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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's like saying "well no one is FORCING you to watch Disney stuff" when lile 80% of the entertainment media created is by Disney.

That is such a hilariously bad argument because Disney definitely doesn't create 80% of entertainment. Do you have Netflix? Amazon Prime? HBO? Do you watch anime? Mexican or Turkish Soap Operas? then you likely have consumed non-Disney media. And that's just for TV and movie entertainment, videogames, comics and books are mostly beyond Disney.

If Disney is your go to example for a monopoly then you have a bad argument.

Yea, I hate it when GW beats me to within an inch of my life when I buy stuff that isn't from them.

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:


So firstly moral grandstanding (not comparing GW to an abusive relationship) isn't an argument. Its an appeal to emotion. The comparison is apt because GW fans DO do a lot "but they said they were sorry and promised to do better". If you can think of a better comparison then feel free to present it.

How do people get away with such tripe? Can you not even see it?

MAKING THE COMPARISON IN THE FIRST PLACE IS ALSO AN APPEAL TO EMOTION, NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU THINK THE COMPARISON IS!!

No, making the comparison is a way to make the situation easier to explain. As I said if you can present a more apt comparison that explain the GW/Customer relationship present it and we'll use that but until then abusive relationship is the best we have.

And just by the by, companies can have an abusive relationship with their customers. It's not purely a term reserved for domestic situations.

Why is it up to us to present a more apt description? If you're going to double down on the horrible and absurd comparison that's on you. I won't be digging you out of that hole. You may also want to read the comment that caused this whole thing in the first place. It's specifically about violent domestic abuse, not some other type of barely related abusive relationship like psychological marketing tricks.

It's really hard to take any argument seriously when this is the comparison you're choosing to make (or support). GW could do better than they are when it comes to rules, yes. I'd love better balance and a more equitable distribution of resources so armies like DE might actually get some additions to their army instead of yet another SM Lt model. But I also acknowledge they're doing something right. Their profits seem to keep going up and participation seems to be going in the same direction. If that squeezes other games out of a given group maybe that's because those games are doing a worse job in some way (probably marketing). Or maybe people are happy playing GW games and don't want to put the time investment into another game. Blaming GW for that seems bizarre to me. That's especially true when I see decent communities around me for lots of different games, including Bolt Action, Malifaux, X-Wing and MCP, so this clearly isn't a universal problem.

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.

If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.

It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.

I've honestly never met anyone who talks gak about lesser companies. If anything people seem more inclined to talk gak about GW than the other companies. Now, if you are referring to the setting that's an entirely different thing. A company could release the greatest game ever, but if they put it in WW2 setting I'll have almost 0 interest in it. Same goes for people who have no interest in Marvel and therefore have no interest in MCP. They don't hate the game, but they are not a fan of the setting.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.

If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.

It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.

I've honestly never met anyone who talks gak about lesser companies. If anything people seem more inclined to talk gak about GW than the other companies. Now, if you are referring to the setting that's an entirely different thing. A company could release the greatest game ever, but if they put it in WW2 setting I'll have almost 0 interest in it. Same goes for people who have no interest in Marvel and therefore have no interest in MCP. They don't hate the game, but they are not a fan of the setting.

Same here. I can't remember the last time a GW fan started criticizing other gaming companies. Usually all you get is a "never heard of it" or "haven't played it", not some diatribe about the company itself. Maybe once or twice it would happen, but usually because of good reasons (PP and page 5 springs to mind).

there are some on dakka that once in a while place comments in topics that GW is still better than a smaller companie

but I also never seen people on other game forums mentioning GW if is it not a spin-off game

get back on topic, now and in the future do not make such disgusting comparisons either. Your relationship with a toy company is nothing like an abusive relationship and you should feel ashamed of yourself to even think such let alone post it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I get skepticism. I genuinely do.

But the wailing and gnashing of teeth is comically premature.

Me? I’m genuinely excited for 10th. As covered many times elsewhere, due to professional pressures I’ve not really played in the past ten and a half years. Because commuting sucks.

I'm more excited for 11th. GW tends to have a rubber band effect for their sweeping changes. They overcorrect. Hard. And the edition after that when the snap back from the overcorrection is closer to palatable is the fun one. For example, look at close combat in 8th/9th. They stripped out +1A for assorted things - charging, two weapons, etc - and it just killed the assault phase for a lot of armies. I think Assault Marines were underappreciated/overlooked still at the end of 9th, but it just too so long for GW to make them close enough to viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
why should a painter use proxies?
I really want to paint the new Tyranids, so I buy some 3D prints that are similar but different?

