# Does 40k need new rules for Tournaments?



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I already posted a short article on TWG about this but it's really something I'm just curious about what others have to say so I'm launching it here: do you think 40k needs a new ruleset for tournament use be it a "6.5 Ed" or a full reworking by the community?

Now there are no wrong answers, I'm just curious to hear what everyone has to say.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

I think yes, there should be a LOT of more balance in the form of monthly updates for too strong/to weak units (like the WS shield) to make tournaments more varied (other then Eldar WS spam, Tau and the odd demon player)


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I think any sort of _postive_ engagement with the community is a good thing and by positive I mean GW using the community as a resource and working with them rather than simply throwing stuff out into the world and only acting on 1% of what they receive back. Having a frequent forum for them to work with players and see how the community is making use of the rules they have set up would be a very good step.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm not a tourney player so take this with a grain of salt, I also haven't read your TWG article yet.

I would say that instead of a new "version" GW should be doing more active management of the army lists ands rules. 

With the electronic resources available now, it seems foolish not to more actively manage the state of the game. Considering how fast the internet can potentially change the meta-game it seems prudent to make changes as needed.

The difficult part would be properly disseminating these updates without it seeming like gouging. Perhaps players who own paper copies of the books could also receive a free or discounted digital copy, and the digital copy would be automatically updated to reflect the changes in the rules as the game evolves.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Kreuger said:


> I would say that instead of a new "version" GW should be doing more active management of the army lists ands rules.
> 
> With the electronic resources available now, it seems foolish not to more actively manage the state of the game. Considering how fast the internet can potentially change the meta-game it seems prudent to make changes as needed.
> 
> The difficult part would be properly disseminating these updates without it seeming like gouging. Perhaps players who own paper copies of the books could also receive a free or discounted digital copy, and the digital copy would be automatically updated to reflect the changes in the rules as the game evolves.


You can stick the updates (like an FAQ) on the site and in every White Dwarf.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't see the point in 40k tournaments full-stop anymore. Hence why GW go on about 'spirit of the game' in the rulebook and 'creating a narrative': The game is so unbalanced now I think it is virtually impossible to create a fix for that for tournament play, it would require a *massive* re-writing of the rules for each unit. 

I am starting to see just how horribly unbalanced 40k is the more I play and learn Malifaux 2nd Edition: There is a tournament going on right now and it's hugely enjoyable because it's so well balanced and thus nigh-on impossible for people to bring cheesey lists (maybe bar one or two exceptions, but even then it's nothing compared to Necron flyer spam, x8 heldrakes etc), the environment is just much nicer as a result and people are just infinitely more sporting and friendly. No netlist bullshit. 

Don't get me wrong, I still love 40k - but I love it for what it is: Narrative based game that rewards homebrewing and is designed for beer and pretzels type gaming. 
For example, a homebrewed 40k campaign can be incredibly fun; mix your own objectives in there for certain armies: Salamanders going around the board protecting/rescusing civilians and gaining VP for doing so, Black Templars getting VP for winning challanges, Dark Eldar getting VP for capturing slaves and so forth. I think this is how 6th ed 40k is supposed to be played. 

That said, if you want to play it competitive, go nuts. I am just done with it because I think there is so much dependency on netlists now and the inbalance just means he who spams the most powerful units wins, and the creativity has been sucked out of it (you see less and less homebrewing these days compared to the 90's). No amount of FAq'ing will fix that, because GW do not care about balance, they also do not care about listening to feedback: Look at Wyrdgames in contrast: They released the beta rules for 2nd Edition for free and listened to the feedback from players and adjusted the rules in the run up to the 2nd edition release. I think the same happens with Dystopian Wars and Infinity and Warmachine. GW has alienated there fanbase to the point now people are giving up completely and exploring the competition. 40k isn't even 3rd most popular game in my hometown anymore, and Malifaux sold so quickly that they are having serious supply issues to meet demand. I think that trend will continue. Sad but true.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

The rules don't lend themselves to competition, true, but a big problem is the community themselves. People say omg netlists r op, but look at Mike Brandt's NOVA list. Space Wolves/Imperial Guard works well, no doubt about it, but it's a long shot from a netlist. Yet it was able to beat all the netlisters, which I must add were not being played by noobs to any extent.

Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.

Midnight


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

i think the difference between magic and wh40k is that its far easier to adapt to things. you can play a couple games a DAY while most of us are stuck at 5 games a week if we are lucky at all. 
large parts of the wh40k dont play very often because a game of wh40k just takes so damn long. also, magic has a realistic online version and a far bigger online community and TBH i live in the 3rd biggest city of my country and im, as far as i can tell, the only one who spends some time on forums.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Oh, I'm certainly aware of the faqs. The problem with publishing in white dwarf is that iterative updates end up spread throughout a wide range of editions and it becomes awkward to manage.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> The rules don't lend themselves to competition, true, but a big problem is the community themselves. People say omg netlists r op, but look at Mike Brandt's NOVA list. Space Wolves/Imperial Guard works well, no doubt about it, but it's a long shot from a netlist. Yet it was able to beat all the netlisters, which I must add were not being played by noobs to any extent.
> 
> Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.
> 
> Midnight


Don't play MTG myself but yeah it's the same with Malifaux (and pretty much all the other popular alternative games now): The community is so much friendlier and there is no real difference between friendly games and competitive games, they feel exactly the same. With 40k it is completely different, it seems to attract dicks, to put it bluntly. 

I think you touch on a very good point it is a lot to do with community, or perhaps the lack of a community in 40k. Perhaps there is a stronger community with the other games because most of the companies interact and listen to the fanbase? I think that in itself creates a stronger sense of community: The game is balanced enough that it isn't going to attract those WAAC players who everyone hates playing in 40k (they will argue every point with venom, bog the game down to the point it isn't remotely enjoyable, generally be rude and obnoxious to everyone...I find this incredibly sad to be honest). And competitive gaming is a joy as a result. Infact there is next to no distinction between fun vs competitive, which says it all really.

Again this is why I don't think any amount of rules tweaking will help.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

It's impossible to balance a game for tournament play when you have armies that are 10 years old with 20 years old models next to _the new best thing_ _now 20% shinier!_ and you're a public trade company that, by law, practically only exists to make as many short-term profits as possible.

Also consider another thing: you can buy new M:tG cards for pocket change and while you have no control over what you get, trading can get you that. In my experience M:tG ends up being way more expensive than wargaming if you really get into it, but since most of the money moves in small quantities with immediate effects on thing you can play on a daily basis with nearly everyone with little effort _and_ cards don't need assembly, painting and proper logistics to move every time, well... It just works.

Miniature wargaming requires assembly, painting, dedication, investments for not just the miniatures themselves but also the modelling supplies, and cases to transport everything without it breaking into as many (or more) pieces than it was when unassembled. Investments are slower and heftier and getting past a certain point requires proper dedication.

I don't think any amount of rules tweaking will help, because GW is an ancient dinosaur still surviving because legacy, kind of like Paizo who's making money out of nothing but feverishly insane brand loyalty. When you need 2 to 10 years to "update" an army and it will take another 2 to 10 years for the next "update" *no matter how it was received* you've already lost, and we're talking about single armies, let alone the entire ruleset!

No, rules tweaking in any way or form that could be of use to get back in touch with the community is impossible with GW's current business model. It's too slow, too ancient, too out of touch with the actual gaming tables, no other company that makes wargaming rules has armies or options that are out of date with the game itself, and most offer everything rules-related up for free instead of putting a nearly 100€ game playing privilege tax before even buying the first mini.

That's not to say other games don't have problems, but at least there's a community to deal with them, and the gaming companies are never too far from that. In Warhammer, there's thousands of isolated forums and tiny local gaming communities but GW is nowhere to be seen and everything coming from them comes from above like they're from out of the world and asking things feels almost like we're bothering them.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Mokuren said:


> It's impossible to balance a game for tournament play when you have armies that are 10 years old with 20 years old models next to _the new best thing_ _now 20% shinier!_ and you're a public trade company that, by law, practically only exists to make as many short-term profits as possible.
> 
> How does this actually impact balance?
> 
> ...


-1, i very heavily disagree.


----------



## Da Joka (Feb 20, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.
> 
> Midnight


I think you're on to something here. But another big factor is that the Game Designers actually watch the Pro-Tournaments, and work to fix things. 

And let's not forget that Wizards of the Coast (the company that makes Magic: The Gathering) also supports Tournaments at all levels, be it the World Cup, or the lowly Friday Night Magic at the local club. There are something like 5 levels of Judges all of which you have to take extremely indepth Official tests to become, and at the higher levels you can even get paid by WotC to work bigger tournaments. Games Workshop does none of that. 

The in my opinion the rules need some tweaking, but the real thing that needs to happen is Games Workshop needs to support it's game better. More Play Testing before release, For more Balanced books, more FAQs to help with stuff that doesn't get caught in play testing, and also be able to take more criticism (and learn from it).


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

lokyar said:


> -1, i very heavily disagree.


I'm not even sure how to answer. You _are_ aware not all armies are treated the same, are you? You _are_ aware that Chaos marines will be stuck with Heldrake spam as their only viable tactic until no early than next edition, which is going to be in a few _years_, right? If you don't understand how this is a problem for balance, I'm not sure I should even bother trying.

And no, their current business model is terrible for early update cycles, because they have openly abandoned putting rules on WDs and updating armies by piecemeal. The capitula aprobabit are long gone history, you're getting digital updates _at best_ now and look at Codex: Inquisition: since some units overlap with those of a Codex stuck into an older edition, they're forgoing using their digital, quick to update and easy to distribute format for actually updating rules so they don't invalidate the printed codex, which is going to be updated somewhere in 2014 at best.

Do I really have to go into detail as to why update cycles that take 2 to 10 years are bad for keeping in touch with the actual playerbase and following tournament trends?

Unless GW undertakes a huge restructuring and either goes all digital or goes back to using WD as a constant rules update platform (or both) this won't change. There's only so much you can do with tournament rules alone under this current business model.



Da Joka said:


> And let's not forget that Wizards of the Coast (the company that makes Magic: The Gathering) also supports Tournaments at all levels, be it the World Cup, or the lowly Friday Night Magic at the local club. There are something like 5 levels of Judges all of which you have to take extremely indepth Official tests to become, and at the higher levels you can even get paid by WotC to work bigger tournaments. Games Workshop does none of that.


This, this, a thousand times this. GW feels like the cold bureaucrat that only cares for the paycheck you sign for him and wouldn't give a damn whether you live or die as long as money is fed. Sometimes it even feels like they don't care no matter how much money you throw in their face.

GW used to have more "table presence", and it's thanks to that if they still have a large wargaming community to their name, but as far removed as they are now it's only a matter of time before more and more playerbase is taken away from other companies. Most of the people I see in the tournaments I participate in are over 30, and the younger ones are often children or otherwise relatives of other players, and the vast majority of those I talked to have been around since 3rd edition or so, maybe on and off. Yes, it's personal anecdotal experience, but to me it's pretty important and I really do feel as if though GW is almost a nuisance that gets in the way of my gaming than the go-to guys for my fix.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Sadly, GW do not and will not support the tournament scene or competitive play: 
They all but admit throughout the rulebook that the game is unbalanced and not meant for competitive gaming. "Forging a Narrative", "Spirit of the Game" etc. The aim is to have fun. They are pretty clear on this. 

It's an open admission that GW do not bother to playtest anything: We know they don't really bother because we can compare the game to other gaming systems which manage to do it, largely by engaging with their fanbase/consumers and listening to feedback. 
GW is a very cold faceless organisation in comparison. You go into a GW store and it's just the same old questions that try to pass as a "conversation" about gaming, ultimately they lead to trying to sell you something. It is not an environment where you can display any criticism about 40k or GW, because that is essentially illegal, they will direct the conversation away from any criticism or negativity or outright ignore it and try desperately to change the conversation...
It's such a contrast to companies like Wyrdgames, Mantic or Corvus to name but a few. I mean, if you go on the Wyrdgames Malifaux forum right now and read through the feedback on the beta testing rules for some of the new henchmen: People are openly critiquing them and trying to iron out any balance issues. GW would never allow this in a million years: You can get banned for posting anything negative on local GW store facebook groups. 
I honestly do not get why GW are so hypersensitive towards negative feedback and why they seem terrified to engage with the community. It amuses me how they seem to act like a bit of a dictatorship and censor any criticism. 

This is all part of their business model of course, and you cannot deny they are making huge profits...But is it sustainable? A lot of people seem to be becoming more interested in alternative systems now, I know Wyrdgames are doing exceptionally well with the 2nd ed Malifaux release (to the point that they have supply problems due to the popularity on release), and it's not really hard to see why this is happening: Talking to people at my FLGS and online everyone feels the same way about GW: Soulless, unbalanced to the point you may as well not take the game seriously and look elsewhere for tournament gaming. Indeed, I used to think I didn't like competitive gaming, but I think now in retrospect I didn't like _40k competitive gaming_, because the unbalanced nature just attracts a lot of douchebags/WAAC mentality and you just get the same lists and very little creativity...Not so, with other games. 
That last point about stifled creativity probably makes me feel the most dejected: Even with people looking to build purely 'fun lists' online, you hear people saying to discount so many units from a codex out of hand because they are so abysmal. 
That is a reflection of GWs policy on nerfing certain units and buffing others that need to sell: The Chaos Daemons WD update where they buffed Tzeentch Daemons through the roof, then nerfed them a few months later was probably the most cynical example of this. 

GW is definitely a nuisance that gets in the way of our gaming  That is why I am trying to embrace homebrew a lot more. Forget tournies, it's pointless under the current system.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Mokuren said:


> I'm not even sure how to answer. You _are_ aware not all armies are treated the same, are you? You _are_ aware that Chaos marines will be stuck with Heldrake spam as their only viable tactic until no early than next edition, which is going to be in a few _years_, right? If you don't understand how this is a problem for balance, I'm not sure I should even bother trying.
> 
> And no, their current business model is terrible for early update cycles, because they have openly abandoned putting rules on WDs and updating armies by piecemeal. The capitula aprobabit are long gone history, you're getting digital updates _at best_ now and look at Codex: Inquisition: since some units overlap with those of a Codex stuck into an older edition, they're forgoing using their digital, quick to update and easy to distribute format for actually updating rules so they don't invalidate the printed codex, which is going to be updated somewhere in 2014 at best.
> 
> ...


*facepalm* 
i already answered *ALL OF THIS*


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

lokyar said:


> *facepalm*
> i already answered *ALL OF THIS*


Where? What am I missing?


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Straken's_Fist said:


> Where? What am I missing?


in the quote, in yellow, in a previous post.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

None of those points answered him. Sorry. Try again.

Except maybe your point on GW opening a forum. But that wouldn't work under the current model, because GW do not want to engage with the community, because they want the image that they release perfect models under a perfect system, evidenced by the fact they practically censor every criticism in stores. They don't care about balance or feedback so do not want to engage with the fanbase, they just want to sell models and books above everything else. The game doesn't matter very much to them.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I've been busy so I'm a little behind on this topic, but I'll be replying to everyone as soon as I can.

But in reply something that caught my eye as I was skimming through just now: GW did have forums. Unfortunately they were a pretty toxic place. Not only were the mods not really up to the task to properly manage and grow the community, but a large part of the community were fairly toxic from what I hear and it's really for the best that it was shut down. It added nothing to the hobby and was probably hurting more than it was helping.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Straken's_Fist said:


> None of those points answered him. Sorry. Try again.
> 
> Except maybe your point on GW opening a forum. But that wouldn't work under the current model, because GW do not want to engage with the community, because they want the image that they release perfect models under a perfect system, evidenced by the fact they practically censor every criticism in stores. They don't care about balance or feedback so do not want to engage with the fanbase, they just want to sell models and books above everything else. The game doesn't matter very much to them.


