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.
2023/07/13 20:21:33
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
alextroy wrote: And if this was dog gak, you would be right. This is just the same food arranged in a different manner. Beef, potatoes, onions, and carrots can be good whether prepared separately or in a stew.
Except PL is a "stew" where the cook decided the only ingredient they're willing to use is a single slice of carrot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.
Lolwut. That is absurd victim blaming. It's not our fault that GW created a subpar product, and it's not our fault if GW decides the response to valid criticism is to break the system even further. PL is not a valid response to any of the criticism of the traditional point system as it fixes none of the issues that have been raised while introducing new problems (which are impossible to fix) on top of all of the existing ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/13 20:23:19
alextroy wrote: My question is, after 9 Editions of GW getting Granular Points wrong, why can't you give a little PL Points a try and see if the game doesn't fall apart if you don't try to exploit it?
One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...
And if this was dog gak, you would be right. This is just the same food arranged in a different manner. Beef, potatoes, onions, and carrots can be good whether prepared separately or in a stew.
You'd have a point if I didn't need to be a chef to know you need to cook those ingredients.
2023/07/13 22:23:32
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Torture the metaphor if you must to meet your agenda. The truth remains the same:
GW has exhibited a vision of how they want you to play the game. They have, in their normal style, failed to execute it to a high degree (that Sponson problem and the Heavy Bolter-Grav Cannon issue), but the vision is there and obvious to see if you don't willfully blind yourself to it. You can belabor the fact that it isn't your vision and that it is badly executed, but that doesn't change the fact that there was one. Nor does it make it likely that GW will quickly back away from it.
So you can hate on them or try playing the game while not trying to squeeze every upgrade of efficiency out of it and see if maybe, just maybe, the game can be fun if you do. The choice is yours.
2023/07/13 22:25:32
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
alextroy wrote: Torture the metaphor if you must to meet your agenda. The truth remains the same:
GW has exhibited a vision of how they want you to play the game. They have, in their normal style, failed to execute it to a high degree (that Sponson problem and the Heavy Bolter-Grav Cannon issue), but the vision is there and obvious to see if you don't willfully blind yourself to it. You can belabor the fact that it isn't your vision and that it is badly executed, but that doesn't change the fact that there was one. Nor does it make it likely that GW will quickly back away from it.
So you can hate on them or try playing the game while not trying to squeeze every upgrade of efficiency out of it and see if maybe, just maybe, the game can be fun if you do. The choice is yours.
Or, you can try to agitate for change to improve things!
Takes effort I know but the game is worth it.
2023/07/13 22:28:00
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
alextroy wrote: Torture the metaphor if you must to meet your agenda. The truth remains the same:
GW has exhibited a vision of how they want you to play the game. They have, in their normal style, failed to execute it to a high degree (that Sponson problem and the Heavy Bolter-Grav Cannon issue), but the vision is there and obvious to see if you don't willfully blind yourself to it. You can belabor the fact that it isn't your vision and that it is badly executed, but that doesn't change the fact that there was one. Nor does it make it likely that GW will quickly back away from it.
So you can hate on them or try playing the game while not trying to squeeze every upgrade of efficiency out of it and see if maybe, just maybe, the game can be fun if you do. The choice is yours.
Is a squad of 5 Death Company Marines with Chainswords as good as a squad with Power Swords, yes or no?
2023/07/13 22:44:01
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Somehow, GW managed to take three more or less equivilant units in one army and give them highly different levels of wargear. They should not have done that.
If Death Company Marines can have a mixture of Close Combat Weapons, Chainswords, Power Weapons, Power Fist, and Thunderhammers, then the same should be true for Vanguard Veterans.
Alternatively, Death Company Marines should be armed with either Close Combat Weapons or Death Company Weapons if they give up their Bolters.
Or both Death Company Marines and Vanguard Veterans should have Bespoke Weapon with the option to upgrade some to a Heavy Melee Weapon not unlike Sanguinary Guard.
So stop trying to play the is X better than Y trap. Anyone with half a brain know the answer is yes. The questions are does it matter in level of degree that it shouldn't be an option at all based on GWs vision.
