundamentally changed in 40k in the last two years that anyone's wealth of experience playing prior is moot. Yup. Course. All those 8th ed books still kicking around are unusable, and the gameplay knowledge gleaned from them also.

Because no one wants the opinions of long-term and/or former players, despite the bloody article saying the opposite from the outset. Nope. Not at all...

To reiterate what Stormnou already posted. that is literally taken from the article

Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?

Agreed, they should have given a "why aren't you playing" text box and ended there which they could choose to peruse or ignore, then these arguments wouldn't be happening. If they want peoples opinions of 9th, which is their seemingly primary goal, they should have been clearer. Although I doubt that would have prevented these same conversations.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
One cannot comment how to best season or improve the dog gak without first tasting it.

Don't worry. While you're eating your bowl of excrement, the adults will be having a conversation.

Christ. I'll leave the adults to discuss a game they refer to being as dog gak, so they can have a conversation about how it's unfair their feedback on how the game they haven't played in 2 years is undervalued. Thank you.

2 years ago was November 2019, stop acting like it was in some time immemorial before mankind had learned to write things down...

Stop acting like it was last week. It was November 2019.

Yes, because SOOOOOOO much has fundamentally changed in 40k in the last two years that anyone's wealth of experience playing prior is moot. Yup. Course. All those 8th ed books still kicking around are unusable, and the gameplay knowledge gleaned from them also.

Because no one wants the opinions of long-term and/or former players, despite the bloody article saying the opposite from the outset. Nope. Not at all...

To reiterate what Stormnou already posted. that is literally taken from the article

Whether you’re a new gamer, you’ve been playing since boxed sets came with a cardboard Dreadnought, or are a lapsed fan of the 41st Millennium, we want your opinions. What do you love about Warhammer 40,000? What would you like to see changed?

Seems that I have struck a nerve, and I'm sorry about that.
Having played within the past 2 years, I can tell you from experience that that experience of playing a game of Warhammer 40k has fundamentally changed quite a bit since November 2019. For one thing, it was a lot less complicated and more enjoyable to play the game in November 2019. Which is not to say it was an enjoyable experience, honestly.
Even beyond that, the idea that the game hasn't fundamentally changed a lot since then is so ridiculous to me (because my experience has been so fundamentally different between November 2019 and now) I wouldn't believe that anybody who is saying such things has even read the current set of rules. There's some big changes! There are terrain rules and secondaries (although I guess if your experience in November 2019 was primarily within ITC this would feel familiar to you). There are modifier caps! Space Marines have 2 wounds and Chaos Space Marines do not! Every book has 7 layers of army rules (instead of just Space Marines). Re-rolls are dying down, smokescreen is a stratagem, melta does appreciable damage to vehicles! Command points are TAKEN AWAY by detachments instead of ADDED by them! The board is smaller! If you don't have the exact terrain layout tournaments are playing your game will end on turn 1 and be miserable!

I dunno, it just seems like if somebody is going to give feedback based on November 2019 it doesn't seem like that's going to be super useful. Experience is just not really the same at all.

I opened a poll in general to gauge loosely when people did last play, more out of curiosity.

Problem is GW doesn't understand why you would NOT be playing the current edition. So from their POV, if you haven't been playing lately, your input regarding the current game is nil.
GW obviously constructed the survey to illicit specific data they want.

Just like how the stuff in the vault doesn't have any rules in it. It's for a reason, not a bug but a feature.

Finally able to complete it from my mobile device when I got home today.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I didn't make any comments on whether sales were growing or not. I'm sure the rate of growth has decreased but that's besides the point. GW stock matters, that's the bottom line. Earlier this year, when GW paid out bonuses to employees, it was in the form of shares. We know Rountree and many others under him get a significant portion of their compensation in stock options and stock. *Of course* it matters to those folks when the stock goes down. That's got nothing to do with some weak argument about the 10%/1%, and anyway that's all venturing into politics anyways, so let's steer clear of it.