Are you really that blind? The only thing that would be on a GW forum are Ward Sukz threads, ghey knights are OP and nerf heldrakes topics. There's no doubt in my mind they are perfectly aware of that fact. The half dozen good though out well worded arguments wouldn't be worth the effort of having to sift through the cesspool it would be.

The only thing 40K needs are more focused tournaments, instead of just stating a points amount things like 1500 points no fliers or 1500 points one flier only tournaments are what should be happening.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I apologize in advance, this is going to be long so I'm going to stick to only quoting things I'm replying to as specifically as possible.



Straken's_Fist said:


> Sadly, GW do not and will not support the tournament scene or competitive play:
> They all but admit throughout the rulebook that the game is unbalanced and not meant for competitive gaming. "Forging a Narrative", "Spirit of the Game" etc. The aim is to have fun. They are pretty clear on this.


I don't know if it's really a "sadly" myself as they're much better now than they were then with the focus being less on competitive play. Plus it isn't like there is no room for the player base to step in and fill that void. We are talking about a game that encourages players to not just follow the rules, but to create their own too.



Straken's_Fist said:


> It's an open admission that GW do not bother to playtest anything: We know they don't really bother because we can compare the game to other gaming systems which manage to do it, largely by engaging with their fanbase/consumers and listening to feedback.


No, there is playtesting. First the devs do it, then a group of people in the company, but not the devs, do it. It's not as extensive as the old days when they had external play testing (something they can *never* due again because of the hole CHS blew in their armor regarding their stuff, so now they can't risk leaks of new models and the like), but it does exist.



Straken's_Fist said:


> GW is a very cold faceless organisation in comparison.


 Can't blame them there. Everytime GW has tried to make itself more accessable to the playerbase it gets burned by the more toxic and spiteful members of the community. I wouldn't want to keep doing that to myself either.



Straken's_Fist said:


> You go into a GW store and it's just the same old questions that try to pass as a "conversation" about gaming, ultimately they lead to trying to sell you something.


That's not really GW as a whole, that's individual people trying to meet quotas to keep their jobs, much like other retail stores. I've never seen someone complain that if you go into a McDonalds that they try and sell you food instead chit-chatting about your day for several hours.



Straken's_Fist said:


> It is not an environment where you can display any criticism about 40k or GW, because that is essentially illegal, they will direct the conversation away from any criticism or negativity or outright ignore it and try desperately to change the conversation...


 Again, can you blame them? GW reminds me a lot of a spousal abuse victim only instead of anyone being sympathetic we keep telling them to go back and get thrashed some more. GW + the internet does not go good places. And honestly dragging a sales clerk into your argument about why their pricing model sucks or how you hate Riptides or what have you doesn't really do that clerk any good, and only serves to potentially chase off other customers so of course they don't want to hear it. It's bad for the store, and it's no surprise they don't like it.



Straken's_Fist said:


> It's such a contrast to companies like Wyrdgames, Mantic or Corvus to name but a few. I mean, if you go on the Wyrdgames Malifaux forum right now and read through the feedback on the beta testing rules for some of the new henchmen: People are openly critiquing them and trying to iron out any balance issues. GW would never allow this in a million years: You can get banned for posting anything negative on local GW store facebook groups.


 Considering the history GW has with the internet and how _customers of other game companies_ will launch "crusades" against GW, I can't blame them. I mean which is more sane: continually getting abused by people who are only going to chase off your potential customers, or avoiding them completely? This isn't as simple as people are making it out to be. There is a lot of anti-GW stuff out there and I can't blame any company for doing the same.



Straken's_Fist said:


> I honestly do not get why GW are so hypersensitive towards negative feedback and why they seem terrified to engage with the community. It amuses me how they seem to act like a bit of a dictatorship and censor any criticism.


Because the negative feedback is usually a deluge. It's not something like "there is a typo on page X in this book" or "I don't really like this model" it's "your horrible people and I wish you got hit by a bus" and "GW SUX" and so on. The internet wants GW to open up, then the internet needs to grow up.



Straken's_Fist said:


> This is all part of their business model of course, and you cannot deny they are making huge profits...But is it sustainable?


30 years and counting says quite possibly.



Straken's_Fist said:


> A lot of people seem to be becoming more interested in alternative systems now, I know Wyrdgames are doing exceptionally well with the 2nd ed Malifaux release (to the point that they have supply problems due to the popularity on release), and it's not really hard to see why this is happening: Talking to people at my FLGS and online everyone feels the same way about GW: Soulless, unbalanced to the point you may as well not take the game seriously and look elsewhere for tournament gaming.


You say "a lot" but honestly GW does still hold the lion's share of the market out there and there are many places where that's all that's played (my old FLGS in upstate New York for instance). Locally the FLGS I play at now actually has been around for as long as it has because of GW's popularity, and that's even with other games being available on the shelves. Sure you get some places that have moved away from it, but that's not indicative of _everywhere_ now is it?



Straken's_Fist said:


> Indeed, I used to think I didn't like competitive gaming, but I think now in retrospect I didn't like _40k competitive gaming_, because the unbalanced nature just attracts a lot of douchebags/WAAC mentality and you just get the same lists and very little creativity...Not so, with other games.


No, those people exist in *every* game. It's a mindset of certain players, not the game that honestly does that. 



Straken's_Fist said:


> That last point about stifled creativity probably makes me feel the most dejected: Even with people looking to build purely 'fun lists' online, you hear people saying to discount so many units from a codex out of hand because they are so abysmal.


They also don't even _try_ to see what works in a book outside of the obvious. I was putting Repentia to great use under both Codex: Witch Hunters and the WD codex in 5th and 6th. According to the internet they were a "useless" unit because you couldn't just push a button with them and win, you had to plan to use them correctly. You get players like that in every game though. If it isn't thought out for them they can't do it for themselves.



Straken's_Fist said:


> That is a reflection of GWs policy on nerfing certain units and buffing others that need to sell: The Chaos Daemons WD update where they buffed Tzeentch Daemons through the roof, then nerfed them a few months later was probably the most cynical example of this.


Alternatively you could argue they were trying to make units better that were seen as bad, realized they went too far with it and in the actual codex fixed that. I really don't think the Devs are half as responsible for this effect anyways. Players jump on the easy combos because they're easy.



Jacobite said:


> I think any sort of _postive_ engagement with the community is a good thing and by positive I mean GW using the community as a resource and working with them rather than simply throwing stuff out into the world and only acting on 1% of what they receive back. Having a frequent forum for them to work with players and see how the community is making use of the rules they have set up would be a very good step.


Honestly I've never heard one good thing about the forum they had. Not only were the mods not up to the challenge, but the community proved itself to be a toxic mess and it's better off gone. We have far too many adults acting like children in this hobby to really consider this to be a "good idea" honestly. Or do we really expect GW to want to go out and get their nose bloodied on a weekly basis by a large and vocal part of the internet, some of which don't even play their games and just have a vendetta against GW "for reasons", every week still?



Kreuger said:


> I'm not a tourney player so take this with a grain of salt, I also haven't read your TWG article yet.


Fair enough. I didn't think it got a lot of interest (it certainly created no discussion much to my disappointment because I thought it was worth talking about) and basically boiled down to the topic that is also the thread title.



Kreuger said:


> I would say that instead of a new "version" GW should be doing more active management of the army lists ands rules.
> 
> With the electronic resources available now, it seems foolish not to more actively manage the state of the game. Considering how fast the internet can potentially change the meta-game it seems prudent to make changes as needed.
> 
> The difficult part would be properly disseminating these updates without it seeming like gouging. Perhaps players who own paper copies of the books could also receive a free or discounted digital copy, and the digital copy would be automatically updated to reflect the changes in the rules as the game evolves.


If GW went 100% digital rules only it could be done easily, and simply. The problem then is you have everyone who doesn't want digital rules leaving the game and it doesn't work. FAQs have been around forever and I used to have to keep a binder of them with all the most current ones just to show people that things were updated because no one ever checked the darned things, even when they were updated every month. Frankly GW has shown attempts at trying in the past but the community has thwarted them through a refusal to change, or to even take a few minutes and check the FAQs now and then.



lokyar said:


> You can stick the updates (like an FAQ) on the site and in every White Dwarf.


Sadly I don't think this is enough. Even if you stuck them in every box of every direct order it wouldn't be enough.



Straken's_Fist said:


> I don't see the point in 40k tournaments full-stop anymore. Hence why GW go on about 'spirit of the game' in the rulebook and 'creating a narrative': The game is so unbalanced now I think it is virtually impossible to create a fix for that for tournament play, it would require a *massive* re-writing of the rules for each unit.


Each *unit*? I think that's a bit of hyperbole there. The game is relatively balanced when one doesn't start running triple-Heldrakes, or 4 Riptides in an army the problem is for competitive play you get a lot of people who prefer the simplest army they can field that requires the least amount of actual thought. A well balanced, and often more creative army, tends to be what makes the actual top tables and wins tournaments but people will always run the list they think gives them the "easy win" regardless.



Straken's_Fist said:


> I am starting to see just how horribly unbalanced 40k is the more I play and learn Malifaux 2nd Edition: There is a tournament going on right now and it's hugely enjoyable because it's so well balanced and thus nigh-on impossible for people to bring cheesey lists (maybe bar one or two exceptions, but even then it's nothing compared to Necron flyer spam, x8 heldrakes etc), the environment is just much nicer as a result and people are just infinitely more sporting and friendly. No netlist bullshit.


So the player base is less shit. Not really the game's fault or credit on that one as it's something that comes with being popular.



Straken's_Fist said:


> That said, if you want to play it competitive, go nuts. I am just done with it because I think there is so much dependency on netlists now and the inbalance just means he who spams the most powerful units wins, and the creativity has been sucked out of it (you see less and less homebrewing these days compared to the 90's). No amount of FAq'ing will fix that, because GW do not care about balance, they also do not care about listening to feedback.


GW does listen to feedback, but they don't listen to a loud, whiny internet community that just wants GW to favor *only *their toys (which to be frank is about 80% of the players who play GW games and talk about them online from what I've seen). There is a fair amount of balance in the game, it's just not nearly as strict because GW realized they had a choice: player freedom or perfectly balancing the game and they gave us freedom. It's easy to balance a game when you restrict players down to a handful of actual options (Warmachine takes it further by restricting load-outs on said options too), but GW wanted to give players _freedom_ to play anything they think of. So the players play 4 Heldrake lists or generally act like tools. 

Honestly I'm not blaming GW on that one because they went with what they felt was right for them regarding the game and how it "should" be played and the community pissed on it in response.



Straken's_Fist said:


> GW has alienated there fanbase to the point now people are giving up completely and exploring the competition. 40k isn't even 3rd most popular game in my hometown anymore, and Malifaux sold so quickly that they are having serious supply issues to meet demand. I think that trend will continue. Sad but true.


Alienated nothing. People have been jumping ship since the 80s claiming that _everything_ GW does will end in disaster. There used to be threads on old dial-up BBS systems about the very same thing. Honestly I blame the community for being pants on head stupid at times just as much as any real misstep GW makes because a game is nothing without players and we have a high concentration of folks who wear their bums as hats online and generally making it worse for everyone else.



MidnightSun said:


> The rules don't lend themselves to competition, true, but a big problem is the community themselves. People say omg netlists r op, but look at Mike Brandt's NOVA list. Space Wolves/Imperial Guard works well, no doubt about it, but it's a long shot from a netlist. Yet it was able to beat all the netlisters, which I must add were not being played by noobs to any extent.


Nice point and one I've made in the past myself. The game can be played competetively, and is, without being the sort of player who runs 4x Riptides or whatever the flavor of the month is. The problem is the community doesn't push for that instead it _actively encourages_ flavor of the month play, even if those same people are tired of seeing it. Just go look at almost any army list topic for a given army and you'll find a lot of people recommending the same exact things over and over again for any army that doesn't have them, or doesn't have "enough" of them like there is some kind of magic quota you need to meet.



MidnightSun said:


> Magic The Gathering, for all it's flaws, has a much better competitive community than Games Workshop, in my experience (they're shit at personal hygiene, shaving and basic etiquette, but they're better competitors than we are). The entire MtG metagame reacts and adapts constantly to compensate for each new release. We're still stuck on mech vs foot in 6th. MtG is also pretty bad at balance - 90% of material is never seen in a tournament, but somehow it still manages to be a much more competitive game. I reckon it's because of the fans.


 Fans + banned/restricted card lists (something GW will never do because of previously mentioned "player freedom") + a cyclical game setup that keeps 90% of the existing cards out of the game because they're no longer the current block.



lokyar said:


> i think the difference between magic and wh40k is that its far easier to adapt to things. you can play a couple games a DAY while most of us are stuck at 5 games a week if we are lucky at all.
> large parts of the wh40k dont play very often because a game of wh40k just takes so damn long. also, magic has a realistic online version and a far bigger online community and TBH i live in the 3rd biggest city of my country and im, as far as i can tell, the only one who spends some time on forums.


You can play 40k online with programs like Vassal, but I understand what you're saying. 40k _is_ a much slower game and that does keep some people from wanting to play it.



Kreuger said:


> Oh, I'm certainly aware of the faqs. The problem with publishing in white dwarf is that iterative updates end up spread throughout a wide range of editions and it becomes awkward to manage.


This is also true.



Mokuren said:


> It's impossible to balance a game for tournament play when you have armies that are 10 years old with 20 years old models next to _the new best thing_ _now 20% shinier!_ and you're a public trade company that, by law, practically only exists to make as many short-term profits as possible.


Actually companies want _long-term_ profits, not short-term. Anyone can make a few bucks *now* but to be able to consistently make money in the long term is something most investors want. GW has even said they try to keep profits from spiking for that reason, they don't want to just make a few bucks now, they want to consistently make money and grow their games and their company.

As for the game balance, yes the refusal to outright remove things 90% of the time, not to mention a much more extensive back catalog of stuff in general, does mean that 40k is a *lot* harder to balance than other games, something people fail to understand, especially when the comparisons to games that are only a couple years old come out, or the comparisons to MtG and claims of it being more like what they think GW "should" be without seeming to understand that under the MtG model they'd actually have to buy a LOT more from GW to stay "current".



Mokuren said:


> I don't think any amount of rules tweaking will help, because GW is an ancient dinosaur still surviving because legacy, kind of like Paizo who's making money out of nothing but feverishly insane brand loyalty. When you need 2 to 10 years to "update" an army and it will take another 2 to 10 years for the next "update" *no matter how it was received* you've already lost, and we're talking about single armies, let alone the entire ruleset!


Constant rules tweaking, codex updates and the like aren't feasible either. First you have the negative backlash against GW no matter what they do (seriously, I swear they could make the news for donating large sums of money to an orphanage and people would claim they bough the orphans to work production lines) and secondly you have a large part of the community who can't even be relied on to check the FAQs so that's not an option, then you can't just sell the book as an update because then they're money grubbing. GW is honestly doing the only thing they *can* do with the game because of the community won't work with them for anything else.



Da Joka said:


> The in my opinion the rules need some tweaking, but the real thing that needs to happen is Games Workshop needs to support it's game better. More Play Testing before release, For more Balanced books, more FAQs to help with stuff that doesn't get caught in play testing, and also be able to take more criticism (and learn from it).


