PDA

View Full Version : Why is GW making everything so Darn ;) competative?



cairodude12
19-11-2009, 21:13
Why are all the rules getting more focused to becoming ballanced and competative? It ruins the spirit of the game. The point that we, at least I, play this hobby is to have fun playing the game, not winning. I would have just as much fun, if not more, watching my opponent win as my men are hilariously cut down in some hideous way.

I will hold the LOTR SBG up as an example. It is a fun game, with very few restrictions, and you can create almost any kind of army with it, and you can recreate battles from the books and movies. But then GW stepped in and said, "NO! We want to make more money with tournaments! Lets put a 33% limit on the number of bows someone can have and everything will be more Fair!" Thus ruining anyone trying to play, say the scene where the riders of Minas Tirith charge to retake Osgiliath, or even just create a realistic army of elves. Really though, what kind of elf doesn't carry a bow, even if they are not a designated archer?
The GW said "Lets put more restrictions on to make it even more fair, like fantasy and 40k! Maybe we shouldn't let these two types of units work together and then put some more rules in and done!" How can you put a restriction on what kind of units (Besides good and evil, of which there should be exceptions, such as Merc. Corsairs or Harad that changed sides or something.) that can be in the same army?!!! Did GW forget that part of the fun of the SBG is that you can play through the end of the Second Age and the entire third age and through the course of this you could change history? What if Rohan ended up being corrupted by Sauruman and Rohan marched against Minas Tirith with Isenguard and Mordor?

I would also like to see some more interesting rules like the early editions of Fantasy and 40k, not just some roll on a chart for a special ability like some units in recent codex's. Non competitive and unbalanced things like this are what make the hobby fun and GW ruins this when they try to limit stuff like that just so that when someone wins there can can be no blaming the unbalanced rulebooks. As if this matters in the spirit of the hobby anyway... If anyone still believes in that...

Dai-Mongar
19-11-2009, 22:15
Nobody's stopping you playing the game the way you want to play it. Creating a more standardised system for LotR is more about making it easier to have a pick-up game with someone at a store, rather than making it "competative". I personally commend you for wanting to mix things up with your gaming group, though.
As far as earlier editions of WFB and 40K go, I think you may be viewing them through rose-tinted glasses. Many of the rules were needlessly convoluted and bogged the game down. Adding in a few special rules for a scenario you've come up with is cool, but most people probably want a game that runs nice and smoothly without bizarre rules slowing the gameplay.

Grimstonefire
19-11-2009, 23:20
Restrictions work both ways though, they do limit the fun stuff a bit, but they also reduce the seriously unbalanced things (excepting of daemons).

All the fun would go out of it if they took off all restrictions.

That's not to say they couldn't do more white dwarf lists where a lot of the normal rules didn't apply (like the war of the beard/ war of vengeance campaign list, but making it part of the core army rules is essential imo.

Sure there's always room for some improvement.

Zoned
20-11-2009, 05:44
Yeah. I remember the days in LOTR when I would walk towards the all bow elf army, getting painfully shot each step of the way. Then I got into combat with maybe 25% of my force...only to get out fought by the superior skilled Elves who now outnumbered me. That was lots of fun.

IJW
20-11-2009, 10:28
As far as earlier editions of WFB and 40K go, I think you may be viewing them through rose-tinted glasses


I would also like to see some more interesting rules like the early editions of Fantasy and 40k, not just some roll on a chart for a special ability like some units in recent codex's.
Case in point - go back to Rogue Trader, and everything was random charts.

However I think the problem is not so much with GW as a lot of players - look through pretty well any GW publication and it will repeatedly encouraging you to make the game your own and treat missions etc. as starting points for when you don't want to run a scenario of your own.

Chaos and Evil
20-11-2009, 10:41
I don't think they're making the games more balanced at all... the course of Warhammer Fantasy's 7th edition at least has been one of sacrificing balance (and more importantly, tactical complexity) on the altar of AwesomeHammer (a greater emphasis on characters and monsters).

lanrak
20-11-2009, 12:26
Hi all.
The rules for 40k seem to have followed the path of...
Cool ideas poorly explained and applied to the game.:eek:

Artistic influence seems to heavily impact the rules writing.Giving rise to several seperate sporadic additions , rather than less complicated method of comprehensive development.

With the push for more minatures in games the streamlining of the rules was achived by simply hacking out sections of the rules indescriminatly.
(Cut selection based on simplicity of developer action , without much thought to end game play ramifications.IMO.)

