Warhammer 40,000 Gamers’ Survey is up!

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.

**a_typical_hero**

To the original post in the News & Rumour section:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/801785.page

Wanted to repost it here anyway for greater exposure.

Please take 5 minutes to fill out the survey!

Your Chance to Make Warhammer 40,000 Even Better with the Gamers’ Survey

Every day, Warhammer 40,000 fans around the world get in touch to share their thoughts on the game, so we have decided to give you an official way to get your voice heard. Whether it’s your experience with your favourite Codex, how the game plays right now, or ideas about what would be great to see in a future edition, we want to hear from you. Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early.

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?

Take this survey and have YOUR say on the future of Warhammer 40,000.

The survey is open until the 11th of November, so you’ve got a few days to fill it in. If you have any friends who play Warhammer 40,000 (or used to – we’d love to hear from past players too!), please send them a link to ensure that the Warhammer studio can hear from the widest range of voices.

**Unit1126PLL**

I feel bad the way these questions are worded.

I feel like if I say 9th edition is complicated, they will strip down the core rules even further and stuff more things into the codexes.

There needs to be a way to say "there's room for improvement in the core rules, but the biggest hurdle to playing right now is the massive amount of rules within codexes"

which is what I wrote in my comment.

**Apple fox**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel bad the way these questions are worded.

I feel like if I say 9th edition is complicated, they will strip down the core rules even further and stuff more things into the codexes.

There needs to be a way to say "there's room for improvement in the core rules, but the biggest hurdle to playing right now is the massive amount of rules within codexes"

which is what I wrote in my comment.

I actually struggled a bit with that, since I don’t find the game complicated. But it was sorta the only one that fits the bigist issue I had. So I put a lot into the comment section, good stuff for GW letting us put a lot in there :0

**Sgt. Cortez**

I just called for an activation mechanic in the comment section, because overall I'm fine with the current rules.
Unfortunately there were a lot of question about tournament/ matched (and none about Crusade/ narrative aside from "I do narrative" - wtf?) that didn't apply to me but show the direction GW seemingly tries to force the game into.

**the_scotsman**

I found myself answering 'too many rules' and 'good for expert players' while leaving the other boxes very un-checked for a lot of them...

**Skinnereal**

Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.

**Unit1126PLL**

Skinnereal wrote:
Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.

Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list

**H.B.M.C.**

It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.

Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.

**Brickfix**

I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.

**Sim-Life**

Brickfix wrote:
I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.

Just click "its too complicated" so GW can totally misunderstand the problem, turn all interactins into a dice roll of 4+ then add EVEN MORE STRATAGEMS! At some point 40k will become a resource management game where army building determines your CP and your CP allocation determines who wins and there'll be no need for models or boards.

**the_scotsman**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's fun to have an official avenue to be ignored by GW.

Anyway, I write a 2,500 word essay. That should be enough.

I know I'd take the time to read it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sim-Life wrote:
Brickfix wrote:
I found it difficult to clarify that the core rules are too bare bones, while the avalanche of strategems and faction specific rules are way too tedious to keep up with.

Just click "its too complicated" so GW can totally misunderstand the problem, turn all interactins into a dice roll of 4+ then add EVEN MORE STRATAGEMS! At some point 40k will become a resource management game where army building determines your CP and your CP allocation determines who wins and there'll be no need for models or boards.

So um, 8th ed?

I mean currently if you consider the various obscuring terrain pieces as like "Defense Mode" then 40k 9th is already kind of like a game of yu-gi-oh where you start with all your monsters deployed on the board unless you want them in your hand.

You could abstract it to the point where there's no need to actually move - just select a target to attack, and deal an average amount of damage instead of rolling dice. If you put enouhg attack points into your opponent's model, they may remove it from the board.

Avoid the hassle! Just have people set their minis down on the table in a line, turn it into a version of MTG where every card costs 60+$.

**H.B.M.C.**

the_scotsman wrote:
I know I'd take the time to read it.

I'd be happy to post it ~~just to boost my own ego~~ if you're interested in reading it.

**Thadin**

Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

**Not Online!!!**

Skinnereal wrote:
Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.

whilest you are at it, mention Elysians, Renegades and heretics and corsairs?

pretty please?

**Sim-Life**

Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

**Thadin**

I wonder if they'll put out a survey for AoS in that case, cause despite my gripes with double turn mechanics, I'm still playing that.

**yukishiro1**

FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.

GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.

**Dudeface**

Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

**Sim-Life**

Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

**Dudeface**

Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?

**Voss**

yukishiro1 wrote:
FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.

GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.