Play testing used to be GW's biggest source of leaks and honestly with the issues they have with other companies snagging GW's IP, the only real defense they have is to be "first" when it comes to getting their products out their so others don't do it before them. You can thank CHS and companies like CHS for that since they're what led us to where we are now in regards to how GW playtests and generally approaches leaks.



Mokuren said:


> And no, their current business model is terrible for early update cycles, because they have openly abandoned putting rules on WDs and updating armies by piecemeal.


Codex supplements, this years Daily Advent Calendar and digital only codexes seem to disagree. GW is trying new things and is giving us new rules. They just aren't using the WD anymore because frankly it wasn't working (plus when it sold out it was gone forever while a digital download can be picked up easily from the Black Library page for as a long as they'll host it).



Mokuren said:


> The capitula aprobabit are long gone history, you're getting digital updates _at best_ now and look at Codex: Inquisition: since some units overlap with those of a Codex stuck into an older edition, they're forgoing using their digital, quick to update and easy to distribute format for actually updating rules so they don't invalidate the printed codex, which is going to be updated somewhere in 2014 at best.


Come now, there was a damned good reason for not updating things too much: namely they're not trying to bilk the GK players into _needing_ to buy this codex. Does this mean the codex suffers for a while? Sure. But this is a prime example of "GW can't do anything right" because when they actually take their customers into considerations they get roasted for not updating things so the customers who would be screwed by it would get screwed. If they had done the inverse people would have been calling the greedy, money grubbing and more. I think they made the best call they could and to claim otherwise is only possible if you intentionally ignore all the facts.



Mokuren said:


> Do I really have to go into detail as to why update cycles that take 2 to 10 years are bad for keeping in touch with the actual playerbase and following tournament trends?


I'd love to see you explain how they could do it any faster with them supporting two very different game systems as their core games. They've already stripped all their specialist games out and can only afford to release so much in a month basically making their current release cycle the fastest they can ever make it.



Mokuren said:


> Unless GW undertakes a huge restructuring and either goes all digital or goes back to using WD as a constant rules update platform (or both) this won't change. There's only so much you can do with tournament rules alone under this current business model.


Physical models. You're forgetting that this is a game with physical models and as such that is the limiting factor. And before people start saying "well they can just open more production facilities" it's not that easy. There is a point where GW will reach where doing so is in their best interests, but until then it's actually WORSE if they do so because they'll just be burning money.



Mokuren said:


> This, this, a thousand times this. GW feels like the cold bureaucrat that only cares for the paycheck you sign for him and wouldn't give a damn whether you live or die as long as money is fed. Sometimes it even feels like they don't care no matter how much money you throw in their face.


I blame the internet for burning them everytime they've tried to be anything but that. GW can do nothing right when it comes to the internet, even when they try to do what's best for their customers so why engage them directly anymore? _What does GW actually gain by engaging a mob of people full of individuals who only want GW to do things that benefit themselves and no one else?

_EDIT: Also_, _I love how I started this topic and meant new rules done by the community to make the game more tournament compatible and everyone goes after GW and what they think GW is doing wrong about *everything* instead.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

Apologies for being a sore to the eyes.



Zion said:


> Considering the history GW has with the internet and how _customers of other game companies_ will launch "crusades" against GW, I can't blame them. I mean which is more sane: continually getting abused by people who are only going to chase off your potential customers, or avoiding them completely? This isn't as simple as people are making it out to be. There is a lot of anti-GW stuff out there and I can't blame any company for doing the same.


You've repeated this several times throughout the reply but I don't think this is actually the correct reaction to have. "Waaah, people hate us so we stop talking to people!" is only an okay reaction when you want to avoid a specific group of people you don't usually meet all that often in the first place, but when your audience is "the internet", which is equal to _the entire world_ as far as your customer base goes, it's like saying you don't want to deal with humanity because there's fuckwits in there.

That's the portrait of a shut-in NEET they make japanese comics about, not a public trade company.



Zion said:


> Because the negative feedback is usually a deluge. It's not something like "there is a typo on page X in this book" or "I don't really like this model" it's "your horrible people and I wish you got hit by a bus" and "GW SUX" and so on. The internet wants GW to open up, then the internet needs to grow up.


This is an incredible dramatization that comes close to fanboy apologism. "Deluge". There must really be a conspiracy against GW because other companies seem to have their own forums and I haven't heard of Wizards of the Coast or Paizo or Fantasy Flight or Steam any of the eSport game forums shut themselves in to "avoid negative feedback". This certainly means nobody is ever negative there, and all the world is against GW!

No, it simply means they couldn't deal with problem children. Even in my LFGS the owners had to take a course to learn how to deal with customers, including problem people; if the old GW forum was swathed with nothing but a "deluge" of negative feedback for everything they did it means that all the sane, responsible and mature people were driven out.

Every other company does it and deals with haters in a way or the other, refusing to do it means getting away from your customers, which includes those that actually care, and you can blame "the internet" all you want but when your company feels like a money-grubbing alien you cannot ever reach ever you can't just shrug and go "eh, it's the internet's fault", because if that was true nobody would open forums. Including this one.



Zion said:


> 30 years and counting says quite possibly.


They started very early in their field and got a huge playerbase from when there were no alternatives and the company was closer to the gaming tables. Now I keep seeing people over 30 playing at my tournaments but I hardly ever meet people who just started that don't quit shortly after (usually because they underestimated the cost or time the hobby requires). This stock of player can't last forever, newer companies _will_ pick pieces of their share away from them, it's just slower because unlike role-playing games, when you have collected lots of models and can only play with other people that have at least an adequate amount of the same models, switching games isn't just a matter of "well teach me how this works".



Zion said:


> Honestly I've never heard one good thing about the forum they had. Not only were the mods not up to the challenge, but the community proved itself to be a toxic mess and it's better off gone. We have far too many adults acting like children in this hobby to really consider this to be a "good idea" honestly. Or do we really expect GW to want to go out and get their nose bloodied on a weekly basis by a large and vocal part of the internet, some of which don't even play their games and just have a vendetta against GW "for reasons", every week still?


But you said this yourself: the mods were not up to the challenge. You're dramatizing this immensely, with the bad, evil internet wanting to hurt poor GW who can't do anything against the big bad bully. The internet is like this to everything and everyone, GW is simply one of the targets that can't deal with it, and getting all defensive about it does the exact opposite of helping. Just because there's rapists, arsonists and murderers in the world doesn't mean you should never ever meet other human beings ever, and guess what, the majority of people still have an ordinary daily life despite how screwed the world is.

Surely a company like GW that holds the "lion's share" of miniature wargaming can deal with internet trolls?



Zion said:


> If GW went 100% digital rules only it could be done easily, and simply. The problem then is you have everyone who doesn't want digital rules leaving the game and it doesn't work. FAQs have been around forever and I used to have to keep a binder of them with all the most current ones just to show people that things were updated because no one ever checked the darned things, even when they were updated every month. Frankly GW has shown attempts at trying in the past but the community has thwarted them through a refusal to change, or to even take a few minutes and check the FAQs now and then.


I think the problem is mostly tied to the fact you have actual, physical books. Noting changes back and forth is always harder than having an auto-update feature. The problem is that at the table, digital rules are hard to deal with: I can tell you from experience with both Sisters and Inquisition, my tablet's epub reader kind of sucks or my tablet sucks and flipping from a page to the other takes a whole lot too much.

When the internet wasn't around, WD was your best bet at reaching the playerbase, now that it is it's kind of the playerbase's fault for not checking their damn rules when they're so easy and free to reach.

And not wanting to go all digital because "they will lose players" is like Wizards of the Coast abandoning 4th edition D&D because "someone on the internet hated it so we'll make an edition nobody hates". Look how well that worked: now practically everything D&D is in Paizo's hands. You can't just please everyone and I can't believe there's people at GW convinced of the opposite; hell, considering how they keep treating certain armies and playing favourites I'm pretty sure they know very well who they can afford to piss off and who they can't.

Even if they go all digital, only a very small part of the playerbase will leave. If people still stick around and buy sister models and bundles with the outrageous prices they have, they'll stick around through the digital revolution too should it ever come.



Zion said:


> GW does listen to feedback, but they don't listen to a loud, whiny internet community that just wants GW to favor *only *their toys (which to be frank is about 80% of the players who play GW games and talk about them online from what I've seen). There is a fair amount of balance in the game, it's just not nearly as strict because GW realized they had a choice: player freedom or perfectly balancing the game and they gave us freedom. It's easy to balance a game when you restrict players down to a handful of actual options (Warmachine takes it further by restricting load-outs on said options too), but GW wanted to give players _freedom_ to play anything they think of. So the players play 4 Heldrake lists or generally act like tools.


Actually, you can give freedom to play _and_ still balance the game. I agree restrictions make balancing easier, but it's not like freedom means it's okay to put super good units right next to complete shit. A friend of mine played Chaos marines at a local league and that's what made him decide to switch over to daemons: in order to win he _had_ to stuff as many Heldrakes as possible everywhere and that meant being a tool to everyone, because the unit was just so stupidly good. Meanwhile, mutilators and possessed cry in a corner and nobody ever takes them because they're just so stupidly bad.

Hell, I brought _stormtroopers_ in the last tournament and guess how much they counted for? Absolutely nothing, they're just that shitty. Playing by fluff is fun and creativity can surprise, but this isn't a game with deep tactics: most of the battle is fought during list building even though I appreciate their attempts at randomizing terrain, traits and making the game tables denser with stuff and LoS blockers. Unfortunately, it's still not quite enough.



Zion said:


> Alienated nothing. People have been jumping ship since the 80s claiming that _everything_ GW does will end in disaster. There used to be threads on old dial-up BBS systems about the very same thing. Honestly I blame the community for being pants on head stupid at times just as much as any real misstep GW makes because a game is nothing without players and we have a high concentration of folks who wear their bums as hats online and generally making it worse for everyone else.


Again: every internet forum has been and was like this, and yet how many companies shut them from the internet?



Zion said:


> You can play 40k online with programs like Vassal, but I understand what you're saying. 40k _is_ a much slower game and that does keep some people from wanting to play it.


Vassal 40k is practically dead. 40k itself isn't really that slow when it comes to miniature wargaming, it just feels like that because of the IGOUGO format where the non-active player can't really do much. They added interceptor in 6th so that's something already, but yeah.

Try to play Operation World War II to have a comparison: it feels hot and into the action because of all the back and forth and trying to second-guess what your opponent can and will do, even though the game itself takes at least just as long.



Zion said:


> As for the game balance, yes the refusal to outright remove things 90% of the time, not to mention a much more extensive back catalog of stuff in general, does mean that 40k is a *lot* harder to balance than other games, something people fail to understand, especially when the comparisons to games that are only a couple years old come out, or the comparisons to MtG and claims of it being more like what they think GW "should" be without seeming to understand that under the MtG model they'd actually have to buy a LOT more from GW to stay "current".


I know cards aren't like models, that's why the M:tG model will _never_ work for GW, the point is that they should try to be more like M:tG in terms of tournament scene presence and playerbase interaction.



Zion said:


> Constant rules tweaking, codex updates and the like aren't feasible either. First you have the negative backlash against GW no matter what they do (seriously, I swear they could make the news for donating large sums of money to an orphanage and people would claim they bough the orphans to work production lines) and secondly you have a large part of the community who can't even be relied on to check the FAQs so that's not an option, then you can't just sell the book as an update because then they're money grubbing. GW is honestly doing the only thing they *can* do with the game because of the community won't work with them for anything else.


Aside from internet trolling, such updates are absolutely feasible. What they're doing _right now_ with digital editions is proof that they _are_ trying to move towards a much smoother and faster update cycle, or to at least inject new stuff into the game.

The idea they are refusing to update because badmouthers and people who are unaware of the existence of internet are working a plot against them is quite absurd. It would be a lot easier if they weren't putting price tags on their damn rules but I guess that's their business model. Still, it's what they are doing _right now_ and the people that will moan and whine will moan and whine while checking their updates and buying digital.

Seriously, you portray GW's playerbase as the most vile amount of scum in the planet that knows no reason nor understanding, and yet every business choice, every Codex release and every model wave they made they keep selling. Perhaps you should try and see past all the whining and realize that just because someone has something to say isn't a "hater" and won't quite the game forever until the end of eternity at the first slight? And even if they do, can GW afford to lose one of them if it gains them 10 new entries?

I think they can, and I think they're already making that calculation.



Zion said:


> Codex supplements, this years Daily Advent Calendar and digital only codexes seem to disagree. GW is trying new things and is giving us new rules. They just aren't using the WD anymore because frankly it wasn't working (plus when it sold out it was gone forever while a digital download can be picked up easily from the Black Library page for as a long as they'll host it).


Yes, WD would be useless for that kind of thing _now_, I was just mentioning how a more direct approach was attempted in the past.



Zion said:


> Come now, there was a damned good reason for not updating things too much: namely they're not trying to bilk the GK players into _needing_ to buy this codex. Does this mean the codex suffers for a while? Sure. But this is a prime example of "GW can't do anything right" because when they actually take their customers into considerations they get roasted for not updating things so the customers who would be screwed by it would get screwed. If they had done the inverse people would have been calling the greedy, money grubbing and more. I think they made the best call they could and to claim otherwise is only possible if you intentionally ignore all the facts.


Actually, no, it's bullshit. They didn't want to screw over _Grey Knights_ players, but the Inquisition codex *actually changed stuff*. They removed a few models from the henchmen warband and updated the priest to the Sisters' version, for one thing, not to mention adding warlord traits. Grey Knights that want to field Inquisition are _already_ being bilked into buying this, they didn't go all the way so as not to give the _impression_ that they did but they _already are_.

And again, we already know they're going to charge for everything, even a copypasta of fluff and rules with very little new content. Even new formation rules have their price tags. Even single unique characters have a price tag now. Digital editions has been re-releasing old fluff with price tags for a while now. If one was to consider rules updates for a price "money grubbing" he'd be so late to the party not even slowpokes would want to hang out with them. Seriously, this has been GW's modus operandi since _forever_, so why didn't they go through with it for this time, and this time only? Because some customers are better than others, that's why.

And you're going to disagree with me because "the internet would whine", but the lack of official answers on this issue is only making things worse.



Zion said:


> I'd love to see you explain how they could do it any faster with them supporting two very different game systems as their core games. They've already stripped all their specialist games out and can only afford to release so much in a month basically making their current release cycle the fastest they can ever make it.


They'd need to properly restructure their company, which is what would seem like they're doing. I insist they're doing this very, very late, because the results of whatever is going on at the moment is unlikely to come before 2014 and even then it's not impossible it will start having any real effect before 2015.



Zion said:


> Physical models. You're forgetting that this is a game with physical models and as such that is the limiting factor. And before people start saying "well they can just open more production facilities" it's not that easy. There is a point where GW will reach where doing so is in their best interests, but until then it's actually WORSE if they do so because they'll just be burning money.


Sure, but that's only a problem with new content. If they wanted to make Chaos possessed playable they wouldn't need to wait until a new batch of models were ready, and that's just an example.



Zion said:


> I blame the internet for burning them everytime they've tried to be anything but that. GW can do nothing right when it comes to the internet, even when they try to do what's best for their customers so why engage them directly anymore? _What does GW actually gain by engaging a mob of people full of individuals who only want GW to do things that benefit themselves and no one else?_


No, seriously, you need to take some time off the internet, I haven't seen this much victimization even in 4chan threads.


Zion said:


> EDIT: Also_, _I love how I started this topic and meant new rules done by the community to make the game more tournament compatible and everyone goes after GW and what they think GW is doing wrong about *everything* instead.


