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.

 Flipsiders wrote:

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.

I would like to point out the behavior of stratagems as sorcery and instants depending on the stratagem. Strats aren't necessarily static or continuous but they often factor into the syngergizing factor. For example, competitive chaos space marine lists that are shooty would be built around the endless cacophony stratagem to allow a shooty unit to double tap. Then, you may start looking at static buffs to enhance them like a lord's reroll aura. You may use veterans of the long war to synergize even more, or if it is obliterators or melta guns you are shooting you may use a command re-roll to reroll the damage roll.

Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.

I said that I would prefer a system for 40K more akin to what is used in AoS, where all the math is complete on the data sheet, you need only roll and add or subtract due to modifiers. I also stated that I'd really like to see the rules more simplified and easier to locate within the books, instead of having to flip back and forth, points should be literally in the data sheet in the corner where "PL" is.

Furthermore I took the time to plug for the Return of EPIC by explaining my feelings that Apoc just doesn't work at the 28MM scale due to the cost, transportation and setup.

I hope they listen to some of it.

 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.

<Looks at Necromunda, BB, Underworlds>

...yeah. About that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.

This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.

I found their questions about points and FAQ updates to be a bit odd, I mean... frankly the BEST answer would be "as soon as the need is aquired" and is GW really considering focusing less on that?

in hindsight though I wish I had commented that points updates need to be free

 Albertorius wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.

This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.

I agree. I suspect they are trying to snipe the magic the gathering players or expand to the TCG crowd in general.

Well I was sure to complain and I got pretty far but I have to say this the real treat was reading this thread.

I love you Dakka, never change, only here can people white knight so hard for a soulless money grubbing git company and turn it around on the community that they shouldn't have a say if they haven't played the current edition.

Really, that is a poor survey and sure some questions could be skipped pertaining to this edition but they could have had questions of how they could interest them back ? What could they do better ? Past experiences ? All of that would be good feedback to woo returning customers back.

Of course though, unless you live the GW life at all times you should have no say, so silly.

Seriously though, Dakka, you are the wind beneath my wings.

You must have a lot of people on ignore if that's the only thing you've seen.

 Albertorius wrote:
You must have a lot of people on ignore if that's the only thing you've seen.

Interestingly all the like minded people.

I didn’t say that they shouldn’t have a say. I said the company only cares about the customers that made their stocks go up so damn much which unfortunately excludes anyone that was playing exclusively before 8th unless you just pure hobbied and not gamed. Have your say but the company is interested in making this edition better and the customer base most intimate with that are the ones that have been playing.
I absolutely believe that GW should try to collect your input a bit better. Just don’t be surprised if it gets drowned out from the customer base that stuck through 8th and 9th edition. Also unfortunately quality is often inversely proportional to profitability...
I have also stated my gripes with the company...

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.

Blue/white deck based off of Coat of Arms/Serra's Blessing/Meekstone combo with Sunscape and Stormscape Familiars to cheapen my stuff along with Feldon's Cane and whatever artifact did the exact same thing to keep me from decking myself in multiplayer.


I may have played Magic...

BrianDavion wrote:
I found their questions about points and FAQ updates to be a bit odd, I mean... frankly the BEST answer would be "as soon as the need is aquired" and is GW really considering focusing less on that?

in hindsight though I wish I had commented that points updates need to be free

I had trouble deciding on that answer (I went with quarterly)

One thing points/FAQs do is shake up the meta. How fast do you want that to happen? I’ve looked at minis, saw how they would fit into my army, purchased them, and by the time they got painted, they were nerfed into uselessness. Or the edition changed and could no longer do the things I wanted them to do. Now I’m not some top-table tournament guy, but I like to have a fair shot at winning games. There are only so many “dud” units I can work into a list. How my people who currently chase the FOTM will continue to do so if it’s the flavor of the actual month? Only so fast you can buy/build/paint.

Having longer times between updates lets them gather enough data to see what needs to be changed. And lets them think about the impact of the errata/FAQ, and if there might be secondary fallout from them. Plus just time to do them. There are a lot of moving parts in 40k.

I do think for glaring errors they can do out of cycle updates. The shortly after release of new books and twice a year isn’t a horrible schedule, but I think we can be a little more aggressive than that.