So to answer your question, if GW wants flat points for Death Company Marines, they shouldn't have given you the option of Chainswords or Power Weapons on a per model basis for a unit of 5-10 models. They should have given them Death Company Weapons (or given Chainswords and Power Weapons different WS )
2023/07/13 22:56:14
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
alextroy wrote: GW has exhibited a vision of how they want you to play the game.
And that vision is objectively worse than the alternative. The topic here is the merits of the system, not whether or not we think GW will admit their error and stop screwing up. And "you can still have fun even though it's a bad system as long as you don't exploit any of its flaws" doesn't really contribute to that discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/13 23:24:41
That this "points" system is - via a consistent amount of different and well put together proofs - conslusively, inarguably and objectively inferior to an actual granular points system where upgrades are paid for, and squad sizes are flexible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/07/13 23:32:15
Regardless of all that, taking on and reacting to criticism is part of improving your product. Yes, the internet tends to amplify the bad and you often have to cut through a lot of hyperbole, but companies shouldn't shy away form taking criticism on board. The response to criticism shouldn't be to just throw your hands up and stop giving a damn by going with the lowest effort solution.
Or, you can try to agitate for change to improve things!
Takes effort I know but the game is worth it.
People vote with their wallets. GW couldn't possibly care less about criticism or agitation as long as the miniatures are still selling.
Think of it like this. You go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac. You get some fries with it and some little ketchup packets for the fries.
The miniatures are the Big Mac. The rules are the ketchup.
You can keep complaining about the rules forever, but GW doesn't care because you aren't spending money on the ketchup. What they're selling is the Big Mac. If you don't like the ketchup, you can go home and use your own stuff from the fridge. Just don't try bringing it into their stores.
In this case they gave us rancid ketchup that expired sometime before 2010. Some people will complain, but a lot of people just throw away those ketchup packets without ever using them, and it's not putting a dent in Big Mac sales. Maybe they'll take the criticism on board, but will they act on it? Not a chance.
2023/07/14 00:17:40
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I hate the, "They are a miniature company first" dodge.
There's an influential book in the software world called "The inmates are running the asylum" One of the many points in the book is that once a product adds software that product company is now a software company. You're a car company and you put a computer in your car? Guess what? You're a software company now. You make can openers and you add a computer to it? Guess what? You're a software company too. You can't choose not care anymore about the way software works and the process needed to develop it well.
GW makes miniatures and makes rules. They should make an effort to do them both well. Not just ignore the game company part when its convenient.
2023/07/14 01:06:42
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Real News wrote: They should, but will they? Nope. The core rules are free and lousy, and this business model is working for them. Don't hold out hope for change.
I don't hold out for change anymore. But I reserve the right to lambast crappy rule sets and the people that defend them.
The idea that GW doesn't care if their rules suck because they just sell models is weird/funny considering that approach to the AOS launch was a complete and utter flop, and it took a new CEO turning things around to bring the company back from the brink.
And then in 40K specifically, GW clearly cared enough about their ruleset to collaborate with the competitive community in 9th, make regular balance tweaks, and put out surveys to ascertain what players wanted in developing the next edition.
So are we to believe that GW cared enough about their rules to completely rework the game in a manner that has only ever happened twice in 40K's history, but as soon as 10th Ed was off the presses they just stopped caring about public response and went back to a 'we just sell models, who gives a gak about the game' company?
Do we even know if this business model is working for them?
Real News wrote: The miniatures are the Big Mac. The rules are the ketchup.
Nope. The real analogy is that the miniatures are the drinks (high margin, main profit source) and the rules are the Big Mac (low profit margin but it's the reason you come in the door to buy a drink). Or, for the view from the corporate level, the miniatures are the real estate (main profit source) and the rules are the food (the reason people buy a franchise and rent a building from you). GW may not make a lot of money directly from the rulebooks but the game is the reason why most people are buying the miniatures. Take away the rules and GW is a dead company.
The whole "GW sells models not rules" is nothing more than buying GW's attempt at putting a positive spin on their retention failures. "Most people never play" isn't true because most people don't want to play, it's true because GW has very poor retention rates and most people quit before they ever get to a point where they can play the game. It's the old "three purchase" model: initial box of space marines, a box of space marines for a birthday gift, a box of space marines for a Christmas gift, and after that who cares because GW has already extracted their value from that customer. That's a level of purchasing that doesn't get anywhere near a full army, at most the customer is maybe playing a demo game with the starter set if they even manage to build everything before it goes off to collect dust in a closet somewhere. Instead of proudly declaring "rules don't matter" GW should be asking themselves some serious questions about why they are failing like this and how they can do a better job of getting long-term customers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 03:07:40
2023/07/14 03:44:21
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
60 page hate thread? Trying to categorise dislike of the 10th "points" system as just "hate" is about as dishonest as it gets.