In short.
GW fail to explain the game play sufficiently well, so GW reduce the amount of game play , and STILL fails to explian it well!:mad:

Current 40k has the simplest game play of all the TTMG games I am aware of.
Yet has the most complicated rule set!(The number of exceptions outnumber the rules!)

The game play of 40k could be covered by much simpler rules set.
Its just GW didnt bother/ were not capable of doing it.But GW are a minatures company ,NOT a games company .

Current 40k rules are not developed to be 'competative' but focus so heavily on the strategic ,(in an attempt to sell minatures,) that game play has been comprimised.IMO.

Great game play is enjoyed by the players no matter what the outcome.
Poor game play tends to make players obsess about W/D/L.

I think the OP is pointing out the side effects of poor game development , not so much specific rules?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Supremearchmarshal
20-11-2009, 14:16
I think it's a bit of both. GW refuses to tackle the core problems of their rule sets (I mean primarily 40k and WH Fantasy, LotR is a bit different since it was released much later), and instead their solution to problems is either:

a) remove options. The idea is less options = less cheese. But that usually doesn't work out, and leaves the rules feeling bland or dumbed-down.

or

b) fix it with special rules and exceptions. This is like applying patches on something that has a poor foundation - in the end the whole thing will crash down. It creates confusion among the players (nobody is exactly sure which rule has priority, there could be poor wording issues etc.), and leads to situations like the same weapons having different rules in different codices.

But, on the other hand, a significant number of players are completely unwilling to try changing the rules a bit - regardless that most GW rule and codex books encourage players to experiment and invent house rules if they feel like it. Some players would respond by saying the official rules are much more balanced, but in my experience, GW does a poor job of playtesting them (e.g. Daemons in WH fantasy), so this is not the case.

Edit: oh, and I agree with Lanrak that GW tries to make players build larger and armies, ignoring the fact that this leaves less room for units to maneuver and thus making the game less about tactics and more about dice-rolling.

Chaos and Evil
20-11-2009, 17:39
Pretty much everything Lanrak says is true, especially these tid-bits:


Current 40k has the simplest game play of all the TTMG games I am aware of.
Yet has the most complicated rule set!(The number of exceptions outnumber the rules!)


The game play of 40k could be covered by much simpler rules set.


Current 40k rules are not developed to be 'competative' but focus so heavily on the strategic ,(in an attempt to sell minatures,)


However, I think the eventual result is that Warhammer 40,000 (and the other Core games) are excellent introductory-level wargames, and that's good for GW as their target demographic are largely beginners!

If people want proper wargames a few years later on, they can either move to one of GW's wargames for adults (Epic, Warmaster, BoFA), or use a more adult ruleset with their 28mm models.

To use a salient example, the core ruleset for Epic are probably one third the number of words of the core Warhammer 40,000 ruleset, and yet have a tactical depth to them that make Warhammer 40,000's gameplay look frankly childish, in comparison.

In addition, army lists and all unit stats for each army in the game can take up as little as 2 pages each (yes 2 pages to give all the rules, points costs and army list construction restraints for the Space Marines army list, or the Steel Legion IG army list, or the Krieg IG army list, etc), which makes Warhammer 40,000's special rules-filled unit entries look bloated and inefficient, but again, endless special rules and exceptions make the Warhammer 40,000 game inspring for GW's core demographic.


So what I'm trying to say is that GW clearly know exactly what they're doing with their rules, and it isn't bad rules design that's making the core games so heavily reliant on Dicehammer, but good games design combined with an awareness of what their core demographic wants (a very simple game, with bucketloads of inspiring special rules).

grissom2006
20-11-2009, 20:40
Well lets see ummm could it be that playing a competative army and game is for more fun than playing a game which is either a walk in the park or a complete stamp in the face for a player. The moment playing a game becomes easy and doesn't require any thought process what so ever is the moment i quit it. I want my brain to be challanged as to what i do next not set out string out event that mean a win or a loss.

lanrak
20-11-2009, 20:45
Hi C&E.
Although I agree with most of what you say...(Especialy about E.A. being a much better rule set than 40k.:D)

GW PLC reduce thier 'core games ethos' to simply try to squeese as much low brow marketing of thier latest releses as possible.(Chasing short term profits.)

BUT...Ignoring game play issues reduces customer retention , causing the short fall to be covered by expensive cyclical recruitment methods.

Concidering the decreasing customer base, and the increased price barriers, driving interest in GW product down, I am not so sure they do know that they are doing......

GW PLC may be able to convince some people that they are doing the right thing.But more and more are spotting the flaw in thier plan when viewed over the long term.;)

happy gaming ,
Lanrak.