I reread the statement and it lists them as discretionary bonuses not stock. Additionally, any such survey would not have an impact well past a year or more, which is well out to influence any near term stock price. Share price doesn't increase the dividend payout. If they're truly facing issues with shipping and currency conversion then no level of sales increase will brute force them out of the current problem.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Problem is GW doesn't understand why you would NOT be playing the current edition. So from their POV, if you haven't been playing lately, your input regarding the current game is nil.
GW obviously constructed the survey to illicit specific data they want.

Just like how the stuff in the vault doesn't have any rules in it. It's for a reason, not a bug but a feature.

If a large number of people indicate they haven't played in over two years due to complexity I'm sure someone over there is smart enough to figure it out, but FYI the survey has been modified and you get more questions now on 2+ years.

It's also important to note that whilst you may not have played, or played much, if you watch enough battle reports etc, you can gauge a lot about the game, and what aspects you like and dislike about it.

Fans of sports get asked quite often their opinions on things (especially in regards to rules), and they are not playing directly.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
"...and please make Lady Space Marines."

All finished!

I hope whomever you wanted to see this, saw it.

If it has been updated, does that mean we can take it again on the same device?

Nah, just tried and site told me that I've "already taken this survey"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If it has been updated, does that mean we can take it again on the same device?

Presumably incognito works.

macluvin wrote:
8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.

To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.

 gorgon wrote:

macluvin wrote:
8th and 9th edition made their stock prices skyrocket. They don't care about who put food on their plates, they care about who put a Ferrari in their garage. That's the 8th/9th edition crowd. The profit motive is why they do what they do and if you don't like it, they don't do what they do to make you happy. They do what they do because it makes them money. If you don't like the product or perceive a lack of quality from the product because of that, then capitalism is not the economic system for you. The fact is that flaws are economically incentivized to varying degrees; in this instance planned obsolescence is inserted into the rules to sell you more rules and models. It's the thing every successful business model does; it's why gas powered cars were dominant for so long (more moving parts to break and replace) and it's why smart phones are designed to degrade over time in performance from the phone updates. It's also why we don't irradiate food, it's how we drive the consumerism that makes the nearly endless economic growth we need to function possible. Games Workshop, upon receiving competent business people, are making competent business decisions in regards to how to make money.

To be fair, I'd add the caveat that GW does make some better games that also aren't quite as much about planned obsolescence and churn. I think the model overall is that AoS and 40K especially are the profit engines that allow them to do the other stuff.

But where the BFG at though... but yeah. Trying to take that approach with any other game of theirs would probably kill the specialist game in question in its track. They don’t move the volume of specialist games product to introduce that marketing technique and people aren’t invested enough to get away with it.

I answered I hadn't played in 2+ years, answered "The game no longer appeals to me, and was then asked which 9th edition format(s) I play....... Morons....

See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.

macluvin wrote:
See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.

They wanted feedback from lapsed fans as well, they should have probably set up some new questions to ask rather than asking for feedback and then giving them a survey that then tells players they don’t really care.

Commisar Marbh wrote:
Most of my free form feedback was on how hard it is to bring in new players and make them stick around. Rules complexity, lack of guidance on building your force, price pressures on new players (hard for those who are not themselves well set or with well set parents to get in), etc. I've seen a lot of RPG and boardgame companies make initiatives to bring in new folks, but not seeing it from GW (or not effectively done)

This. Why did they abandon start collecting impulse buy sets and pocket, softcover (regularly updated!) rulebooks?

 Overread wrote:
They certainly had a time when codex had a lot of options but were written in a simple manner.

Yup. In 5th edition, when they had competent head rule writer

I still miss points individually balanced to models (power fist on A1 sergeant costs less than on A2 chaplain and this less than on A3 captain, such revolutionary concept...), lack of idiotic armoury system pageflipper, and HQs unlocking new troops (which AoS kept with great results so I wonder why incompetent removed it in 40K after 6th).

 Stormonu wrote:
Personally, I’d like to roll back to the 8E indexes and have them take the other path towards less complexity/power creep and instead working on balance and fixing rule hiccups.