Because, as I explained, there is little you can do in terms of new rules done by the community because the tournament rules are very hard to do wrong. It's the game rules that need fixing.

Tournament rules basically just need to explain what kind of models/supplements are allowed and how to build the list, and then prepare scenarios and maybe help by specifying what terrain pieces are and whether random terrain/objectives are to be rolled or not, or explain beforehand how many objective markers have to be put and where if they don't want them to be randomized for some reason. It's a matter of taste, really, and if you don't like it you just... Kind of not participate. I don't see the problem.

But, again, that's cool and all but not quite what we _need_.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Mokuren said:


> You've repeated this several times throughout the reply but I don't think this is actually the correct reaction to have. "Waaah, people hate us so we stop talking to people!" is only an okay reaction when you want to avoid a specific group of people you don't usually meet all that often in the first place, but when your audience is "the internet", which is equal to _the entire world_ as far as your customer base goes, it's like saying you don't want to deal with humanity because there's fuckwits in there.


I'm sorry, but where are Apple's forums? Microsofts? Just because you sell to the world doesn't mean you need to be 100% open to dealing with every idiot who wants to come along.



Mokuren said:


> This is an incredible dramatization that comes close to fanboy apologism. "Deluge". There must really be a conspiracy against GW because other companies seem to have their own forums and I haven't heard of Wizards of the Coast or Paizo or Fantasy Flight or Steam any of the eSport game forums shut themselves in to "avoid negative feedback". This certainly means nobody is ever negative there, and all the world is against GW!


It's not an "incredible dramatization" it's historical fact. The GW forums were a literal *cesspool*. They did *nothing* to make the game or hobby better so they needed to go. And honestly the same applies elsewhere. GW had a Facebook and gets slammed by a crusade spearheaded by an author whose _ebook_ version of a novel (paper copy was never pulled) was temporarily pulled by _Amazon_ when GW sent them a notice that they were looking into if it affected their trademark. Two companies acting in their best interests, one to protect their IP, the other to ensure that they took precautions just in case and only one gets burned even though they *had* to do it because of the way Trademarks work. Or did you forget how bad Spots the Space Marine blew up?



Mokuren said:


> No, it simply means they couldn't deal with problem children. Even in my LFGS the owners had to take a course to learn how to deal with customers, including problem people; if the old GW forum was swathed with nothing but a "deluge" of negative feedback for everything they did it means that all the sane, responsible and mature people were driven out.


How many thousands of people does your LGS deal with _every day_? I'm betting "less than 1" is the answer there and you're failing to understand what the scope of what GW does and the size of the community really is.



Mokuren said:


> Every other company does it and deals with haters in a way or the other, refusing to do it means getting away from your customers, which includes those that actually care, and you can blame "the internet" all you want but when your company feels like a money-grubbing alien you cannot ever reach ever you can't just shrug and go "eh, it's the internet's fault", because if that was true nobody would open forums. Including this one.


Who cares what other companies are doing honestly? Just because it works for one group doesn't mean it works for everyone else. Hell most of these companies only know what to do because of the real (and not just perceived) missteps GW has actually made over the years. Also consider the differences in what these companies have "grown up" in based on technology, culture and so on. Different times, different approaches and different understandings of things lead to different results.



Mokuren said:


> They started very early in their field and got a huge playerbase from when there were no alternatives and the company was closer to the gaming tables. Now I keep seeing people over 30 playing at my tournaments but I hardly ever meet people who just started that don't quit shortly after (usually because they underestimated the cost or time the hobby requires). This stock of player can't last forever, newer companies _will_ pick pieces of their share away from them, it's just slower because unlike role-playing games, when you have collected lots of models and can only play with other people that have at least an adequate amount of the same models, switching games isn't just a matter of "well teach me how this works".


So you're saying they've only been around this long because they were first? Apparently you don't know about historical wargames that have been around longer (and are considerably less popular), or the other games that cropped up and failed since then because they couldn't do things as well. Assuming that the only reason the company is still around is because they were "first" fails to give credit where credit is due: despite the things you think GW is doing wrong they are doing a number of things right and aren't in near as much trouble as people act like it is.



Mokuren said:


> But you said this yourself: the mods were not up to the challenge. You're dramatizing this immensely, with the bad, evil internet wanting to hurt poor GW who can't do anything against the big bad bully. The internet is like this to everything and everyone, GW is simply one of the targets that can't deal with it, and getting all defensive about it does the exact opposite of helping. Just because there's rapists, arsonists and murderers in the world doesn't mean you should never ever meet other human beings ever, and guess what, the majority of people still have an ordinary daily life despite how screwed the world is.


There is no drama like an internet drama. And there was a LOT of internet drama in those forums. Trying to shove it all back on the mods is frankly asinine because even the best mod team can't save an internet community from turning to shit if they really want to *be* shit.



Mokuren said:


> Surely a company like GW that holds the "lion's share" of miniature wargaming can deal with internet trolls?


Replace GW with "Apple" or "Microsoft" or "Pepsi" or "McDonald's" and you get the same silly idea: Just because you are a strong force in the market doesn't mean you have to, or even should, be engaging directly with the customer base with things like internet forums.



Mokuren said:


> I think the problem is mostly tied to the fact you have actual, physical books. Noting changes back and forth is always harder than having an auto-update feature. The problem is that at the table, digital rules are hard to deal with: I can tell you from experience with both Sisters and Inquisition, my tablet's epub reader kind of sucks or my tablet sucks and flipping from a page to the other takes a whole lot too much.


Well that and the 800 or so comments when the rumor about GW possibly going all, or mostly digital came out and the nerd rage over not having physical books and the equating the use of a digital codex to it becoming "40k: the computer game".



Mokuren said:


> When the internet wasn't around, WD was your best bet at reaching the playerbase, now that it is it's kind of the playerbase's fault for not checking their damn rules when they're so easy and free to reach.


It's been the player's fault for over a decade now. It doesn't keep them from trying to blame GW anyways.



Mokuren said:


> And not wanting to go all digital because "they will lose players" is like Wizards of the Coast abandoning 4th edition D&D because "someone on the internet hated it so we'll make an edition nobody hates". Look how well that worked: now practically everything D&D is in Paizo's hands. You can't just please everyone and I can't believe there's people at GW convinced of the opposite; hell, considering how they keep treating certain armies and playing favourites I'm pretty sure they know very well who they can afford to piss off and who they can't.
> 
> Even if they go all digital, only a very small part of the playerbase will leave. If people still stick around and buy sister models and bundles with the outrageous prices they have, they'll stick around through the digital revolution too should it ever come.


It's really a coin flip exactly how many people will leave because of digital only books honestly. We get people claiming to leave for every other reason in the game.



Mokuren said:


> Actually, you can give freedom to play _and_ still balance the game. I agree restrictions make balancing easier, but it's not like freedom means it's okay to put super good units right next to complete shit. A friend of mine played Chaos marines at a local league and that's what made him decide to switch over to daemons: in order to win he _had_ to stuff as many Heldrakes as possible everywhere and that meant being a tool to everyone, because the unit was just so stupidly good. Meanwhile, mutilators and possessed cry in a corner and nobody ever takes them because they're just so stupidly bad.


No, he did not "have" to stuff Heldrakes in to win. The fact people get stuck on this idea that you need one or two specific units in your army to win is as much as a problem as any of GW's _actual_ balance issues.



Mokuren said:


> Again: every internet forum has been and was like this, and yet how many companies shut them from the internet?


How many companies tried running them in the infancy of the internet and were so burned by them that they will likely never go back because the community was just that bad?



Mokuren said:


> Vassal 40k is practically dead. 40k itself isn't really that slow when it comes to miniature wargaming, it just feels like that because of the IGOUGO format where the non-active player can't really do much. They added interceptor in 6th so that's something already, but yeah.


I never felt like I had nothing to do, but perhaps planning my next turn's moves based on their moves ahead of time is just something I and few others do. 



Mokuren said:


> I know cards aren't like models, that's why the M:tG model will _never_ work for GW, the point is that they should try to be more like M:tG in terms of tournament scene presence and playerbase interaction.


The problem is when MtG comes up, it's never limited to that, and even the things that are nowhere close to being able to be alike are compared unfairly. I mean I don't fault MtG for not having 3d models I can build and paint and yet people will complain that GW doesn't have a release rate that matches a _card game_.



Mokuren said:


> Aside from internet trolling, such updates are absolutely feasible. What they're doing _right now_ with digital editions is proof that they _are_ trying to move towards a much smoother and faster update cycle, or to at least inject new stuff into the game.


They are feasible but there are problems and let's be honest here, GW is pretty much stuck being the bad guy no matter what. They could fix spam by releasing a 0-1 restriction errata for Heldrakes, Riptides and Wraithknights and all we'll get is how "GW is screwing the players". Nothing they do is right anymore and I'm frankly tired of them only being painted as the bad guys even when they try to not be.



Mokuren said:


> The idea they are refusing to update because badmouthers and people who are unaware of the existence of internet are working a plot against them is quite absurd. It would be a lot easier if they weren't putting price tags on their damn rules but I guess that's their business model. Still, it's what they are doing _right now_ and the people that will moan and whine will moan and whine while checking their updates and buying digital.


I never claimed anything about plots, but they likely know what is and isn't working at the moment in terms of sales. They're selling far more physical books right now than they do digital so they likely have a very strong idea how good going all digital right now would actually be. Especially after doing two digital only books. It's not all conspiracies, sometimes it's just about being prudent and not adapting something your customer base isn't read for.



Mokuren said:


> Seriously, you portray GW's playerbase as the most vile amount of scum in the planet that knows no reason nor understanding, and yet every business choice, every Codex release and every model wave they made they keep selling.


No, I portray the online community of people who play GW games to made of a high concentration of such people. The community as a whole beyond that is (probably) better than the community behavior I see online in places.



Mokuren said:


> Perhaps you should try and see past all the whining and realize that just because someone has something to say isn't a "hater" and won't quite the game forever until the end of eternity at the first slight? And even if they do, can GW afford to lose one of them if it gains them 10 new entries?


There is a difference between having something to say and whinging for the sake of whining. The internet does a lot of the latter and not much of the former.



Mokuren said:


> Actually, no, it's bullshit. They didn't want to screw over _Grey Knights_ players, but the Inquisition codex *actually changed stuff*. They removed a few models from the henchmen warband and updated the priest to the Sisters' version, for one thing, not to mention adding warlord traits. Grey Knights that want to field Inquisition are _already_ being bilked into buying this, they didn't go all the way so as not to give the _impression_ that they did but they _already are_.


Are Grey Knights players in a position where they _must_ purchase the Inqusition codex to keep playing their armies, or where players feel they _need_ the book because of how much better the Inquisitors are in the new codex? I didn't think so. A couple of very small changes to the Henchmen squad that can easily added/changed via errata is not the same as what could have been done (and what I see people claiming "should" have been done, which would have resulted in said negative reaction).



Mokuren said:


> And again, we already know they're going to charge for everything, even a copypasta of fluff and rules with very little new content. Even new formation rules have their price tags. Even single unique characters have a price tag now. Digital editions has been re-releasing old fluff with price tags for a while now. If one was to consider rules updates for a price "money grubbing" he'd be so late to the party not even slowpokes would want to hang out with them. Seriously, this has been GW's modus operandi since _forever_, so why didn't they go through with it for this time, and this time only? Because some customers are better than others, that's why.


Things cost money, people need to get paid and charging money helps pay for bandwidth, server costs and the cost of the IT people they have to pay to run these things. Or are we trying to claim that GW needs to do everything for free and basically shoot themselves in the foot fiscally now? 



Mokuren said:


> And you're going to disagree with me because "the internet would whine", but the lack of official answers on this issue is only making things worse.


No, I disagreed with you because GW can't afford to do things for free without some massive changes in company structure that can't happen overnight (such as how they price things, what they make the models out of) and so on.



Mokuren said:


> They'd need to properly restructure their company, which is what would seem like they're doing. I insist they're doing this very, very late, because the results of whatever is going on at the moment is unlikely to come before 2014 and even then it's not impossible it will start having any real effect before 2015.


They're not a small company so to completely change what they're doing will take time. This is likely something that has been in the works since before 6th edition dropped.



Mokuren said:


> Sure, but that's only a problem with new content. If they wanted to make Chaos possessed playable they wouldn't need to wait until a new batch of models were ready, and that's just an example.


They were improved over their old versions and yet people still complain. Not everything needs to cost 10 points, come equipped with at initiative AP2 power weapons and a 3++ to be good but some people seem to think so and thus they're still "bad". Usually these "bad" units aren't really bad, they just are "auto-win" or "must-take" units so they're automatically "bad" as if there isn't a lot of gray between those extremes. 

Yes some truly bad units do exist, but the list is a *lot* shorter than people claim.



Mokuren said:


> No, seriously, you need to take some time off the internet, I haven't seen this much victimization even in 4chan threads.


You've been spending too much time on 4chan if you think "victimization" is an actual counter-argument for anything. Just because I take the time to try and see GW's side of things does not mean I'm trying to paint them as a victim, I'm just not painting them as a villain (which according to /tg/ would automatically make me a "white knight" regardless of why I say the things I do).



Mokuren said:


> Because, as I explained, there is little you can do in terms of new rules done by the community because the tournament rules are very hard to do wrong. It's the game rules that need fixing.


So you're saying that we shouldn't because it's not hard? That makes no sense to me. If it's easy then you could very well be arguing in favor of a community run tournament game system that adjusts or replaces the core system then, not saying that there isn't a point because it's not hard.



Mokuren said:


> Tournament rules basically just need to explain what kind of models/supplements are allowed and how to build the list, and then prepare scenarios and maybe help by specifying what terrain pieces are and whether random terrain/objectives are to be rolled or not, or explain beforehand how many objective markers have to be put and where if they don't want them to be randomized for some reason. It's a matter of taste, really, and if you don't like it you just... Kind of not participate. I don't see the problem.


I was taking the idea further though. Much like the "Project Biomorph" BoLS was working on during the end of 5th edition there is room for a fan made core ruleset designed for tournaments that can build off of, or adjust the core rules for that game play tournament players say they want instead of sitting on our thumbs and saying GW is the only ones who can or should do it.



Mokuren said:


> But, again, that's cool and all but not quite what we _need_.


You're right, we don't _need_ it, but we don't _need_ a lot of things. The question is does the community _want_ this hard enough to not only make it, but use it enough to make GW take notice?

Angry mobs aren't the only way to make companies take notice of things you know.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Sorry, there is no way in hell I am sifting through that wall of text! 
That is not a dig at you (on the contrary I like your 40k articles here Zion), but I do not that that kind of time to dedicate... So I'll just pick bits I think deserve more discussion: 

Okay, so why were the GW forums so shit and awful? 

Either they were doing something very wrong or it is the fan base being assholes. 

Infact that seems to be a common trend in this discussion from you and reaper: It isn't GWs fault, it's the fan base who are being mean...

I am not sure how to feel about that: On one hand I want to agree with Mokuren and feel inclined to think it may be slightly apologist, because a lot of the examples you are using come across as quite weak, but on the other hand that isn't true because you kind of have a point.