You're better than that.
Be better.
So I've been thinking this over and combing through this particular thread... And you're right that this thread has been more reasonable than many. But in the post you quoted, I wasn't referring to THIS thread. I was referring to the the ones that came before 10th was announced.
But in the process of combing through this thread, I realized that the bad threads, or the bad posts within certain threads tend to stick with me, while the threads that are more reasonable, or the posts within threads which are more reasonable, don't tend to stick in my head as much, even though they do outnumber the bad ones. My confirmation bias, my bad.
For the record, the most egregious thread (and the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you quoted), was a straight up Points vs. PL thread that happened I think somewhere around December of 2021. CadianSgtBob, Blndmage and Smudge got locked into a super battle- people ended up ripping on people with disabilities, Cadian SGT came back as three different alts to try and boost up the pro-Bob post count, and we caught him all three times... It was just a dumpster fire of a thread- it might have even been locked by the end of it.
But again, even in that case, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to your calling me out on my post because not all posters in that thread were being offensive or unreasonable... Despite the fact that the thread as a whole was enough to severely dent my participation in Dakka conversation for a good long while.
So for what it's worth (not much, I know) allow me to retract my statement.
However....
I still want to try and say a few things here.
First off, I think one of my specific difficulties with THIS thread, is that a lot of people are using terms like "better" or "superior" to describe the granular points system, and I think the terms "better" and "superior" aren't specific enough for the word "objective" to be attached to them. I was once told in a creative writing class to never use the adjective "nice" because it isn't specific enough to actually mean anything, and I feel like "better" and "superior" suffer from the same shortcoming.
And again, remember, I believe that if GW was going to give us only one army building system, that system should have been granular points.
But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better. I also wouldn't agree with the proPL side saying granular points are objectively worse... But I don't think any of them are actually claiming that. I think that many of them are saying "It's a better fit for my personal needs," and that is a statement I can support.
And if the pro-granular point-people were saying "It is objectively easier to balance," or even "It is objectively more balanced," I could support that... Right until they follow the unimpeachable part of their statement with the (almost) inevitable "and therefore it is objectively better."
Because better or worse is so vague that it's ALWAYS a matter of perspective and priorities.
Somewhere around the mid 40 page mark in this thread, I told the story of my Sisters Army. I mentioned that I had chosen my units with a particular loadout in mind; after the units had been chosen, because of the PLpoint system, the unit composition and number of models I was going to bring was set, regardless of any decisions I would have to make about equipment. And explained how grateful I was for that, because my story demanded that I deviate from the loadout list I had originally envisioned for the army.
Specifically, I decided that the extra five women in my Dom unit where going to be kitted up as Chamber Militant units of the Ordo Hereticus, rather than more typical Sororitas Doms; it meant giving the superior a Condemnor Boltgun and swapping out two Meltaguns for Stormbolters. Had I been using granular points, those story based changes would have necessitated changes elsewhere in the list. The changes even had the possibility to force a situation where I couldn't take one of the units I planned to take... So I'd have to either sacrifice my narrative needs and stick with my Meltaguns and Plasma Superior (losing my Inquisition link) or I'd have to modify the other units in the army... Which were already perfect for the narrative.
And of course, a bunch of folks (though primarily ThePaintingOwl) tried to undermine my point; he wasn't rude or offensive about it at all, but his attempt at invalidation was off the mark, because this is MY story, MY perspective... And I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Like I keep saying, I advocate for the continued existence of BOTH conventional, granular points AND PL... And if GW HAD to pick one or the other, granular points would have been the healthier choice for the game despite my personal preference for PL.
Literally, someone asked me how I could prefer PL. I told the story to explain why. I does very clearly illustrate why PL works better FOR ME; I make story choices for a unit or two that affect their loadout, and I don't want that affecting the loadout or composition of the other units in the army. In a PL system, the load out of any given unit(s) has ZERO impact on the loadout of any other unit(s) in the army; in a granualar points system it does. This makes PL better for MY NEEDS.