This. So much this. This is pretty much what I wrote - no idiotic orkstodes, no 2+ eldar, no W2 squats, no D2 on every weapon, none of this gak, go back to Index and balance from there. Back then, vehicles were worth taking, armies actually lasted a few turns on table, and units had far more abilities actually on sheets, not stratagems.

Once you do so, push most of stratagems to sheets, make simple faction/subfaction rules, go back to FOC with troop unlocking, there, done, no more bloat. If you want to introduce more rules, make more diverse chapters/regiments/hive fleets/whatever, not more rule layers

If there was an option for "40k has a barebones ruleset, whilst simultaneously having so much bloat that one additional wafer thin cracker would cause it to explode, all whilst having the depth of a puddle and the balance of the Vasa" I would have chosen it.

I've moved on to other systems because 40k is an exercise in frustration. The local narrative scene has completly dried up, and all that's left is the comp scene.

Managed to reach the end of Rogue-like. Want me to send any comments? only 2.5k characters.

I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.

 Just Tony wrote:
I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.

Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.

macluvin wrote:
See first the people that haven’t played in 2+ years are pissed they didn’t get the rest of the survey after they answer why they stopped playing, now they are pissed they got the rest of the survey that is nonapplicable to them.

I would have liked it if there was more survey that applied to me. Input from people who don't currently play is valuable, too.

 Flipsiders wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.

Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.

Who the feth would admit to playing that....

 Flipsiders wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.

Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.

I play magic and sort of understand his point. Strategems really do play like instants and sorcery's. If they launch a mission pack and new strategems that function like control mechanics in magic and dominates like in magic then it'll be another giant leap forward into magic like territory.

Only bezos or musk could afford to play both, surely

Synergizing between faction rules, aura and targeted buffs from units like psykers and other HQ's, and strategems is a lot like synergizing a magic deck as well.

macluvin wrote:

 Flipsiders wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I look forward to my survey being thoroughly ignored as the 40K experience moves even further into M:TG style play.

Does anyone who says this currently play Magic? Honest question.

I play magic and sort of understand his point. Strategems really do play like instants and sorcery's. If they launch a mission pack and new strategems that function like control mechanics in magic and dominates like in magic then it'll be another giant leap forward into magic like territory.

Which is a problem for something that has individual models you need to build and paint rather than .001 cent pieces of cardstock...

There is a big difference between the level of $€£¥ involvement required for MTG and 40k to even play moderately "current".

macluvin wrote:
Synergizing between faction rules, aura and targeted buffs from units like psykers and other HQ's, and strategems is a lot like synergizing a magic deck as well.

I have to disagree with this on anything more than the most simplistic of levels. Any strategy game which allows you to apply multiple static and/or continuous effectss to the way you play will encourage you to find combinations which synergize those abilities and create focused gameplay styles. That goes for Warhammer, any trading card game or deckbuilding video game, most tabletop RPGs, RTSs and MOBAs, turn-based RPG video games from Pokémon to Darkest Dungeon, and even conventional skill-based video games with skill/tech/talent trees like Dishonored or the Borderlands series.

The only strategy games which don't allow for this sort of decision-making are those in which player choice is emitted entirely, such as chess or checkers, or ones in which no gameplay pieces you control can never predictably affect each other, a design choice so rare I genuinely cannot think of an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
There is a big difference between the level of $€£¥ involvement required for MTG and 40k to even play moderately "current".

So to answer the question, you haven't played Magic recently.

You can make functioning pauper decks for 5 bucks. You won't win any tournaments but you'll slaughter those ten dollar prebuilt decks. Also for 30-40 bucks you can get event decks loosely based on decks that win tournaments. They aren't bad. And Commander gets exactly as expensive as you want it to be...

Or ever, cuz it has zero to interest me(pay to win, consumable short term product, etc). I remember when that lame fething game came out an people were comparing going on and on about how great it was to buy a new deck all the time like it was some fething new version of POGS or whatever the morons were buying that week.

No that's ok I'll stick to my well painted assembled models thank you very much...