But, you and a lot of others love to compare GW to Mcdonalds. lol I have heard this analogy so many times and find it quite bizarre: Yes, I wouldn't find it odd if Mcdonalds tried to sell me a meal deal if I only wanted a large fries. But to compare this to GW hassling you to buy stuff is absolutely ludicrous. It is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. GW is a gaming store, you used to be able to just chill out in them (back in the 90s) and talk about the game: Sure, they would occasionally hint at you buying something, and I usually would if it was only a pot of paint. Hell they would offer free gaming tables so it was a good deal most the time. It was a nice environment. But now most don't even offer gaming anymore, and at the same time have become aggressive in trying to sell you stuff (it honestly reminds me of my time in India...almost, and i'm not even kidding) it has made it a pointless endeavor. Can't talk about gaming in there because the environment is so pushy, can't actually do any actual gaming...so why would you bother going anymore? With gaming stores they are places where you go to discuss gaming, it isn't just a place to buy products. You don't go to Mcdonalds to discuss the burger industry, you go there to buy there products and sometimes eat inside. Do you have staff walking around in Mcdonalds harassing you to buy more food/drink? No you don't, last time I checked (though admittedly I haven't eaten inside one for many years lol). It is completely different. So yeah, this does sound like it borders on 'apoligism' at times... 

_And honestly the same applies elsewhere_

No it really doesn't. Have you actually checked out the competition? Yes, you will get idiots on forums (even this one), but that is the internet for you. But who cares what a bunch of spotty little virgins think? ;-) It is the internet, it is to be expected. Wyrdgames handle it with Malifaux forums, Corvus Belli handle it with Infinity forums, so why can't GW? They come across as slightly pathetic, like some grumpy teenager throwing a tantrum. As Mokuren says quite elegantly: 

"Waaah, people hate us so we stop talking to people!" is only an okay reaction when you want to avoid a specific group of people you don't usually meet all that often in the first place, but when your audience is "the internet", which is equal to the entire world as far as your customer base goes, it's like saying you don't want to deal with humanity because there's fuckwits in there.

*That's the portrait of a shut-in NEET they make japanese comics about, not a public trade company*." 

Anyway, this whole topic on GW is a null point, because GW will never use forums ever again. But I don't think you should just blame it all on GW fans being morons, not when other gaming companies have thriving communities. There are clearly other reasons here other than "GW fans are all morons and so forums wouldn't work and never would." 

_Replace GW with "Apple" or "Microsoft" or "Pepsi" or "McDonald's" and you get the same silly idea: Just because you are a strong force in the market doesn't mean you have to, or even should, be engaging directly with the customer base with things like internet forums._

Except it kind of does, because with gaming you kind of need to engage. It's an engaging business, people engage to play games, and engage to talk about games, and often engage to build and paint models. It is an engaging business as a huge part of the gaming experience is also about socialising with other people to play the games. So if you have such an anti-social policy such as GW you aren't embracing what gaming is. Comparing it to Pepsi and again Mcdonalds is superfluous logic at best because you don't have a social side to drinking Pepsi. It is so completely different as I explained above. 

_Who cares what other companies are doing honestly?_

Quite a few people, looking at interest and sales figures of competitors. Just because GW are selling products and posting massive profits doesn't make it a good gaming system. The whole "What is good for the market is good for the people" ethos is Tea Party bullshit...

_Nothing they do is right anymore and I'm frankly tired of them only being painted as the bad guys even when they try to not be._

By the same token, I am sick and tired of being pigeon-holed as a GW hater just because I criticise them and because I happen to play other gaming systems. On the contrary, I wouldn't be here now if I still didn't like and play 40k. 
And on the contrary I do agree with a lot of if not most of what you are saying: GW are not all bad, and I do think a lot of people will blame them for things that are not actually there fault: For example, I personally came to love the new Chaos codex, I think it gave people the tools to be very creative with the chaos marks system. However, many people claimed it didn't have enough for them and wanted to be spoon fed units that were not included rather than make their own up with the marks system. In this case, yes I am with you this appears to be the fans fault entirely. And why don't people use homebrew rules more often like your article suggested? I totally advocate that. However, on the other hand if the game was balanced would people need to homebrew as much, and would it be easier to homebrew? Yep. So there are two sides to the coin here, just like I think there are two sides of the coin when we are talking about GW's alienation of the fanbase and failing to engage. I don't think it is because "GW fans are mostly morons." It is so much less black and white than that. 
Ultimately, GW should learn from rival companies about how to create productive forum communities, like rival companies have learned from GW's past mistakes. Will GW do this? Highly unlikely... Should they do this? Theoretically yes, I think a strong community makes for infinitely better competitive gaming. But sadly I think it's too late. The past forum failures probably proved this, as GW now have so many haters it would make it impossible to rebuild an online community. I'd point the finger at *both* GW and some fans for that though.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wow, wall 'o' text crits for 5000. You die. :laugh:

No, seriously, it's good. Threads like this are why I enjoy coming to Heresy - two guys disagreeing in a civil fashion, using intelligent arguments to support their points of view. Big thumbs up from me!

With regards to the actual question asked by the title of the thread, then I think "Yes, we do need to make changes to the rules in order for the game to function better at a tournament level" but I think such a change would resemble a very large FAQ/Errata rather than a completely different rules system, and (critically important) it would need to alter points values within codices.

You can mess about with mysterious objectives and such all you like, but so long as a Heldrake is so relatively cheap within the Chaos Dex, and so many other options are so expensive, you won't be able to get away from monobuilds until you address it.

And also, GW is never going to do it. They just won't. That means such an alteration from the rules would need to be done by the community, and the online community is simply too fractured to manufacture such a document and have it implemented in anything other than a very spotty fashion.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

:goodpost:
many of them. I agree with Zion, the internet IS a cesspool. There are quite a few ways to deal with those though in a forum setting (more mods being one, but another being making an account harder and taking longer), especially with GW's resources.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Straken's_Fist said:


> Sorry, there is no way in hell I am sifting through that wall of text!
> That is not a dig at you (on the contrary I like your 40k articles here Zion), but I do not that that kind of time to dedicate... So I'll just pick bits I think deserve more discussion:


Sorry, I can get very "into" debates and often have a lot to say when I post. 



Straken's_Fist said:


> Okay, so why were the GW forums so shit and awful?
> 
> Either they were doing something very wrong or it is the fan base being assholes.


Both in my opinion. I've heard problems with the staff (insta-bans for saying "Squats" in a post (reset the clock by the way) for instance), but the community itself was not the kind of place like it is here. You just had a bad combination made so much worse because of the circumstances. This was also back when the internet was still fairly young and there weren't a lot of experianced people out there to try and run those forums. 

Also the size of the community was pretty massive I'd imagine too. I'd say the fan run boards are better than the GW one ever was.



Straken's_Fist said:


> Infact that seems to be a common trend in this discussion from you and reaper: It isn't GWs fault, it's the fan base who are being mean...


No, it's everyone's fault, I just get tired of people _only_ blaming GW. Heck until last year I was a part of the tournament crowd and 6th edition rolled in and I started to see some of the other stuff the hobby had to offer, so even I'm not immune to blame for the community being so stuck in this rut.



Straken's_Fist said:


> I am not sure how to feel about that: On one hand I want to agree with Mokuren and feel inclined to think it may be slightly apologist, because a lot of the examples you are using come across as quite weak, but on the other hand that isn't true because you kind of have a point.


Weak or not these facts are the things that influenced GW to make the choices they have. Honestly I can't blame them for it because I've seen some of the most venomous stuff that's done to them by the community. I've had times I've thought about leaving the internet community because I just get tired of participating in conversations that people want to paint GW as the reason for _everything_ that is wrong with everyone everywhere.



Straken's_Fist said:


> But, you and a lot of others love to compare GW to Mcdonalds. lol I have heard this analogy so many times and find it quite bizarre: Yes, I wouldn't find it odd if Mcdonalds tried to sell me a meal deal if I only wanted a large fries. But to compare this to GW hassling you to buy stuff is absolutely ludicrous. It is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.


I mentioned McDonald's because it's a global company that people can identify with. The point about forums remains: not every company that sells to the entire world needs forums.



Straken's_Fist said:


> GW is a gaming store, you used to be able to just chill out in them (back in the 90s) and talk about the game: Sure, they would occasionally hint at you buying something, and I usually would if it was only a pot of paint. Hell they would offer free gaming tables so it was a good deal most the time. It was a nice environment. But now most don't even offer gaming anymore, and at the same time have become aggressive in trying to sell you stuff (it honestly reminds me of my time in India...almost, and i'm not even kidding) it has made it a pointless endeavor.


 Honestly it all has to do with Sales. If you can't meat a certain quota for your area you're sunk and they'll replace you with someone who can. It puts a lot of pressure on the sales person, especially in an economy where the job market is so slim.



Straken's_Fist said:


> Can't talk about gaming in there because the environment is so pushy, can't actually do any actual gaming...so why would you bother going anymore? With gaming stores they are places where you go to discuss gaming, it isn't just a place to buy products. You don't go to Mcdonalds to discuss the burger industry, you go there to buy there products and sometimes eat inside. Do you have staff walking around in Mcdonalds harassing you to buy more food/drink? No you don't, last time I checked (though admittedly I haven't eaten inside one for many years lol). It is completely different. So yeah, this does sound like it borders on 'apoligism' at times...


I'm pretty sure you can't just walk into a McDonald's sit down and not order anything though either. GW used to let people come in and game without trying to sell stuff but they were *burning* money doing it. I'm really surprised they haven't pulled their stores and moved to being online and FLGS only. I guess they cost to benefit ratio hasn't shifted enough to make that a requirement yet.



Straken's_Fist said:


> _And honestly the same applies elsewhere_
> 
> No it really doesn't. Have you actually checked out the competition? Yes, you will get idiots on forums (even this one), but that is the internet for you. But who cares what a bunch of spotty little virgins think? ;-) It is the internet, it is to be expected. Wyrdgames handle it with Malifaux forums, Corvus Belli handle it with Infinity forums, so why can't GW? They come across as slightly pathetic, like some grumpy teenager throwing a tantrum. As Mokuren says quite elegantly:
> 
> ...


Where are Apple's forums? Why are Microsoft's limited soley to tech support? Because not every company _needs_ forums. It's not like the forums we have now because GW pulled out of having them then aren't filling the "need" and do the job better than GW did, so what real point would be served by GW opening that floodgate again other than people yelling at them directly again? We already have avenues for erratas and FAQs, we have hobby articles from both these forums and the things GW puts out, frankly there isn't anything left for GW to fill by opening those forums again _except_ giving people an avenue to bitch at GW.



Straken's_Fist said:


> Anyway, this whole topic on GW is a null point, because GW will never use forums ever again. But I don't think you should just blame it all on GW fans being morons, not when other gaming companies have thriving communities. There are clearly other reasons here other than "GW fans are all morons and so forums wouldn't work and never would."


I blame everyone. I blame GW's mods, and I blame the community.



Straken's_Fist said:


> _Replace GW with "Apple" or "Microsoft" or "Pepsi" or "McDonald's" and you get the same silly idea: Just because you are a strong force in the market doesn't mean you have to, or even should, be engaging directly with the customer base with things like internet forums._
> 
> Except it kind of does, because with gaming you kind of need to engage. It's an engaging business, people engage to play games, and engage to talk about games, and often engage to build and paint models. It is an engaging business as a huge part of the gaming experience is also about socialising with other people to play the games. So if you have such an anti-social policy such as GW you aren't embracing what gaming is. Comparing it to Pepsi and again Mcdonalds is superfluous logic at best because you don't have a social side to drinking Pepsi. It is so completely different as I explained above.


Microsoft makes games and software apps and other things. The only communication you get "directly" to them is tech support. So no, it's not "required". Encouraged, maybe wanted, but not "required"/



Straken's_Fist said:


> _Who cares what other companies are doing honestly?_
> 
> Quite a few people, looking at interest and sales figures of competitors. Just because GW are selling products and posting massive profits doesn't make it a good gaming system. The whole "What is good for the market is good for the people" ethos is Tea Party bullshit...


Don't drag political comparisons into this that's way off topic and just bound to start fights. 

Trying to make GW do what everyone else is doing is the same thing you're claiming though. You want them to follow everyone else in the market. If they _need_ to do it in business they will, otherwise they'll keep doing what they can. That's how things work and if you really don't like it then you need to take it up with their Board of Directors because they're the ones who make a lot of these choices based on what they think is best for the company.



Straken's_Fist said:


> _Nothing they do is right anymore and I'm frankly tired of them only being painted as the bad guys even when they try to not be._
> 
> By the same token, I am sick and tired of being pigeon-holed as a GW hater just because I criticise them and because I happen to play other gaming systems. On the contrary, I wouldn't be here now if I still didn't like and play 40k.


I never claimed anyone was a "GW hater" I just said that I wasn't painting GW as a villian but that doesn't mean I'm making them victim. There is a long distance between the real GW and how it acts and how the majority of the internet paints it.



Straken's_Fist said:


> However, on the other hand if the game was balanced would people need to homebrew as much, and would it be easier to homebrew?


Yes they would. Or how else are we going to get those outliers who don't have codexes or models and aren't likely ever to get either on the table? I'm working on a Dark Mechanicus one right now in my free time (I need to post an update on that for Project Homebrew by the way). Homebrew isn't just a way to "fix" things, it's a way to expand and add to things.




Sethis said:


> Wow, wall 'o' text crits for 5000. You die. :laugh:


It's my special attack! :laugh:



Straken's_Fist said:


> No, seriously, it's good. Threads like this are why I enjoy coming to Heresy - two guys disagreeing in a civil fashion, using intelligent arguments to support their points of view. Big thumbs up from me!


I love discourse like this myself because no one is trying to kill each other even if we disagree. And if we do want to kill each other then we're doing it wrong. 



Straken's_Fist said:


> With regards to the actual question asked by the title of the thread, then I think "Yes, we do need to make changes to the rules in order for the game to function better at a tournament level" but I think such a change would resemble a very large FAQ/Errata rather than a completely different rules system, and (critically important) it would need to alter points values within codices.


Then the follow up question (and the one I was actually aiming at originally with this thread) is: do you think the community should fill this void since GW is not?


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

Straken's_Fist said:


> That's the portrait of a shut-in NEET they make japanese comics about


I should feel ashamed that I know what you are referencing without having to Google it.



Sethis said:


> With regards to the actual question asked by the title of the thread, then I think "Yes, we do need to make changes to the rules in order for the game to function better at a tournament level" but I think such a change would resemble a very large FAQ/Errata rather than a completely different rules system, and (critically important) it would need to alter points values within codices.
> 
> You can mess about with mysterious objectives and such all you like, but so long as a Heldrake is so relatively cheap within the Chaos Dex, and so many other options are so expensive, you won't be able to get away from monobuilds until you address it.
> 
> And also, GW is never going to do it. They just won't. That means such an alteration from the rules would need to be done by the community, and the online community is simply too fractured to manufacture such a document and have it implemented in anything other than a very spotty fashion.


This was my thought as well @Sethis. Unfortunately, what you often get is a system like the various WFB comp systems (ETC for example) that are designed and skewed around one particular group of player's belief in how the game should be played. Although with the expanding 40k material in the form of digital content and supplements tourney play is becoming harder and harder to "balance" and this may force 40k to move in an ETC or Swedish-comp like system.

I have heard rumors of the large American GTs already trying to form some sort of "tournament standard" for rules, units (FW or not), FAQs, etc.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Zion said:


> Then the follow up question (and the one I was actually aiming at originally with this thread) is: do you think the community should fill this void since GW is not?


I think "the community" won't bother, and wouldn't be able to get it right if they did, because 90% of players are not tournament players, and therefore have no business designing rules for them. Indeed a lot of problems with smaller tournaments (and even some big ones) is the TO trying to write "better" missions than the 6 found in the BRB - often to catastrophic results, and that's not even approaching fundamental rules such as the entire Assault phase, Flyers and points values.