I understand the this does not make PL better for Owl's needs, or your needs; that's why I think we need both systems to keep the greatest number of players happy. And I'm content to not invalidate any of Owl's arguments, or yours, unless those arguments try to invalidate mine first, because again, and I cannot emphasize this enough it seems, my argument is about my personal experience, and I know that.
A few pages later, the argument came up about cars... The Ferari vs. the hatchback. Someone said "The Ferari is objectively better," and Andy said "Not for me, because I need room for my dog." (BTW Andy, your dog is awesome!).
Now even Andy, who wants that hatchback, probably doesn't want to pay the Ferari price for his hatchback.. And one or two people may have pointed this out... But Andy wasn't objecting to that- he was objecting to the characterization of the Ferari as being "objectively better," because it isn't... Not to "Man with dog"; not to soccer mom of four; not to contractor who needs a hemi to drop off material at job sites.
But again, some people couldn't let that go.
You know what would have made me happy (and still will)? If at any point in the discussion, any of the people who HATE nupoints would just say "You know what Jake? I would rather have both PL and Granular Points than be stuck with nupoints."
And I know nobody will. I know that they all "HAVE TO" insist that granular points and only granular points are an acceptable option. I don't know why they have to insist that, but they do. A solution with the potential to make everyone happy can't possibly exist for these folks folks, because for some reason, being right isn't satisfying to them unless it also means that everyone else is wrong.
Most of us who prefer PL have already said that the two system solution would be acceptable to us. Heck, one or two pro-point people may have even said it. But there are some granular point diehards who will always insist that only their preferred system is valid despite the fact that a two system solution would give them back the thing they claim to want, and they won't even put effort into using words that convey more precise meaning than "better" or "superior" because they are utterly convinced that their priorities or the only priorities that could possibly matter to anyone.
Perhaps that's not fair either... But they certainly don't go out of their way to argue in a manner that would allow us to meet them halfway... And I feel like I usually do try really hard to argue in a way that would allow others to meet me halfway. And in the post you quoted, I didn't do that. I should have.
I've apologized a fair bit on this site; the only other person I can remember seeing apologize here is Daed... And I remember thinking, "He shouldn't be the one apologizing, because he's another guy I think tries really hard to assert his POV in away that invites compromise." Now look, OBVIOUSLY that's not true- there have to be other people on here who were civil enough to apologize, or who are mature enough to accept "Everybody wins" solutions... But the fact that I don't remember it happening might be in indicator that it should probably happen more often than it does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 03:46:47
2023/07/14 03:56:41
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
60 page hate thread? Trying to categorise dislike of the 10th "points" system as just "hate" is about as dishonest as it gets.
You're better than that.
Be better.
So I've been thinking this over and combing through this particular thread... And you're right that this thread has been more reasonable than many. But in the post you quoted, I wasn't referring to THIS thread. I was referring to the the ones that came before 10th was announced.
But in the process of combing through this thread, I realized that the bad threads, or the bad posts within certain threads tend to stick with me, while the threads that are more reasonable, or the posts within threads which are more reasonable, don't tend to stick in my head as much, even though they do outnumber the bad ones. My confirmation bias, my bad.
For the record, the most egregious thread (and the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you quoted), was a straight up Points vs. PL thread that happened I think somewhere around December of 2021. CadianSgtBob, Blndmage and Smudge got locked into a super battle- people ended up ripping on people with disabilities, Cadian SGT came back as three different alts to try and boost up the pro-Bob post count, and we caught him all three times... It was just a dumpster fire of a thread- it might have even been locked by the end of it.
But again, even in that case, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to your calling me out on my post because not all posters in that thread were being offensive or unreasonable... Despite the fact that the thread as a whole was enough to severely dent my participation in Dakka conversation for a good long while.
So for what it's worth (not much, I know) allow me to retract my statement.
However....
I still want to try and say a few things here.
First off, I think one of my specific difficulties with THIS thread, is that a lot of people are using terms like "better" or "superior" to describe the granular points system, and I think the terms "better" and "superior" aren't specific enough for the word "objective" to be attached to them. I was once told in a creative writing class to never use the adjective "nice" because it isn't specific enough to actually mean anything, and I feel like "better" and "superior" suffer from the same shortcoming.