Have you ever looked at painting/model conventions, you are not going to see any proxy because there is no reason to do so

people proxy/3D print because it is cheaper for gaming, were you need the same unit/model several times the models you need change over time with new rules/codex

and yes, a lot of people just play because Wahapedia and Battlescribe are a thing, they won't pay for the rules and if Wahapedia disappears they are gone

if you really think the painters are leading the 3D printed market and the players are the ones who pay the full priced originals, you have neither visit a painting convention nor a tournament.

Not the fake look alikes, but yeah some will 3D print optional looks. I've seen a Repulsor/Primaris theme guy who makes them all look like Lost In Space tv toys.

But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project

same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)

they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative

saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)

Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?

He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.

What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.

This was inappropriate the first time, more so after a mod warning. Leave the conversation now.

Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?

Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?

Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?

Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?

Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?

Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.

And where is 9th now?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?

Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?

Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.

And where is 9th now?

I think there are still too many outliers in the balance of 9th, but it's better than we've seen for a while. My main problem is how long it took to get there. DE and AdMech were really strong for a little while, but Nids and Harlequins took an absolute age to bring back into line. I think GW are too devoted to their quarterly updates. If they remain as bad as they currently are at the initial balance of factions I'd like to see them be more proactive when big problems show up. Weirdly, the most proactive they've been is for Votann before they were even released, yet it took probably 3 months longer than it should have for them to bring Nids back into line.

Hence why things are so stripped out in 10th. Peeling back the layer cake of 9th is a long winded battle that would be difficult to truly get right.

As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates

Wayniac wrote:
As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates

Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.

GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.

- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc

The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
As always the hope is not that they get it right early on it's that they stay with it. That seems to always be their problem. They can never actually stick with it and have to bloat it with extra nonsense to sell you the codex and updates

Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.

GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.

- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc

The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.

They still have the opportunity to just flat out make a unit ability too strong. 9th was far too complicated by the interwoven rules of sub-factions, units, strats, psychic powers, auras, relics, etc. 10th looks to be doing a good job of taming that, but there's still the possibility of GW replicating what they did with Nids, where a big part of the problem was the units just being far too good. With fewer moving parts, points might be a more effective lever to pull to balance that than we've seen in the past, at least.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.

- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc

The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.

They've scaled back on stratagems, army abilities, and layered rules, but there's no telling whether they'll stay the course. If the codices start coming out and now instead of one faction ability each faction is getting two or three, oh and here's a set of stratagems that applies regardless of what detachment you run, then we'll be resuming the same mess we currently have.

It would be immediately contrary to their stated design goals, but GW finds it hard to resist cramming new and shiny stuff into each codex rather than just iterating on what's already been hammered out.

That said, I will be completely fine with the books just adding thirteen million detachments with a bazillion stratagems and abilities if they all follow the format of what we've seen so far; ie short enough that you can just talk through it all with your opponent before the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Remember how 8th ed was the most playtested edition ever, and then Assault weapons didn't work by RAW and never got errata'd?

Remember how GW asked for community feedback on the proposed 8th ed rules, but only a couple of weeks before release so it was totally pointless?

Yes. I also remember 9th starting out pretty well, and within a few months bloating to a dumpster fire with codex creep and adding in more and more stratagems and other junk.

And where is 9th now?

In a place where my Canoness can't take a Rod of Office unless she very specifically also has a plasma pistol and power sword (NOT A BLESSED BLADE YOU HEATHENS! *slap*) because 'screw you, that's why'.

 kodos wrote:
But those people do it because they want that specific look for a painting project

same as I have seen people using GW based designs for a Vietnam theme or Tau-Gundam Army made with Tau models
(while the people who proxy for gaming are using the Gundam models for Tau because they are cheaper)

they don't proxy a Space Marine with a look alike if they want to paint a Space Marine because it is cheaper, they do it if they want to paint that alternative

saying the painters leading the 3D printing market because they have less reason to buy originals than the gamers do, is like the opposite of reality (as they only reason to buy the GW models if you like to paint and collect them)

You've got a Chicken/Egg scenario here. Did I print my cheaper Lost In Space because I liked the aesthetic or did I like the aesthetic because it was cheaper?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Friend I mentioned earlier that’s also had their interest piqued by 10th?