The bizarre thing is, its super-easy to make surveys like that which fork at major decision points, so they could have easily asked what people were interested in and what would pull them into the game, what would you like to see from older editions, etc, etc. Then see how much overlap there is between those responses and people who claimed to be current players.

But no, got to keep that Ivory Tower gate locked up tight. Sort top 3 responses with no context, instead.

**Sim-Life**

Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?

It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.

**Apple fox**

Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

I got about 10 questions, interesting I wish I had taken note now. Did you not get the optional put anything in at least ?

**Dudeface**

Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?

It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.

I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.

**Sim-Life**

Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?

It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.

I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.

Do you think people critical of GW post here because it's le ebin trolololol? It never occurred to you that maybe the people complaining are fans of Warhammer and 40k who WANT to come back, but the state of the game doesn't suit what they want and they have the good sense to stop feeding GW money until the game meets a state they deem acceptable?

**Dudeface**

Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Thadin wrote:
Huh. I only got prompted for two questions.
1- How long has it been since you played 40k?
A year or more
2 - Why did you stop?
Current game rules don't appeal to me

And... that was it. How's everyone getting all these damn questions? I need to make my super important opinion heard!

They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards.

What feedback would you leave in that case? What do they need to do in order to earn your custom?

The same thing most other people want. Do you want me to sit and write a 2500 long word essay (not having a go at H.B.M.C, his essay probably covers most of what I'd say) about how I feel the game is too bloated and armies lack a faction identity and the game currently feels like an elaborate system for packing away models over the course of 3 hours?

Soooo the leap from dog turd with no standards is to strip back bloat, reinforce faction identity and reduce lethality whilst improving tactical decision making?

It's almost like I want to play a game with good mechanics, a strong theme and interesting decisions, none of which 40k currently has in my opinion. I don't get what you're trying to do here. Maybe instead of trying to draw me into a long conversation about the minutiae of an off-handed sentence just tell me what silly little tangent point irrelevant to the larger discussion you want to argue about for the next few pages until I go to bed and a whole different argument between two other people can take place while ours is forgotten or picked up by others.

I just wanted to find what it was you wanted, you're consistently happy to gak on the game, say it has no standards etc and given the strength of your stance and dislike of GW I assumed that there isn't a point of return for you.

Do you think people critical of GW post here because it's le ebin trolololol? It never occurred to you that maybe the people complaining are fans of Warhammer and 40k who WANT to come back, but the state of the game doesn't suit what they want and they have the good sense to stop feeding GW money until the game meets a state they deem acceptable?

Yes, but I couldn't imagine spending all this time and energy on something I actively dislike/have no current interest in.

I would spend my time engaging with something I do deem acceptable, want to spend my money on and enjoy.

And yes I'm also sure a decent % of the consistent complainers, do it because it's popular to GW bash in this community.

You also seem to assume that people are unable to enjoy something despite its flaws, but your standards aren't golden and you don't have to be an apologist or drone to enjoy or find something acceptable.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Btw. I was surprised that GW so openly states: "Obviously, a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 is still some years off, but we like to start early."

I mean, one big complaint is the fast change of edition every couple years...

**the_scotsman**

Voss wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
FYI, if you want the opportunity to give substantive feedback, you have to answer that you've played more recently than in the last 2 years (maybe in the last year? see above?), or it'll cut you off after asking you why you haven't played much.

GW, making some people lie on surveys in order to be allowed to give feedback, which only hurts the integrity of their own survey data...classic stuff.

The bizarre thing is, its super-easy to make surveys like that which fork at major decision points, so they could have easily asked what people were interested in and what would pull them into the game, what would you like to see from older editions, etc, etc. Then see how much overlap there is between those responses and people who claimed to be current players.

But no, got to keep that Ivory Tower gate locked up tight. Sort top 3 responses with no context, instead.

IMO (ive done some industry research) this is pretty typical for a "We want an answer to this ONE QUESTION we have, and we will disguise it as a general poll"

Theres a reason "too complicated" "too many rules" etc was on every page. They want to know if the current hype du jour online and amongst 40k influencers is real or a loud minority.

**The Newman**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.

Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list

Oh boy, same here.

I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.

**the_scotsman**

The Newman wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Skinnereal wrote:
Bring back kit-bashing, instead of 'what's in the box' limitations.

Top comment; wish I'd've thought to add that to my long list

Oh boy, same here.

I also forgot the wonky Bodyguard rules; preventing me from sniping a character who is the closest thing to me kind of strikes me as a rule not working as intended, preventing me from firing overwatch when a character charges in by themselves definitely strikes me as a rule not working as intended.

of all the things to complain about right now, the fact that you can only reduce characters to a pair of smoking boots after youve reduced their bodyguards to a pair of smoking boots is a strange take.

I never have any trouble doing both.