And again, remember, I believe that if GW was going to give us only one army building system, that system should have been granular points.
But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better. I also wouldn't agree with the proPL side saying granular points are objectively worse... But I don't think any of them are actually claiming that. I think that many of them are saying "It's a better fit for my personal needs," and that is a statement I can support.
And if the pro-granular point-people were saying "It is objectively easier to balance," or even "It is objectively more balanced," I could support that... Right until they follow the unimpeachable part of their statement with the (almost) inevitable "and therefore it is objectively better."
Because better or worse is so vague that it's ALWAYS a matter of perspective and priorities.
Somewhere around the mid 40 page mark in this thread, I told the story of my Sisters Army. I mentioned that I had chosen my units with a particular loadout in mind; after the units had been chosen, because of the PLpoint system, the unit composition and number of models I was going to bring was set, regardless of any decisions I would have to make about equipment. And explained how grateful I was for that, because my story demanded that I deviate from the loadout list I had originally envisioned for the army.
Specifically, I decided that the extra five women in my Dom unit where going to be kitted up as Chamber Militant units of the Ordo Hereticus, rather than more typical Sororitas Doms; it meant giving the superior a Condemnor Boltgun and swapping out two Meltaguns for Stormbolters. Had I been using granular points, those story based changes would have necessitated changes elsewhere in the list. The changes even had the possibility to force a situation where I couldn't take one of the units I planned to take... So I'd have to either sacrifice my narrative needs and stick with my Meltaguns and Plasma Superior (losing my Inquisition link) or I'd have to modify the other units in the army... Which were already perfect for the narrative.
And of course, a bunch of folks (though primarily ThePaintingOwl) tried to undermine my point; he wasn't rude or offensive about it at all, but his attempt at invalidation was off the mark, because this is MY story, MY perspective... And I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Like I keep saying, I advocate for the continued existence of BOTH conventional, granular points AND PL... And if GW HAD to pick one or the other, granular points would have been the healthier choice for the game despite my personal preference for PL.
Literally, someone asked me how I could prefer PL. I told the story to explain why. I does very clearly illustrate why PL works better FOR ME; I make story choices for a unit or two that affect their loadout, and I don't want that affecting the loadout or composition of the other units in the army. In a PL system, the load out of any given unit(s) has ZERO impact on the loadout of any other unit(s) in the army; in a granualar points system it does. This makes PL better for MY NEEDS.
I understand the this does not make PL better for Owl's needs, or your needs; that's why I think we need both systems to keep the greatest number of players happy. And I'm content to not invalidate any of Owl's arguments, or yours, unless those arguments try to invalidate mine first, because again, and I cannot emphasize this enough it seems, my argument is about my personal experience, and I know that.
A few pages later, the argument came up about cars... The Ferari vs. the hatchback. Someone said "The Ferari is objectively better," and Andy said "Not for me, because I need room for my dog." (BTW Andy, your dog is awesome!).
Now even Andy, who wants that hatchback, probably doesn't want to pay the Ferari price for his hatchback.. And one or two people may have pointed this out... But Andy wasn't objecting to that- he was objecting to the characterization of the Ferari as being "objectively better," because it isn't... Not to "Man with dog"; not to soccer mom of four; not to contractor who needs a hemi to drop off material at job sites.
But again, some people couldn't let that go.
You know what would have made me happy (and still will)? If at any point in the discussion, any of the people who HATE nupoints would just say "You know what Jake? I would rather have both PL and Granular Points than be stuck with nupoints."
And I know nobody will. I know that they all "HAVE TO" insist that granular points and only granular points are an acceptable option. I don't know why they have to insist that, but they do. A solution with the potential to make everyone happy can't possibly exist for these folks folks, because for some reason, being right isn't satisfying to them unless it also means that everyone else is wrong.
Most of us who prefer PL have already said that the two system solution would be acceptable to us. Heck, one or two pro-point people may have even said it. But there are some granular point diehards who will always insist that only their preferred system is valid despite the fact that a two system solution would give them back the thing they claim to want, and they won't even put effort into using words that convey more precise meaning than "better" or "superior" because they are utterly convinced that their priorities or the only priorities that could possibly matter to anyone.