What might work better is the TOs of some of the biggest and most competitive tourneys (NOVA and the like) getting together in like a team of 10 and mashing it all out over a couple of months. Unfortunately I think they have their own lives and blogs and jobs and stuff so it is unlikely to ever happen.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sethis said:


> I think "the community" won't bother, and wouldn't be able to get it right if they did, because 90% of players are not tournament players, and therefore have no business designing rules for them. Indeed a lot of problems with smaller tournaments (and even some big ones) is the TO trying to write "better" missions than the 6 found in the BRB - often to catastrophic results, and that's not even approaching fundamental rules such as the entire Assault phase, Flyers and points values.
> 
> What might work better is the TOs of some of the biggest and most competitive tourneys (NOVA and the like) getting together in like a team of 10 and mashing it all out over a couple of months. Unfortunately I think they have their own lives and blogs and jobs and stuff so it is unlikely to ever happen.


Some of those guys know each other and hang out on Dakka so there is some back and forth there, but I get what you're saying and agree when it comes to tournaments the missions have in the past been a bit unbalanced in the favor of some armies over others.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

McDonald's, Pepsi and other similar brands don't need forums because they don't really need to create a community to survive: they sell edible(?) goods, which is a completely different market. Microsoft doesn't have a forum because that's why they have tech support, which they make money with, same reason for which GW doesn't release all its rules for free.

I remain that it could be possible for GW to rebuild a forum and handle it better even though it got burned once, but since it doesn't seem to be in their priorities, there are still other ways to build better connection with the gaming community. They could dedicate a section of their website to list tournaments being held in major cities where they have a shop (or, even better, in the shops themselves), they could announce they are accepting pictures of events and choosing the best to put on WD and the others in a web gallery on site or whatnot. Hell, they could dedicate a bit of WD space to tournaments or events or even just game clubs where they show off their custom scenarios, so they would still provide "rule" content without it being official so they don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's foot, just as a reference and reminder this is all about forging narratives or whatnot.

Heck, they could have themed painting competitions like on this forum and still post pictures somewhere of people that don't make it to the WD glories, because people also need to see pics of models painted by the average joe since not everyone is a pro painter (unless you ask eBay).

I don't know how feasible these things are, I'm just throwing ideas at random, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to make sure the _positive_ contributions from the playerbase have a way to shine while keeping the hating down, because as it stands now people that like and appreciate GW have no way to really show it around, except by voluntarily sending pictures for the WD, but that's not quite the same thing as having the pitch come from GW itself.

I also made a quick google of project Biomorph. That kind of sounds like a rewriting of the game's rules, if I got it right; it's not quite what I expected when you said "new rules for tournaments".


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Mokuren said:


> I also made a quick google of project Biomorph. That kind of sounds like a rewriting of the game's rules, if I got it right; it's not quite what I expected when you said "new rules for tournaments".


It was a rewrite based on an update/change/expansion of the rules for 5th edition. Hence why I mentioned a "6.5 Ed".


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Biomorph was a pre-6th exercise in fixing 5th Ed to reduce the preponderence of Mech, among other things, because we had no faith that GW was able to write a decent tournament playable edition.

As it turns out, a lot of things we talked about actually got implemented, although some excellent ideas weren't. Ultimately the project was canned because not enough people playtested the new rules we were coming out with, and without playtesting then it remains a purely theoretical exercise which is exactly my point regarding community fragmentation. What would be great is if GW's playtesting team was actually made up of good tournament players who can actually write lists worth a damn and try their hardest to break the game in half so that things like Psyfleman Dreads etc get caught early and fixed.

However as it stands, unless a large (20+ people) group actually gets together geographically and plays constant games with each other to playtest changes, nothing is ever going to come out of rewriting any part of the rules, apart from the obvious small patches you can make, such as making Flyers a 0-3 choice, removing random terrain and so on.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Sethis said:


> No, seriously, it's good. Threads like this are why I enjoy coming to Heresy - two guys disagreeing in a civil fashion, using intelligent arguments to support their points of view. Big thumbs up from me!


Yep. Totally agree. Nice discussion but I am bowing out now lol Got the flu here and our walls of text are giving me a bitching headache...I can still see the script for 10 minutes whenever I look away from the screen. My retinas! 
Kinda find myself agreeing with most of what Zion says in the end anyway lol 

Still think people should stop using the Mcdonalds example though


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

I think way to make the game more competitive for tournaments would be a modified return of old school Victory Points

most units are simply at a 1:1 ratio (kill a 250pt Land Raider, you earn 250 VPs)

some models/units would be at a 1:2, 1:3, or 1:4 ratios.

for Instance the heldrake could be a 1:4 model and the DA flyer (whichever one sucks more) could only be a 1:2 model.

This way the only thing that actually changes would be the risk reward value of models, heldrakes can still be nasty as hell, but if you lose 1 of them you could still lose the game I mean you can bring 170 point heldrake, but that means that it is worth 680 points if it is killed...

How many people will bring Drakes now?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Zion said:


> Honestly I've never heard one good thing about the forum they had. Not only were the mods not up to the challenge, but the community proved itself to be a toxic mess and it's better off gone. We have far too many adults acting like children in this hobby to really consider this to be a "good idea" honestly. Or do we really expect GW to want to go out and get their nose bloodied on a weekly basis by a large and vocal part of the internet, some of which don't even play their games and just have a vendetta against GW "for reasons", every week still?


Sorry when I said "forum" I didn't use a very good word. When I said forum I wasn't meaning forum like an internet forum, I meant "forum" as in the general sense of the word as in a space where there can be discussion between GW and the community in person. Then they can see the power builds and see how the player base takes the rules they works with them. Having a viable Tournament scene where GW is actively involved would provide them with that.

You say over and over again that GW makes efforts to engage with the community and each time is repulsed by the torrent of abuse they unfairly get. I would disagree, and we aren't going to see eye to eye on it but anyway. First off GW is a business, this is constantly brought up as why they make the decisions they do. They are a business so therefore they should, in my opinion, grow thicker skin and deal with the online feedback they get. This is some geeks and nerds talking shit and getting pissy often unjustly so. Am I guilty of it? Sure. But we are not talking about the kind of metal abuse that the poor buggers from the Police whose job it is to trawl through kiddie porn to identify victims are subjected too. GW employees aren't going to need counseling from the stuff written in forums, if they do time to get the cotton wool out. All the rest of us deal with the differing opinions and take what we want from the internet and we don't get paid for it (thereby providing an incentive to keep reading when otherwise you would not). If GW wants to pay me even minimum wage to sit on forums all day and sift through the shit to find the legitimate concerns hell I'll do it. 

Every time they try something new to engage with the community yes they do get flak for it. In my opinion you want to know why? Because every time they try something new they charge more than the last time. Case in point that Tau formation they just released. That's a datasheet. Two years ago that was free, now they are charging for it. That is not trying to engage with the community, that is taking the piss. One unit Supplements? That used to a White Dwarf article. Yes they have entered the digital age, I'm more than happy to admit that. However they have entered with some pants on head retarded decisions. Examples:

- Digital Eiditions, even the ones without the flashy features are still near in price to the printed versions despite being nearly exactly the same but without the overhead of a physical product
- They haven't done the most blatantly obvious thing in the world and released all their codex's in PDF form. I'm not talking about a reformat, I am talking about a simple scan and sell. If I can do it at home with a $100 dollar printer then what pray tell is stopping GW from doing it and selling downloadable versions of all Codexs for $10? Hell if they did that at $20 I would download every new released codex and I bet I'm not the only one. This is the most obvious thing in the world to do to say to the gaming community "We are offering a lower priced solution to you". Put it in epub, put it in ibook format so printing it is harder but FFS stop this bullshit pretending that GW's digital expansions are anything other than them finding a new way of making a out of proportion profit on a product that could even better if it was lower in price.

Anyway that's just my take on it as a non tournament, non player collector. Yes GW "tries" to engage with community, problem is that it's with great reluctance, "innovative" in all the wrong ways and with a higher price tag each time. And you know what every time they close down another medium of engagement it just makes the people who don't like them more pissed off. It's a vicious circle.



Zion said:


> Angry mobs aren't the only way to make companies take notice of things you know.


Asking GW politely works just as well though.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

I think this is a really interesting thread. But I’m at work right now, and I only have about 20 min or so between classes to post.

I think having the community completely re-write the rules and codexes (sorry, my spelling is bad) would be totally awesome! The badly worded, sometimes ambigious, unbalanced rules that GW makes are my biggest complaint about the game. 

Unfortunetly, I have no idea how to make such a system work. In my experience (playing in Southern Claifornia and South Korea) people play at the FLGS. When you play there, you often play with people you don’t know very well or just met. And when people come to an FLGS for a tournament, or even just a pick-up game, they expect to play with the offical rules. So suddenly changing to a new set or rules would make a lot of people very upset, or so I would imagine.

I’ve been playing since 3rd Edition. And since then, I think the rules have been getting better. Theres still a lot of room for improvement however.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I agree that this edition is one of the best ones ever, and actually would take very little tweaking to make work in the BRB sense, the main offenders being Flyers and the Assault Phase. Unfortunately having a good set of BRB rules is only one of a handful of things required in making a good game - you also need internal balance within codices so that almost every unit can be a valid choice, external balance so that no codex is obviously way more powerful than another, and decent missions that don't rely on a small number of random dice rolls to give one army a massive advantage over another.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jacobite said:


> Sorry when I said "forum" I didn't use a very good word. When I said forum I wasn't meaning forum like an internet forum, I meant "forum" as in the general sense of the word as in a space where there can be discussion between GW and the community in person. Then they can see the power builds and see how the player base takes the rules they works with them. Having a viable Tournament scene where GW is actively involved would provide them with that.


Last I heard someone showed one of the devs on of those extra-spammy tournament lists....the person shown was not too excited by it. I think they're aware of those kind of players but aren't trying to cater to them.



Jacobite said:


> You say over and over again that GW makes efforts to engage with the community and each time is repulsed by the torrent of abuse they unfairly get. I would disagree, and we aren't going to see eye to eye on it but anyway.


Now where did I use the term "unfair"? I said the online community has a nasty habit of biting GW's head off and I can understand GW for not wanting to keep putting their neck out there time and time again, I never said it was completely unfair. GW _has_ made legitimate missteps over the years, the problem is the online community treats *everything* GW does as a misstep. 



Jacobite said:


> First off GW is a business, this is constantly brought up as why they make the decisions they do. They are a business so therefore they should, in my opinion, grow thicker skin and deal with the online feedback they get. This is some geeks and nerds talking shit and getting pissy often unjustly so. Am I guilty of it? Sure. But we are not talking about the kind of metal abuse that the poor buggers from the Police whose job it is to trawl through kiddie porn to identify victims are subjected too. GW employees aren't going to need counseling from the stuff written in forums, if they do time to get the cotton wool out. All the rest of us deal with the differing opinions and take what we want from the internet and we don't get paid for it (thereby providing an incentive to keep reading when otherwise you would not). If GW wants to pay me even minimum wage to sit on forums all day and sift through the shit to find the legitimate concerns hell I'll do it.


That's some serious hyperbole about the level of crap slung GW's way. I never claimed that GW shouldn't be able to handle the abuse, I said that I can see their point of view and honestly don't see a lot that their interaction added to the hobby when we had it. I'm not trying to say we don't want it, or we shouldn't have it, but honestly I don't miss it that much when it's never really done anything for the hobby.



Jacobite said:


> Every time they try something new to engage with the community yes they do get flak for it. In my opinion you want to know why? Because every time they try something new they charge more than the last time. Case in point that Tau formation they just released. That's a datasheet. Two years ago that was free, now they are charging for it. That is not trying to engage with the community, that is taking the piss. One unit Supplements? That used to a White Dwarf article. Yes they have entered the digital age, I'm more than happy to admit that. However they have entered with some pants on head retarded decisions. Examples:
> 
> - Digital Eiditions, even the ones without the flashy features are still near in price to the printed versions despite being nearly exactly the same but without the overhead of a physical product
> - They haven't done the most blatantly obvious thing in the world and released all their codex's in PDF form. I'm not talking about a reformat, I am talking about a simple scan and sell. If I can do it at home with a $100 dollar printer then what pray tell is stopping GW from doing it and selling downloadable versions of all Codexs for $10? Hell if they did that at $20 I would download every new released codex and I bet I'm not the only one. This is the most obvious thing in the world to do to say to the gaming community "We are offering a lower priced solution to you". Put it in epub, put it in ibook format so printing it is harder but FFS stop this bullshit pretending that GW's digital expansions are anything other than them finding a new way of making a out of proportion profit on a product that could even better if it was lower in price.


Honestly I don't care about how much you or anyone else thinks things _should _cost. I really don't. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that you, I, and every angry neckbeard will ever know. GW isn't just some money grubbing evil corporation, and prices aren't being set to just bilk you out of all your money. Someone has to actually sit down, determine the cost of _everything_ that goes into that product, how long it'll take to pay off the initial investment that went into making that product before it's sold (to include: mold costs, material costs _and_ all those man-hours of labor that are paid in advance) and likely a dozen other things and then sets the price so they still make money when they discount sell it to FLGS and their brick and mortar stores at 60%+ off.

"It should only cost this much!" really is just the cry of someone who doesn't understand the world and thinks it should bend to their whim. Can't afford it? Tough because they can't afford to sell it for less and stay in business. Every company prices things this way. Those yearly price increases that we (usually) see? Caused by the inflation of labor (which GW hires a fair amount of what can be called "skilled" labor to work the production line, which means they pay a fair amount for it too), inflation of materials (both for the models and packaging), cost of replacements they don't charge you for and the increases in shipping costs (yes, it helps offset that "over $50 USD" free shipping they offer). When you look at a price you're looking at the result of someone's work. The result of someone sitting down and saying "if we're going to make 20% off of this item when we sell it to a brick and mortar we need to price it at X". Those prices aren't made to just rip you off, they're made that way because they *need* to be. 



Jacobite said:


> Anyway that's just my take on it as a non tournament, non player collector. Yes GW "tries" to engage with community, problem is that it's with great reluctance, "innovative" in all the wrong ways and with a higher price tag each time. And you know what every time they close down another medium of engagement it just makes the people who don't like them more pissed off. It's a vicious circle.


I debate the "reluctance" as we're then attributing things to the company that aren't provable.

Also, "higher price tag" for dealing with the community? Unless you start getting charged by the minute to talk to Phil Kelly at Games Day, it's not quite that bad.



Jacobite said:


> Asking GW politely works just as well though.


How can we tell? All the pissing and moaning drowns everything else out.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Zion said:


> GW isn't just some money grubbing evil corporation, and prices aren't being set to just bilk you out of all your money.


yes they are


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

lokyar said:


> yes they are


If you truly believe that you're living in a dream world. There is a lot more that goes on behind the scenes than you or I will likely ever know that influences the pricing policy, but I can be sure of one thing: it's not done the way it is in an active attempt to screw the customers out of their money. You're ascribing malicious behavior to something that is explainable through much more logical means regarding pricing.

For example, the reason GW doesn't decrease prices instead of freezing them when the yearly price increase comes around? Menu Cost. Basically it costs GW more to change prices (both in terms of actual money, as well as opportunity cost) to lower prices. Not to mention all the FLGS owners who'd be pissed off that they "overpaid" on recent orders and would likely gain a credit of the difference costing GW more money.