The two things I brought up is how both No Model, No Rules, and the format of how they deliver the rules both bother me, and cost them sales. When I kitbash options, I buy GW kits to get them. And the act of buying the rulebooks (and maintaining them through editions) keeps me from buying minis. Shiny model syndrome would have a ton of the new releases in my pile of shame, but I’m not buying stuff purly for painting projects, and getting the rules to play them overshadows the price of the plastic.

Racerguy180 wrote:
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...

Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person

 Albertorius wrote:

 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.

<Looks at Necromunda, BB, Underworlds>

...yeah. About that...

Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.

 Albertorius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
Slinging gotcha moments around is also very remeniscent of magic... that would be the role of interrupt/instants. The difference is that you are basically playing with your hands revealed.

This kinda stuff is what made me recoil back from Warmahordes, too, back in the day. It's simply not the way I like miniature and strategy games to work.

Sigh, yeah, this is exactly why my WM/H scene collapsed, we just got done with setting up and then (combo, combo, combo...) okay, my movement 4" heavy is in your deployment zone with your commander on its pike, GG. I don't feel it's anywhere near that bad with 40k, but it's still way too much stacking info that takes a strong knowledge of your opponent's list to even prepare for. It's way too imprecisely balanced for me to put that sort of effort into it.

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.

But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.

 Albertorius wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.

But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.

Now now, that would suggest that any of Necromunda's ruleset has been cohesively planned...

I jest (partly); I do think that the latter part of the structure with the 'House of X' rules has been an improvement but at the same time it has left a lot of material from earlier tomes as deadwood unfortunately for anyone who invested in them. The constant haphazard approach to proofing in particular makes its own problems across so many different books but I don't think 'Munda' has even close to that same degree of built in redundancy for older models as, say, 40K, more that there was a clear shift in direction after the initial run on the House Gangs and the release schedule is finally catching up. They seem more to want to expand the game 'sideways' and incorporate a broader, (even more RPG-esque) design ethic, for better or worst rather than a tighter 'meta-gamey' system.

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

- STOP "Day 1 DLC" or books that are separated from codexes with extra rules - we DON'T like having to buy extra books so often
- Produce more "get you by" updates for armies that aren't receiving a codex early in an edition
- Consider selling books and making digital rules free or at least a subscription to rules without the need to purchase a book
- Rules are so often flawed and in need of FAQs that print media almost makes no sense - digital is more nimble
- Add more variety to GT pack missions and more generic secondaries to allow more choice against all types of opponents
- Consider more mechanics that increase the depth of the game
- Add back stacking modifiers when they are imposed by opponent's choice ( e.g. when I run assault and shoot a plane I get -2 ), but not when a player stacks their own ( e.g. giving a plane -1 to be hit via spell / strat / etc )
- Rule of 1 for buffs - a unit cannot benefit from more than one stratagem or spell per round. Auras excluded
- Weapons that can shoot without line of sight need a penalty - perhaps -1 to wound since -1 to hit would hurt Orks more than others or an increase of the cover save to +2
- Vehicles need some method of getting a cover save to increase survivability
- Limit AIRCRAFT to 0/1/2 per Patrol/Battalion/Brigade or something similar
- Change certain abilities to be inactive at certain ranges like Chaff Launchers. Have them "turn off" if you are within 12". This prevents overly aggressive moves and gives the opponent movement options for better counterplay.
- Free points




Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
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...

Commander is great if you don't ever want to be cEDH and have a group of friends that understand the power level and what would make for a bad game. Of course it's also super easy to proxy cards these days.

 Albertorius wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Yeah about that, I don’t think any of those games have the same kind of marketing plan as 40K. The problem isn’t with a steady flow of expansions.

But, interestingly enough, they still have been churned to hell and back and their releases plan is very much about planned obsolescence, particularly in the case of Necromunda. So yes, about that.

NM might come closest in that bunch, but I don't see the same kind of churn in those games that 40K creates. The entire games industry -- tabletop to video -- uses waves of expansions to tweak metas and add new options. There will always be certain amounts of sprawl and balance changes, because that's how they keep players engaged and make money. And while obsolescence is a factor in actual built-for-competition games like CCGs or Underworlds, that's more of an above-board thing. To me, it's different than the wild and intentional pendulum swings we've historically seen in 40K. Units and even whole armies go from penthouse to outhouse or vice versa and then later maybe back again, and it's completely calculated to drive sales.