Perhaps that's not fair either... But they certainly don't go out of their way to argue in a manner that would allow us to meet them halfway... And I feel like I usually do try really hard to argue in a way that would allow others to meet me halfway. And in the post you quoted, I didn't do that. I should have.
I've apologized a fair bit on this site; the only other person I can remember seeing apologize here is Daed... And I remember thinking, "He shouldn't be the one apologizing, because he's another guy I think tries really hard to assert his POV in away that invites compromise." Now look, OBVIOUSLY that's not true- there have to be other people on here who were civil enough to apologize, or who are mature enough to accept "Everybody wins" solutions... But the fact that I don't remember it happening might be in indicator that it should probably happen more often than it does.
I know I've apologized too. I used to be pretty heavily against PL-I don't think I was ever atrocious about it (though that might be bias talking) but I didn't see the point.
And then it was pointed out to me by Smudge and Blndmage that it really didn't hurt me, so why get upset? Other people enjoyed it more than more granular points, so let them be.
Of course, now GW has decided to combine the worst of both worlds. Numbers are more similar to points than PL, as well as not being on the sheet at all, but they've got the granularity of PL instead of at least trying to be more accurate.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2023/07/14 04:09:54
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: GW may not make a lot of money directly from the rulebooks but the game is the reason why most people are buying the miniatures. Take away the rules and GW is a dead company.
I doubt that's even true. Plenty of people buy the miniatures just to paint them. And there are a million other wargames out there with better rules. The IP, the associated fluff and the aesthetic (in other words, marketing) help GW sell the product, but the product is what it is. Seems highly probable that the business is thinking of the rules as another marketing accessory to help sell the product, and it's an interchangeable accessory that can be emphasized or de-emphasized on a whim. Maybe today they want to put resources into the rules, then tomorrow they decide to shift resources to focus on fluff or IP-lawyering or advertising instead.
"Take away the rules and GW is a dead company" ignores the fact that they just did take away the rules. Right now there are no valid official rules for 40k that you can pay for. If they decided not to bother releasing the new marine and nid codices, and let players soldier on with nothing but the free get-you-by rules forever, it wouldn't be the best move from a marketing standpoint but they certainly wouldn't be a dead company.
GW's lack of interest in rules-writing is self-evident in the rules themselves. Nobody can read the Munitorum Field Manual and think "Wow, GW put time and effort into this!" Maybe they'll sell more Eldar for the time being due to the lack of balancing, but if I were going to put money on it I'd say that was purely an accident.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 04:13:20
2023/07/14 04:10:52
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: GW may not make a lot of money directly from the rulebooks but the game is the reason why most people are buying the miniatures. Take away the rules and GW is a dead company.
I doubt that's even true. Plenty of people buy the miniatures just to paint them. And there are a million other wargames out there with better rules. The IP, the associated fluff and the aesthetic (in other words, marketing) help GW sell the product, but the product is what it is. Seems highly probable that the business is thinking of the rules as another marketing accessory to help sell the product, and it's an interchangeable accessory that can be emphasized or de-emphasized on a whim. Maybe today they want to put resources into the rules, then tomorrow they decide to shift resources to focus on fluff or IP-lawyering or advertising instead.
"Take away the rules and GW is a dead company" ignores the fact that they just did take away the rules. Right now there are no valid official rules for 40k that you can pay for. If they decided not to bother releasing the new marine and nid codices, and let players soldier on with nothing but the free get-you-buy rules forever, it wouldn't be the best move from a marketing standpoint but they certainly wouldn't be a dead company.
GW's lack of interest in rules-writing is self-evident in the rules themselves. Nobody can read the Munitorum Field Manual and think "Wow, GW put time and effort into this!" Maybe they'll sell more Eldar for the time being due to the lack of balancing, but if I were going to put money on it I'd say that was purely an accident.
They did not take away the rules. They took away PAYING for rules (temporarily), but the rules are very much there.
2023/07/14 04:17:51
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
JNAProductions wrote: [They did not take away the rules. They took away PAYING for rules (temporarily), but the rules are very much there.
We're discussing the rules as a product for sale. Right now there are no rules that you can buy.
How much money are they currently making off of selling the 10th edition core rules and Munitorum Field Manual, entirely by themselves, independently of miniatures sales?