When one gets into actual Economics as well as Accounting (courses I've been in the past semester) you see that there is a lot of things that drive prices, and greed, while a common explanation by the unaware public, is rarely, if ever, an actual reason for why companies price things the way they do.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Whew, great thread. :clapping:

My opinions in the OP have already been stated by others but here goes. GW would need to take to much time and investment to retool their game to make it a tournament inclined game. Would I like more balanced rules and additional play testing to make some units better, sure, but a complete re-write of the rules would kill the charm the game has.



Zion said:


> Honestly I don't care about how much you or anyone else thinks things _should _cost. I really don't. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that you, I, and every angry neckbeard will ever know. GW isn't just some money grubbing evil corporation, and prices aren't being set to just bilk you out of all your money. Someone has to actually sit down, determine the cost of _everything_ that goes into that product, how long it'll take to pay off the initial investment that went into making that product before it's sold (to include: mold costs, material costs _and_ all those man-hours of labor that are paid in advance) and likely a dozen other things and then sets the price so they still make money when they discount sell it to FLGS and their brick and mortar stores at 60%+ off.
> 
> "It should only cost this much!" really is just the cry of someone who doesn't understand the world and thinks it should bend to their whim. Can't afford it? Tough because they can't afford to sell it for less and stay in business. Every company prices things this way. Those yearly price increases that we (usually) see? Caused by the inflation of labor (which GW hires a fair amount of what can be called "skilled" labor to work the production line, which means they pay a fair amount for it too), inflation of materials (both for the models and packaging), cost of replacements they don't charge you for and the increases in shipping costs (yes, it helps offset that "over $50 USD" free shipping they offer). When you look at a price you're looking at the result of someone's work. The result of someone sitting down and saying "if we're going to make 20% off of this item when we sell it to a brick and mortar we need to price it at X". Those prices aren't made to just rip you off, they're made that way because they *need* to be.


We should try and leave cost of GW products out of this, as it's one of those factors that always seems to derail any good conversation about GW's policies and rules.

Lets just all agree on the idea that we are always willing to pay a lower price for the same product, and the price we pay can never go to low.



lokyar said:


> yes they are


That, Lokyar, is a very compelling argument. Your inside knowledge of GW's production costs astounds me, and has shown the Internet as a whole how much they are being ripped off by GW.

GW is a publicly traded company, just like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies. Their JOB is to maximize return on investment for their shareholders.

People just complain about GW because they know it's a luxury good, and they don't have to spend that kind of money, but they do anyway.

Now lets just stay away from the cost thing. It's gonna kill this thread and I like reading this one.


----------



## lokyar (Apr 24, 2011)

Wusword77 said:


> That, Lokyar, is a very compelling argument. Your inside knowledge of GW's production costs astounds me, and has shown the Internet as a whole how much they are being ripped off by GW.
> 
> GW is a publicly traded company, just like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies. Their JOB is to maximize return on investment for their shareholders.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insult mate, next time think before responding please 

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies. Their JOB is to maximize return on investment for their shareholders.

*Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies.* are not a monopoly or a oligopoly (dont know the EXACT spelling). So they CAN'T rip you off since they will lose market shares and profit. GW is save to rip you off for maximum profit because they are a monopoly.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

lokyar said:


> Thanks for the insult mate, next time think before responding please
> 
> Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies. Their JOB is to maximize return on investment for their shareholders.
> 
> *Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies.* are not a monopoly or a oligopoly (dont know the EXACT spelling). So they CAN'T rip you off since they will lose market shares and profit. GW is save to rip you off for maximum profit because they are a monopoly.


No GW is NOT a monopoly as they're not the only miniature gaming company out there. They have the largest market share, sure, but that doesn't make a monopoly. You're thinking of an Oligopoly.

Even if GW was a monopoly they exist in a market where it is very easy to walk away from their product so if they actually intentionally tried to screw the customers out of every last dime like you claim then they'd have no customers. They aren't making something with an inelastic demand curve but rather a VERY elastic one and a very inelastic supply curve. Their prices are a combination of a lot of things, but "greed" is not one of them.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

lokyar said:


> *Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Hasbro, EA, and a host of other gaming companies.* are not a monopoly or a oligopoly (dont know the EXACT spelling). So they CAN'T rip you off since they will lose market shares and profit. GW is save to rip you off for maximum profit because they are a monopoly.


If GW had a monopoly on miniature gaming, I wouldn't be in miniature gaming.

Seriously, all the 29 sisters I have were bought used at about half retail price or I would have never got them, and the entirety of their IG allies are... Not IG allies, but models from other companies. Most of them much cheaper, some of them not quite but I liked them anyways and sometimes I just want to paint stuff even if I don't have a game plan behind them.

It has the added benefit I can also play other games and have at least some of the proper miniatures.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Zion said:


> Last I heard someone showed one of the devs on of those extra-spammy tournament lists....the person shown was not too excited by it. I think they're aware of those kind of players but aren't trying to cater to them.


There is not trying to cater to them and then there is what seems to be happening which is ignoring the issue completely. A GW involved tournamnet scene would go some way to alleviate it. As a non tournament player though I can't comment too much.



Zion said:


> Now where did I use the term "unfair"? I said the online community has a nasty habit of biting GW's head off and I can understand GW for not wanting to keep putting their neck out there time and time again, I never said it was completely unfair. GW _has_ made legitimate missteps over the years, the problem is the online community treats *everything* GW does as a misstep.





Zion said:


> ....
> Can't blame them there. Everytime GW has tried to make itself more accessable to the playerbase it gets burned by the more toxic and spiteful members of the community. I wouldn't want to keep doing that to myself either. ....
> 
> .... Again, can you blame them? GW reminds me a lot of a spousal abuse victim only instead of anyone being sympathetic we keep telling them to go back and get thrashed some more. GW + the internet does not go good places....
> ...


And that's just from the post you made restarting this thread. Did you use the word "unfair", no, my apologies, you did not but you re-read that and tell me honestly that's not what you are inferring with quips like: "_I blame the internet for burning them everytime they've tried to be anything but that. GW can do nothing right when it comes to the internet, even when they try to do what's best for their customers "

_


Zion said:


> That's some serious hyperbole about the level of crap slung GW's way


I'm sorry what? _You're comparing GW to a battered wife_. You are comparing a company making plastic toys to a woman whose husband beats her and she can't leave him so keeps coming back despite the physical and emotional abuse. And I'm the one slinging hyperbolic crap by saying that the level of abuse that GS gets online is not anywhere near as bad as you are making it out to be? It's certainly not something which would require anybody reading it who is on the companies pay roll to under go counseling like a Police Officer working in child protection (my example) or say I don't know, a victim of domestic abuse (Your example). To be quite honest I didn't want to get involved in this thread and then I saw that. When you start using that kind of language to describe some neck beards getting pissy at a company then don't be surprised when you get a reaction like you did from me as you yourself have turn the tap to over exaggeration. For me that's when you cross the line from trying to have a discussion and debate and started becoming a white knight. Now I know you hate that term but from where I am sitting that's what you are coming across as and that's also when I should have bitten my tongue and not replied because there is very little point but I did. Now I know that there is very little point in even bothering in responding because it's going to do very little but since I was stupid enough to get involved with a pointless fight when I should have know better I will one last time. So here goes.



Zion said:


> Cost, models etc


First off when did I mention the cost of models? I didn't, because I knew what your reaction would be. I was only talking about their entrance into the digital age and how it's not them trying to engage with the community in a meaningful way, those points which you ignored by the way. Putting out the exact copy of a paper copy codex in epub costs the license for the epub software and the server costs to store it, they already have the data from the proof being sent to the printers. Hell if it doesn't work with the proof all they need is an unbound version of the book and a office scanner. Over heads? Manual labour charges?

Now you say they have to make a profit yadaya. I agree, of course they do, however two things. 

1: Certain moves they make while making that profit and the PR they put out while ensuring that happens have an effect on their image. And at the moment their image amongst a vocal section of the wider gaming community is a poor one. You'd think they would want to change that. I know I would.

2: They have also made a move in recent years to choose to make an _un-necessarily_ more expensive product when it comes to books: 4 words: Full Color, Hard Back. They doubled the price and did they offer to keep the soft back, half color ones? No they did not because they are no doubt making more profit of the FCHB. Was this change necessary or was it a choice to make a more exclusive product that they could make more money off? If they were making the same amount of profit as the HCSB then why not keep both in production as some people will want the cheaper one? If you make the same profit whats the harm? Because less people will buy the FCHB? If they are making the same profit then it doesn't matter. You can debate the advantages of HB vs SB for years and no winner will come out on top as each has it's advantages and disadvantages and often it is up to the person so don't even go down that road. No it was a move to create a more exclusive and more lucrative product and at the same time killing off a cheaper alternative. That's not attempting to engage with the community and getting it it thrown back in your face. Nor is making the digital versions a similar price. There are few overheads you mention with a digital product for GW. They are already making a Hard Copy, some re-formatting, probably a weeks worth at most and then you have nothing other than server costs and a license fee for the software (which they already have) in the way of overheads.

There is also the debatable point that according to at least one ex GW red shirt I have spoke to that at least when he was working there about in the mid to late 00's that even with the GW Staff discount GW were still making a profit on any mini they sold to the Staff. Now I know you will just discount as the ravings of the internet because you haven't heard it with your own ears or got it in writing but that's just what I was told.



> How can we tell? All the pissing and moaning drowns everything else out.


So those updated Sisters models and a proper paper copy Dex updated with new units for 6th are on the way next month are they? I mean you've written polite letters to them, I'm sure they must have read them and taken them on board since they weren't pissy and moany.

You want to get all high and mighty and lord over GW detractors and accuse people and the internet of being toxic in their opinions, how they express them and how it's "in the main" not GW's fault because you've taken a few accounting courses at uni over the last year or so? Be my guest. As a side note I will however point out that whenever I make the point that it's very easy for one person to dominate a creative team of artists (ref Matt Ward) even if they aren't in charge based on my experiences over the last 6 years of working with creatives at best I'm told I'm wrong, at worst I'm ignored. Back on topic as I said be my guest but by making statements like how GW reminds you a battered wife then you are just as bad as the people you despise. Now don't get me wrong: I have no problems with people defending GW, I have no problem calling me whatever you like, I'll take it with a smile, but if you are going to then try and make out, (which from my readings of your posts, you are, you may disagree), that you are some how superior to everybody else because you can see past your desire for a cheaper product and see the "truths" about a poor beaten down GW by the nasty internet, then, no I'm not going to bother debating this with you because there is no point. We all get smug about our views on the hobby now and again (ref my views on the Ultimate SM Codex) but I'm not going provide you with a target while you wage a one man war on the internet on behalf of GW.

And now it's time to go off and actually do something constructive with my hobby time.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Ok, now that Formation Detachments are a thing?

Yeah, we need some new rules for competitive 40k.

Midnight


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

MidnightSun said:


> Ok, now that Formation Detachments are a thing?
> 
> Yeah, we need some new rules for competitive 40k.
> 
> Midnight


A simple ban of anything that isn't a core codex or the BRB itself will suffice. That includes supplements, FW, superheavies, buildings (other than the ones in the BRB) and formations.

Because god knows, the above list of material adds nothing useful ("useful" in this case meaning "balanced and adding diversity to tourney lists") to the competitive environment - and yes, I include the Inquisition book in that one.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jacobite said:


> There is not trying to cater to them and then there is what seems to be happening which is ignoring the issue completely. A GW involved tournamnet scene would go some way to alleviate it. As a non tournament player though I can't comment too much.


GW ran tournaments from 3rd up until 5th. They still run Throne of Skulls in Warhammer World. We've been having complaints of competitive play being an issue for how long? Longer than I've been back in the hobby I'm sure.



Jacobite said:


> *snip*


I'm not going to debate costs all day because half the time I'm ignored anyways. Plus I've got far too much homework with finals coming up.

I will say you're not covering all GW's costs there though. First we have the taxes they have to pay on things, the server upkeep costs (ask Jez if you don't think that's a thing), the cost of their IT employees, the cost of the time the Digital Edition team has to spend converting the codex into a digital format (it's more than just scanning, I assure you) as well ass updating all the FAQ stuff in there, the cost of also paying those same employees to update those books _for free_ for the life of the book, the cost of the employees who handle those FAQ/Eratta changes, and probably more that I'm not thinking of that factors into it. Yes even if it's only minutes spent knocking out an FAQ question or two that's minutes they're paying him for and have to recoup within a given number of copies sold so they can actually eventually make some money on the book and fund other books, models and projects.



Jacobite said:


> So those updated Sisters models and a proper paper copy Dex updated with new units for 6th are on the way next month are they? I mean you've written polite letters to them, I'm sure they must have read them and taken them on board since they weren't pissy and moany.


Well that's just obvious bait there. My first letter was a series of playtesting notes regarding the old book. And I have no proof but a couple of the things I did mention were Faith Points and the cost of the Heavy Flamer (not to mention how Jacobus and Celestine felt like auto-includes). They changed all four of those things.

As for a paper copy of the codex, it's coming in time. If not for this book as it is now, for the next one when there is the room and money to put a full plastic army out. 



Jacobite said:


> You want to get all high and mighty and lord over GW detractors and accuse people and the internet of being toxic in their opinions, how they express them and how it's "in the main" not GW's fault because you've taken a few accounting courses at uni over the last year or so?


Want to get high and mighty? No. Want to explain things though a rational thought process that doesn't just point fingers and accuse GW of trying to nick my wallet when I'm not looking? Yes.


----------



## Straken's_Fist (Aug 15, 2012)

Just a final thought on the cost side of things:
Honestly the only reason that 40k costs more than other games is because you need infinitely more models for 40k compared to the other games. But if you look at prices on a model by model basis GW are actually sometimes cheaper, and often no difference between prices. 
Case in point: Just ordered box sets of Malifaux and another starter box of Infinity over the weekend: All metal mins, each pack contains 5 or 6 minis, they both cost around £25.00. You can get a box of x10 plastic Space Marines for that, and if you go to the 25% off websites you can get them for even cheaper. 

However, what does cost A LOT more are the codices and all the rulebooks. They are often double the price, while rival companies will often offer a pdf download of rules for free if you don't want to fork out for the additional fluff and pictures in the rulebook. But in the case of the 40k rulebook, you are getting 300 pages as opposed to 150 pages for rival gaming systems. So you are getting double the content. All well and good. 
However, the difference here is that you don't have a choice to *not* buy the 40k rulebook and forgo all the pages in it dedicated to fluff, artwork and lots of pictures of models. You have to buy it or you cannot play. So there is that. 

Out of interest though Zion, in previous posts you mention GW have made mistakes throughout their history that other gaming companies have learned from. What mistakes in particular?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Straken's_Fist said:


> Out of interest though Zion, in previous posts you mention GW have made mistakes throughout their history that other gaming companies have learned from. What mistakes in particular?


A couple that come to mind off the top of my head are:
- How to balance the game for competitive play (GW has given up on that as of 6th ed)
- Brick and Mortars (honestly GW has been burning money on those for at least a decade now and with all their cost cutting and restructuring I'm surprised they weren't dropped in favor of FLGS and direct only support)
- Forums (GW definitely showed how to NOT run one)
- Rules with no models (that was a screw up that CHS and other companies exploited and it's burned them hard, from what I've seen a lot of other companies get the rules and models out at the same time instead)
- Publicly stating Finecast was cheaper than metal (generally they have trouble spinning things well)

I'm betting anyone could think of more. But yes, GW has stepped on it's own dick a few times in the last 30 some-odd years.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> ...
> We should try and leave cost of GW products out of this, as it's one of those factors that always seems to derail any good conversation about GW's policies and rules.
> 
> Lets just all agree on the idea that we are always willing to pay a lower price for the same product, and the price we pay can never go to low.
> ...