Supremearchmarshal
20-11-2009, 20:59
So what I'm trying to say is that GW clearly know exactly what they're doing with their rules, and it isn't bad rules design that's making the core games so heavily reliant on Dicehammer, but good games design combined with an awareness of what their core demographic wants (a very simple game, with bucketloads of inspiring special rules).

Inspiring? Sounds more like complicated to me. And WH40k is really not a "very simple" set of rules. As you said yourself, you have to learn a lot more rules to play 40k than you do to play Epic.


In addition, army lists and all unit stats for each army in the game can take up as little as 2 pages each (yes 2 pages to give all the rules, points costs and army list construction restraints for the Space Marines army list, or the Steel Legion IG army list, or the Krieg IG army list, etc), which makes Warhammer 40,000's special rules-filled unit entries look bloated and inefficient, but again, endless special rules and exceptions make the Warhammer 40,000 game inspring for GW's core demographic.

If you were a new player, who wanted to get into the game as quickly as possible, which of these would you choose? Two pages of well-written rules or 60 pages of complicated rules (which are for some bizarre reason mixed up with the background)?
Oh, and why couldn't well-written core rules AND lots of fun, special rules go together?

Furthermore, GW shows a distinct lack of a broader picture for the development of their core games. Their design philosophy changes often (compare Codex: Dark Angels to Codex: Space Wolves), and a lot seems to be left to the whim of each codex/army book writer.

sigur
20-11-2009, 22:04
Why are all the rules getting more focused to becoming ballanced and competative?

I don't think they really do. It's some people that make us believe it becomes more competitive but it really doesn't. You're free to play the way you like.

Baggers
20-11-2009, 22:12
I will hold the LOTR SBG up as an example. It is a fun game, with very few restrictions, and you can create almost any kind of army with it, and you can recreate battles from the books and movies. But then GW stepped in and said, "NO! We want to make more money with tournaments! Lets put a 33% limit on the number of bows someone can have and everything will be more

I am afraid your wrong with this point. There always has been the 33% limit on bows ever since the original rulebook released in 2001. In fact they have only ever said about 4 models could not be used in points matches. They were Gollum, Sauron, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. However that was removed when Legions of Middle Earth came out.

If you want to play the movie scenario where Faramir and a bunch of knights get shot to pieces. There is a scenario in the orginial Return of the King rulebooks. Where the forces of Mordor are armed with nothing but bows. :)

On topic. GW needs to make every army competitive. I have faced a Dark Elf army where everything shoots and I loose in turn 1. So in some respects the rules like the 33% are there to help make games mores fun for both people.

Chaos and Evil
22-11-2009, 13:29
Hi C&E.
Although I agree with most of what you say...(Especialy about EPIC being a much better rule set than 40k.:D)
I ain't said better, I only said 'more appropriate' (or at least attempted to imply that).

I genuinely believe GW's Core games are brilliant examples of good games design... for kids (and for adults who put their brain in 'michael bay mode').

Just as EPIC is an example of brilliant games design... for adults.


There is no 'better' or 'worse' between Warhammer 40,000 and EPIC, it is simply that each is 'more appropriate' to a certain kind of wargamer.



BUT...Ignoring game play issues reduces customer retention , causing the short fall to be covered by expensive cyclical recruitment methods.
GW's always had poor customer retention. Sooner or later (normally sooner) GW's customers either quit the hobby (the vast majority do this), or move on to more 'advanced' (adult-appropriate) wargames like EPIC (a very small minority do this).


GW PLC may be able to convince some people that they are doing the right thing.But more and more are spotting the flaw in thier plan when viewed over the long term.;)
I view it as more and more people are moving on to more adult-appropriate wargames.

Because, y'know, they're becoming adults. :)


Inspiring? Sounds more like complicated to me. And WH40k is really not a "very simple" set of rules. As you said yourself, you have to learn a lot more rules to play 40k than you do to play Epic.

The gameplay of Epic is complex, but the rules are simple(r).
The gameplay of Warhammer 40,000 is simple(r), but the rules are very complicated.

However, it is those gnarled, complicated twines of special rules that often inspire the player base.

They mistake "awesome special rule #1343" for a mechanic that adds tactical depth, when all it does is add strategic depth.

Which is fine for GW, as a strategy-heavy game (one based very heavily on list building), where in-game tactics are simplistic, is a game that promotes the purchasing of certain combinations of model kits... ie: it promotes buying armies!!