He has a 3D Printer, and he’s a damned good painter. These two are linked.

What he doesn’t do is use his 3D Printer to produce knock-offs/carbon copies. Rather it’s a cost effective way for him to be able to obtain and then paint whatever it is that’s tickling his fancy in the moment.

It depends on what people want to call knock-offs and carbon copies. I've printed Molded Shoulder Pads - But I get both halves not just the chapter half but also the Battle Role half. I've printed alternate Shields/Swords, I've printed the Dawn of War Space Marine HQ building for terrain. I've printed Redemptor Chest panels. I haven't printed them yet, but I have the downloads to print Impuslor/Gladiator Toppers for magnetization/swaps. Some of that is an overlap I could get from GW - but I'd rather have matching Left and Right pads than GW official Chapter Pads and home made role pads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hence why things are so stripped out in 10th. Peeling back the layer cake of 9th is a long winded battle that would be difficult to truly get right.

In some ways they're repeating their punt after 7th, going back to indexes - and so far it looks like they're changing far less than they did from 7-8 than 9-10.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Right, but can someone here predict along what axis that will occur? They'll sell codexes for the extra detachments and new models.

GW proliferated weapons in 8th and then traits and strats in 9th. Now all of those things are adjusted back, rescaled, or severely limited.

- Your detachment will always be two pages. If there's a bad detachment we can throw that out until they fix it instead of the entire army.
- The datasheets being shown are already reasonably complex. What would they add that will totally up-end the game?
- Characters are unit locked, CP is very low, etc

The only thing I can think of is points being totally out of whack.

It all boils down to what the detachment is going to do. I think we can expect the DA codex to have a DW, RW, "regular marines/mixed force" detachment. Maybe also something for the fallen, maybe something centered around the Lion. If the DW models in a DW detachment were, lets say can only be wounded on +3. How does one balance thier cost in the "regular marines" detachment? One option would be of course to entice not taking any RW or DW models in a regular army. This could end up to locked detachments style armies, where TWC and wulfen are only run in a TWC&Wulfen detachment, because in that they get X, Y and Z and in any other SW detachment they are just overcosted or lacking some crucial rules (like a FnP boosting resiliance or boost to movment).
Over all the core rules and core mechanics for 10th look sound and have a lot of the thing I thought w40k should have had from 8th ed. 9th for me was better then 8th, by a lot. 10th could be , depeneding on how the GK index looks like, be more fun then 9th. Which probably means that in 2-3 editions, I could have a lot of fun.

The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.

Breton wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.

They can do Gladius, but they cannot do DW/RW detachment and Gladius detachment, they have to chose one.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

The impression I got from the Q&A is that DA/BA/SW/BT will be their own "Factions" - so they may not get Oath of Moment either, in addition to having something different than Gladius Strike Force as their Index detachment. I'm certainly curious to see their preview articles to see how distinct they'll be.

 Tyran wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

You sure about that? This is going to be the only DET out there for a while as near as I can tell - and it sounds like they're going back to a 6th/7th design paradigm in addition to walking back the troops required thing. Its entirely possible DW/RW can do Gladius.

They can do Gladius, but they cannot do DW/RW detachment and Gladius detachment, they have to chose one.

Ahh, you mean the Det that gets theoretically gets added for the DW/RW faction, not the DW/RW faction choosing the Gladius Det. I read that as Faction + Det not Faction as Placeholder Name for hypothetical Det.

Of course I still wouldn't bet on it. I watched them give Doctrines to UM in one edition, then spread it to everyone (even some sort of version for non-Marines) in the next couple editions.

If I was going to pick a Faction/Detachment ability to act as the baseline for all the Marines they're going to hand out in the codexes, I'd pick Doctrines so I could give everyone Doctrines + This Other Thing. Heck that's basically what they did in the last Dark Angels Supplement - During This Doctrine Ravenwing gets X, Deathwing gets A, during That doctrine Ravenwing gets Y, Deathwing gets B and so on.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing here is that a DW/RW detachment isn't going to have access to Doctrines and other Gladius detachment rules.

I could also see GW separating point costs when it comes to Marine chapters, so a DA termie doesn't cost the same as a regular one.

Which is a bad idea. Terminators should be the same all around.

What? Guns/units being the same cost regardless of factions/platform is one of the main reason theres so much internal imbalance in the game. If a unit has more benefits in one subfaction than in another, it should cost more.