+1


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Sorry to dig up old treads, but I was thinking about this topic and I had an idea.

To me, it seems like a lot of the conplaints/anger/nerd rage comes from "spamy lists." Ex: Army lists with 3 or more of the same annoying unit.

How about for the tournaments, a 0-1 restriction on EVERYTHING that's NOT a troop choice.

Your only allowed one copy of a unit fron your codex unless it counts as a troop choice (or dedicated transport). But, if you had an ability that made something a troop choice, then you can have as many as you want. Like have Typhus make Plage Marines troops or what's his name from the Dark Angeles that makes terminators trooos.

Thoughts? (Be kind please)


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Frankly spamming is a lot less prevalent than it was in 5th, where 6 Chimeras full of Melta/Plasmavets or 6 Razorbacks were common simply due to the near-invulnerability of Mech.

I honestly think the easiest way to balance the game right now would be to make Flyers 0-1 per detachment, therefore allowing you 2 in total. No other unit breaks the game nearly as badly. It isn't the Heavy Support that's the problem, and Elites aren't used much in any army bar Tau and sometimes Space Marines. Non-Flyer FA choices don't see much time on the table either.

With that in mind, I think a 0-1 limit is overly harsh and doesn't solve the fundamental problem of balance in 40k at the moment.


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

It looks like the new escalation and stronghold supplements have finally pushed the first major tournament to create a comp rule set. Feast of Blades will be a comp tournament next year.

While the article is interesting and I have no real issues with a comp system, the comments on the article are entertaining.

Lots of screaming about what is one of the nastier combos out there right now getting hit (screamer star 2++ re-roll)...of course many of these are the same players that are freaking out about D-Weapons in tournament play.

Personally, I think it is about time, MTG has used a comp system basically since they started competitive tournaments, and it will be interesting to see how all of this falls out and what sort of comp environments are created much like the various comp systems in WFB (swiss, ETC, etc.)


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

iamtheeviltwin said:


> It looks like the new escalation and stronghold supplements have finally pushed the first major tournament to create a comp rule set. Feast of Blades will be a comp tournament next year....


Yes! I think this is a great idea! :good:



> "...You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters...."


I totally agree. Just replace "characters" with "units." :grin:

Of course, what to ban and/or restrict is a matter of debate, which is probably best done at another time and place. k:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Unit restrictions don't actually solve Screamerstars or Jetseer Council combos sadly unless you make very specific bans to keep them from being available as options.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Zion said:


> Unit restrictions don't actually solve Screamerstars or Jetseer Council combos sadly unless you make very specific bans to keep them from being available as options.


Interesting point! Thanks for the input. 
A 0-1 restrictions wouldn't stop screamerstar, but only having one herald of tzeentch would limit it's effectiveness. (4 heralds = 1 HQ, But each herald would be different)
But, I'll sleep on it and try to come up with other ideas


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I find it interesting that the thing they are going to ban at Feast of Blades is actually not that powerful except under certain circumstances (specifically Tzeentch). I love the Grimoire of True Names just for its randomness.Plus on a few occasions I have managed to get a 2++ invunrable on my Beasts of nurgle.
I just don't think GW care about tournaments in the way they used too and events like Throne of Skulls emphasis the playing of the game rather than the winning.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

humakt said:


> I find it interesting that the thing they are going to ban at Feast of Blades is actually not that powerful except under certain circumstances (specifically Tzeentch). I love the Grimoire of True Names just for its randomness.Plus on a few occasions I have managed to get a 2++ invunrable on my Beasts of nurgle.
> I just don't think GW care about tournaments in the way they used too and events like Throne of Skulls emphasis the playing of the game rather than the winning.


Yeah, GW definitely doesn't care about 40K tournaments anymore. Super sad.  Which is why people like the TO organize at Feast of Blades is making a ban/restricted list.
And your right, the Grimore of True Names is not that powerful. Only in one situation with the right units does it create an OP combo. And it's that one combo (screamerstar) that we, the players, need to find a fix for. Is banning the Grimore the right option? I don't know. But it's one option that would work.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Lord_Aaron said:


> Yeah, GW definitely doesn't care about 40K tournaments anymore. Super sad.  Which is why people like the TO organize at Feast of Blades is making a ban/restricted list.
> And your right, the Grimore of True Names is not that powerful. Only in one situation with the right units does it create an OP combo. And it's that one combo (screamerstar) that we, the players, need to find a fix for. Is banning the Grimore the right option? I don't know. But it's one option that would work.


I think it's the only option they have, the other would be banning Kairos but since he's almost essential to any competative Chaos Daemons army because of his Warlord trait and the 1 re-roll that's not going to happen. Imo they made a good call banning the Grimoire as it makes Screamer Star unplayable without hindering other possible builds.

If it were only that simple with the others a simple FaQ would clear the whole balance issue.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Ryu_Niimura said:


> I think it's the only option they have, the other would be banning Kairos but since he's almost essential to any competative Chaos Daemons army because of his Warlord trait and the 1 re-roll that's not going to happen. Imo they made a good call banning the Grimoire as it makes Screamer Star unplayable without hindering other possible builds.
> 
> If it were only that simple with the others a simple FaQ would clear the whole balance issue.


You could maybe ban the grimnoir from armies that also contain Kairos? Slightly less draconian than banning Deamon armies that don't contain him from being restricted. I hope this is not a trend as I would dislike this artificial handcap to be imposed in the UK.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

humakt said:


> You could maybe ban the grimnoir from armies that also contain Kairos? Slightly less draconian than banning Deamon armies that don't contain him from being restricted. I hope this is not a trend as I would dislike this artificial handcap to be imposed in the UK.


That would be almost every competative Daemon army out there, it's less of a hassle to just ban the Grimoire. I agree it's a fun item to play around with but the guy who thought Screamer star was a fun idea pretty much ruined that.

There are still lots of options for a competative Chaos Daemon army, just not the one that doesn't require brain function:grin:


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Still not sure but as I am not a super competitive player I would just use a portal instead.

Now flyers are probably the biggest issue with regards to fairness. Does restriction of one flyer per army cause certain armies problems?


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Restricting units is kind of a slipery slope imo, unlike outright banning things like the Grimoire that make certain units absurd. I can imagine a lot of people will bitch and moan when they can't field their 3 Helldrakes. Like I said before, if it were only so simple for the other armies out there a simple FaQ would suffice to fix the entire balance issue.

I'm not too familiar with any of the armies besides my own so I can't really say what could be done to balance their more cheesy units.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Ryu_Niimura said:


> Restricting units is kind of a slipery slope imo...


I totally agree. 
That's why I suggested 0-1 everything except troops. Your at the bottom of the slope, and it's "fair" to each army.
It doesn't solve everything, and there are other problems with it, but I'm still working on it


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Actually, I read about another idea the other day. How about a 25% point cap on FOC?

Troops: 25% min
HQ: Max 25%
Elites: Max 25%
Heavy Support: Max 25%
Fast Attack: Max 25%
I think there would also be a cap on dedicated transports (25%?) but I'm not sure exactly how that would work.

Any suggestions? What do you think of this? k:

Also, I heard how a lot of balance issuess resolve around the Divination displine. So how about a borrowing an idea from the Chaos codex and putting a limit (1/2) on how many powers a Physker (sp?) can take from any single discipline?
For example, your level 3 Phsyker can have only half of their powers from Divination (2) and a third from another discipline.

Thoughts?

Please let me know if you see any problems. I don't have all the new codexes yet.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Divination is not too bad. I find biomancy to be the most potent. The ability to both weaken your opponent and buff yourself with extra strength and toughness can be unbeatable in certain circumstances. But I don't think these need to be restricted. The randomness of the powers reduces this effect unless you have multiple psykers.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Yes, but several of the power builds rely on Divination... I think. Anyway, there does seem to be a fair amount of hate for it.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Lord_Aaron said:


> I totally agree.
> That's why I suggested 0-1 everything except troops. Your at the bottom of the slope, and it's "fair" to each army.
> It doesn't solve everything, and there are other problems with it, but I'm still working on it


Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.

Units are "balanced" (a loose term in this case) based off the rules presented in the codex. To modify those rules reduces the effectiveness of said units to the point where they may not really be worth it to even play.

Think about it. A trio of Heldrakes are a badass team that will ruin another players day. Making a rule that the player can only take one makes his Heldrake a much bigger risk, as it will still be a huge target but can't produce the same results without it's team. The question then becomes is it worth the points or am I better off running an additional unit of X.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.
> 
> Units are "balanced" (a loose term in this case) based off the rules presented in the codex. To modify those rules reduces the effectiveness of said units to the point where they may not really be worth it to even play.
> 
> Think about it. A trio of Heldrakes are a badass team that will ruin another players day. Making a rule that the player can only take one makes his Heldrake a much bigger risk, as it will still be a huge target but can't produce the same results without it's team. The question then becomes is it worth the points or am I better off running an additional unit of X.


Actually, there is no "balance" - no matter how loosely you use the term.

Yes, the heldrake is badass. Yes, one will probably get shot down. But it's /so/ badass that, as MidnightSun said, the fast attack slot is "the heldrake slot". There are 5 fast attack choices in the chaos codex, all relatively good. But the heldrake is miles above the other 4. The other 4 don't get used in the highest levels of tournament play.

On top of that, the existence of the Heldrake with baleflamers basically maked some armies unsuitable for tournament play. Just ask Sethis.

Edit: in hindsight, I might be getting my threads mixed up. 
There's another similar thread


----------



## Kecyre (Jun 25, 2012)

Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.

My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Kecyre said:


> Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.
> 
> My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.


Wow mate, what have you been smoking?:grin: I think you took a wrong turn somewhere along the way.

Also with the new FW release I don't think 3 Helldrakes are going to be a problem, or Screamer star for that matter:grin:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Kecyre said:


> Someone said Microsoft and Apple don't have forums? They in fact do. You can get to Apple forums via support and Microsoft has always had Technet.
> 
> My only complaint is the prices of digital codex. They should have really passed off the money they save from printing.


Tech support forums are not the same as the kind of fan forums people want GW to have. 

Also, the digital codexes include the cost of the continued support (IT for the server, cost of server upkeep, the free updates they do instead of charging you for a new one when something changes, ect). 

It's all packaged into the costs and thus GW can afford to do it.


----------



## Kecyre (Jun 25, 2012)

No, those are Apple servers hosting it. Even with a cut apple takes it's far more than it should be.


----------



## Lord_Aaron (Sep 24, 2010)

Let's try to leave the price complaints for another thread please.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Kecyre said:


> No, those are Apple servers hosting it. Even with a cut apple takes it's far more than it should be.


You're talking about iTunes, but GW also hosts them on the Black Library site with the .mobi and .epub versions. That's why they're only a little cheaper than the interactive ones from iTunes (which need a lot more work to setup and make sure it's all cross linked correctly and the like).


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> Restricting any unit for a game like 40K doesn't work because, unlike something like MTG, you have a very limited amount of resources to make an army out of. Restricting cards in MTG doesn't mean asmuch because there are thousands of cards you can still construct a deck from, in 40K and FB you a limited to the 20 or so units presented in the codex. Restricting that one unit could hurt your codex quite a bit.


Well given that the ally matrix allows everyone to ally with at least two other armies barring Tyranids, that might not be entirely correct. Consider:

In any given MTG tournament, you are restricted to a selection of cards from the many thousands available (let's assume you're playing Standard Constructed). Some of those may be banned. Most of them will not work in your deck archetype (almost all aggro cards are useless for a control deck, for example), and anywhere between half and two thirds will not fit in because of colour restrictions (with tri-colour being the most you can realistically build a tournament worthy deck from). Of those cards that match both colour and archetype that are currently in Standard, something in the region of 60% of those will be jank that have no place in a tournament deck.

Thus your pool of "potentially useful" cards that you can consider adding to your deck is often in the low tens, rather than hundreds range.

Compare that to the Space Marine codex, which has (at last count) 54 individual units in it, and suddenly the comparison doesn't look so wildly different, especially when you add in the fact that they are Battle Brothers with Blood Angels (41), Space Wolves (33), Dark Angels (34), Imperial Guard (45) and Tau (25) to give a grand total of 232 seperate units (not including upgrade characters like Telion) and that's not even considering Allies of Convenience/Desperation.

Obviously there is some overlap between codices (Tac squads are basically the same, no matter which book they come from) and there are also some terrible units in each codex, but we haven't even looked at Fortifications, Forgeworld or Apocalypse yet.

Therefore, even if some tournaments end up banning certain units (so far we've got a list of, what, 3-4 units and a wargear item?) there are *plenty* still left to choose from.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Well given that the ally matrix allows everyone to ally with at least two other armies barring Tyranids, that might not be entirely correct. Consider:
> 
> In any given MTG tournament, you are restricted to a selection of cards from the many thousands available (let's assume you're playing Standard Constructed). Some of those may be banned. Most of them will not work in your deck archetype (almost all aggro cards are useless for a control deck, for example), and anywhere between half and two thirds will not fit in because of colour restrictions (with tri-colour being the most you can realistically build a tournament worthy deck from). Of those cards that match both colour and archetype that are currently in Standard, something in the region of 60% of those will be jank that have no place in a tournament deck.
> 
> Thus your pool of "potentially useful" cards that you can consider adding to your deck is often in the low tens, rather than hundreds range.


The same idea can be applied to 40K however. If you want to play a specific type of army (say bikes) you will be limiting your self to specific types of units, much like how you be limited by the deck type you wanna play in MTG. Allies function as colors, as you will be looking for the units in the allied books to complement your deck, and you are limited by the number of "good" units that will be used in a dex as some units are just bad. Of course you can still take whatever units you want in 40K, just like you can run 5 colors in MtG, but it would reduce the overall effectiveness of your list (at least depending on MtG block or rule set).

Your actual choices for your list are just a limited, if not more so, then in Magic.



> Obviously there is some overlap between codices (Tac squads are basically the same, no matter which book they come from) and there are also some terrible units in each codex, but we haven't even looked at Fortifications, Forgeworld or Apocalypse yet.
> 
> Therefore, even if some tournaments end up banning certain units (so far we've got a list of, what, 3-4 units and a wargear item?) there are *plenty* still left to choose from.


Many tournaments already ban Forgeworld/Apoc and have imposed restrictions on Fortifications. Imposing more restrictions on players just further limits options and what lists will show up at any given Tournament.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

There may well be a gap between the choice available in each of the two systems, inevitable when you consider the completely different mediums of interaction (small cards vs large chunks of plastic and resin), markets (Primary vs Secondary) and game philosophy (minimalism vs expansionist). I'm simply pointing out that the comparison of "Thousands of cards" to "twenty or so units" has potential to be a false comparison since the statement ignores a lot of what the actual games offer.

And I would argue that restricting Riptides and Heldrakes does the exact opposite of "limits options and what lists will show up at any given tournament" because if you did so, suddenly two entire codices become viable as main armies again, namely Grey Knights and Space Wolves.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

Sethis said:


> And I would argue that restricting Riptides and Heldrakes does the exact opposite of "limits options and what lists will show up at any given tournament" because if you did so, suddenly two entire codices become viable as main armies again, namely Grey Knights and Space Wolves.


Don't forget BA jumper spam k:


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

We-ell you can play it as AV13 wall, which still works, kinda. Min sized Las/Plas Rback squads for scoring, 6 Preds (I prefer Auto/Las and Dakka Baals) and a Crusader with Hammernators. So the codex is "usable" if not actually good.


----------