The answer is zero, because you can't pay for the rules. GW is making no money directly from the sale of 10th edition rules. Why bother releasing them at all? To help sell the miniatures.
2023/07/14 04:21:45
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
JNAProductions wrote: [They did not take away the rules. They took away PAYING for rules (temporarily), but the rules are very much there.
We're discussing the rules as a product for sale. Right now there are no rules that you can buy. How much money are they currently making off of selling the 10th edition core rules and Munitorum Field Manual, entirely by themselves, independently of miniatures sales? The answer is zero, because you can't pay for the rules. GW is making no money directly from the sale of 10th edition rules. Why bother releasing them at all? To help sell the miniatures.
Yes-but lots of people would not buy the minis if not for the rules. How many out of all GW purchasers? I don't know. Myself, for certain-if there was no game, I never would've gotten into 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 04:26:20
2023/07/14 04:32:04
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Yeah, I have expanded out into other games and been to minis collections in people's houses.
Recently I had a conversation about the new-ish morathi model with a collector. I was wowed by the model. It was extremely awesome and single-modeledly (?) Got me into AOS.
This guy said "yeah, shame about the price. Fortunately there are 3d prints on Etsy I can buy that are as good" in so many words. He then proceeded to show me some genuinely rad Etsy stores.
Like GW does make great miniatures. But for collectors that only need one of a thing, there are so many sources of beautiful single minis without rules that they're not so excited about GW.
The only person with ten boxes of Intercessors is someone trying to build an army out of them, probably not a collector.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 04:33:01
2023/07/14 04:36:32
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
We all know about the closet of shame. Those certainly aren't caused by GW's rules.
The game is a gateway drug to the model hobby. A reason to get started that they hope becomes little more than an excuse to stay involved despite your rarely if ever playing. If it was all about the game, people would only buy as they assemble for play. But that is not the stereotypical purchasing pattern for Warhammer players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 04:37:17
2023/07/14 04:36:32
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I'm not saying rules aren't important. I'm saying GW seems to not think rules are important to the same extent as the players do. If they did, they would have put just a little bit more effort into these band-aid army indexes.
Their line of thinking seems to be that they can scribble "ELDAR WINZ" in crayon on a scrap of toilet paper, call it the Munitorum Field Manual, tell players to rely solely on that for the next couple of months (at least) and still sell just as many minis as before.
2023/07/14 05:18:11
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
For GW, rules are important as a sales vehicle for models but not important to play the game
they just need to be there and need to be good enough to have word of mouth that this is the game you must collect
if the new players stop playing it because it is not good does not matter for GW as long as they purchased the models to test the game and spend several 100s
also GW makes good marketing with bad rules, as there will be enough people defending them because "the hobby" they love cannot be bad or cannot be just a marketing trick to make them buy stuff they never wanted (aka the pile of shame) and in addition GW told them to hate the players not the game which will create content on the internet were hate and controversial stuff fill pages
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 05:23:36
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/14 05:19:57
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I would absolutely NOT collect models without the purpose of the game. The only reason I have large collections of models is because I want to field them as armies in the actual game.
kodos wrote: if the new players stop playing it because it is not good does not matter for GW as long as they purchased the models to test the game and spend several 100s
That's absolutely false. It doesn't matter immediately but GW depends on having veteran players around to introduce the next generation of new players. If the conversion rate from newbie starter purchase to long term player drops below the level required to replace the loss of existing long term players GW will start to see a drop in their ability to recruit new customers, and if it drops too far there is a critical mass effect where a game can collapse all at once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: A reason to get started that they hope becomes little more than an excuse to stay involved despite your rarely if ever playing.
No. Absolutely not. There is no reason why GW should want customers to be disengaged from any part of the hobby and therefore missing opportunities to spend money on GW products. If you collect GW wants you to play. If you play GW wants you to collect a whole space marine chapter for fun. If you buy a Kill Team set GW wants to figure out how to also make you buy every Black Library book. If you play 40kGW wants you to also play AoS. You should be 100% dedicated to every aspect of every product GW sells and spending ever free dollar you have on them.
If GW genuinely wants people to be disengaged from the game then that is a level of egregious incompetence that should get people fired.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 06:10:23
)