Hell, I can remember joking 20 years ago about '40K market timing' -- the idea of buying the gak units and armies low at pennies on the dollar and selling them high after the next codex or edition arrives. GW is just scattershot enough for that to be a risky plan, but I can't say that I haven't made some money along the way selling off 40K minis after a rules change caused demand to spike. I don't feel like that could really even be a thing for their SGs.

I'm not outraged about any of this, FYI. I'm fine letting others engage in the tail-chasing exercise of 40K so that I can enjoy my SGs...which I maintain mostly come with a better overall customer experience (well, other than the shortages).

I feel optimistic about this survey...

Its almost as if GW are working out the minimum amount of rules it needs to sell people models.

Cronch wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
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...

Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person

The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...

Racerguy180 wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
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...

Seeing a person defend playing with toy soldiers as somehow more dignified experience to playing cards made my day, thank you radom internet person

The big difference is with MTG you buy as many packs(waste produced) to increase the chances of getting a good card, which you might not even get. This is the part I don't understand. at least with 40k I know what I am going to get in every box i buy, control how I want them to look, paint them how I want them to be painted, etc...

Well, it's more economical to pay the $40 for that card you really want on TCG these days than to crack packs for the adrenaline.

I'm probably too optimistic, but to me it sounds like GW realising most players can't keep up with the rule changes, and while rules changing all the time might be fun to the tournament scene, casual players just get unhooked. If people have to learn to play again every 6 months, most of them won't, they'll just turn their attention elsewhere.

hypnoticeris wrote:

I'm probably too optimistic, but to me it sounds like GW realising most players can't keep up with the rule changes, and while rules changing all the time might be fun to the tournament scene, casual players just get unhooked. If people have to learn to play again every 6 months, most of them won't, they'll just turn their attention elsewhere.

One can always hope, but hope is the first step on the road to damnation.

GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.

Racerguy180 wrote:
GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.

Unfortunately, the way GW tends to react to things is to swing the pendulum hard in the opposite direction, so prepare for 10th Edition, the "Do whatever you want, the rules are kinda just there if you want them..." edition.

They do enjoy a fat pendulum....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
GW may have shot themselves in their own foot chasing the tourney dragon and might now be feeling it.

Unfortunately, the way GW tends to react to things is to swing the pendulum hard in the opposite direction, so prepare for 10th Edition, the "Do whatever you want, the rules are kinda just there if you want them..." edition.

So basically business as usual for garagehammer dudes?

macluvin wrote:
So basically business as usual for garagehammer dudes?

No. Not even slightly.

 Albertorius wrote:
You must have a lot of people on ignore if that's the only thing you've seen.

I've actually never blocked anyone here, but the fact anyone here can say if you haven't played it in awhile they should have no say is silly, it's as stupid a concept as love it or leave it which is also tossed around an awful lot here.

If you didn't ever say that however, then my comment really wasn't for you and I didn't say everyone said it but enough that it stretched multiple pages of this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

macluvin wrote:
I didn’t say that they shouldn’t have a say. I said the company only cares about the customers that made their stocks go up so damn much which unfortunately excludes anyone that was playing exclusively before 8th unless you just pure hobbied and not gamed. Have your say but the company is interested in making this edition better and the customer base most intimate with that are the ones that have been playing.
I absolutely believe that GW should try to collect your input a bit better. Just don’t be surprised if it gets drowned out from the customer base that stuck through 8th and 9th edition. Also unfortunately quality is often inversely proportional to profitability...
I have also stated my gripes with the company...

Here I was thinking they wanted to maybe grow their numbers and instead this survey is just for those currently playing. A long term strategy would be to not only make a better edition but also see how they can get old players back or entice new ones in. Neither of which they would reach only speaking to those currently playing. I'm just a silly goose like that, thinking more is better.

That's not entirely correct. "Is suited for new/experienced/all players" is an option for many questions. This is clearly aimed to find out what parts need to be changed to not overwhelm new players.