If you were a new player, who wanted to get into the game as quickly as possible, which of these would you choose? Two pages of well-written rules or 60 pages of complicated rules (which are for some bizarre reason mixed up with the background)?
Oh I'd go for the more streamlined, elegantly-written ruleset... but then, I'm not GW's target audience.

GW's target audience is genuinely inspired by almost every non-core unit type in the game having a unique special rule or two.


Oh, and why couldn't well-written core rules AND lots of fun, special rules go together?
They can and do; In no way do I think Warhammer 40,000 (or any of the core games) are poorly written.

I think they're brilliantly written, and examples of a clear and consistent games design phillosophy.


That 'Core Game' design phillosophy is : "Our games must inspire the consumer"
It is not : "Our games will provide the customer with a balanced, tactically complex, simulation-style wargame"


Since providing the consumer with the latter, and not the former, is likely to be hurtful to the company's financials, I think GW's travelling in the correct direction.


Furthermore, GW shows a distinct lack of a broader picture for the development of their core games. Their design philosophy changes often (compare Codex: Dark Angels to Codex: Space Wolves), and a lot seems to be left to the whim of each codex/army book writer.

Ah but if the latest Codex updates rules and re-defines stats (even in a minor way like what occured with Storm Shields, for example), isn't that inspiring to the Core demographic?

Tarax
23-11-2009, 08:49
C&E,

I agree with most of your arguments. This made me realize I'm not playing the game I want to play.

I like the fantasy setting and most races. I also like to play massive battles where whole armies fight each other. I like the epic battles in Lord of the Rings (Helms Deep, Pelannor Fields) and the role certain characters have in them (Aragorn, Gimli, Eomer, etc).
But Warhammer Fantasy does not fulfill the role I seek. I want loads of models with only a few characters. However GW has it the other way round, where characters (and special units and monsters) rule and normal troops play on the sidelines.
I consider myself an adult, both in age and maturity. But I feel that the 'mature' games, like Warmaster and Epic, satisfy my need for wargaming. The biggest irk I got is where in WF every unit is in some way different. In Warmaster, these distinctions are made obsolete.
(Before you start, I know there are differences.)

I do not want to go and start Warmaster and have all my Fantasy models made redundant. I like my models and want to play with them. The game may not be what I want it to be, but it has taken me years of painting and large amounts of money to get where I am today.

Back on topic:

cairodude, I think you're overreacting. The game is there to be played for fun. But to make it fun for both players, there are some restrictions needed. You may think it's fun to be walked over, but others may not. It may be fun for 1 game, but every game would make it tedious.

Just my thoughts.

yabbadabba
23-11-2009, 09:52
@ Baggers - the 33% rule wasn't around for the first few months of the release of FotR. It came in a little later.

In this case I think GW is and isnt reacting to the world around it.

Is: Their core demographic has been deliberately changed to 12-16 year olds. They are easier to keep, easier to milk and there is a lot more of them that will be interested in toy soldiers. For the 2-4 years they are in the hobby they will bring in more per head than a Vet would. Vets are nostalgically loyal and financially capricious. Vets add to the growing base of skills and knowledge but are highly opnionated and often cynical about change.

Isnt. Back when I were a lad (some years ago) there wasn't an awful lot on the wargames market. So we took rules and made things up to fit the periods we wanted to play. Now there is so much on the market you can pretty much find a rule system and an army list that fits in with your conception of what a battle should look like. Add in that many people don't commit as time anymore, that the "tournament" style of play is accepted as a norm and, thanks to consumerism, we want things handed to us on a plate for our money. GW still lives in the world of 4 blokes round each other's houses running a campaign and the rulebook is stuffed full of post its with rules variants. As such it sees the inconsistencies in its rules as less of a hindrance and more of an excuse for people to get their own ideas running.

So things are becoming more competitive because of the gaming style changing - people want a quick, decisive fix.

Chaos and Evil
23-11-2009, 11:49
C&E,

I agree with most of your arguments. This made me realize I'm not playing the game I want to play...

...Warhammer Fantasy does not fulfill the role I seek....
...I consider myself an adult, both in age and maturity. But ...

...I do not want to go and start Warmaster and have all my Fantasy models made redundant. I like my models and want to play with them. The game may not be what I want it to be, but it has taken me years of painting and large amounts of money to get where I am today...
And that's why many adults end up playing a wargame that isn't best-suited to them, whilst others get disillusioned with the hobby and quit, rather than start playing a more age-appropriate wargame. :)

Ain't nothing wrong with modifying the rules to make you happier, or using another 28mm fantasy ruleset, mind you, if you want to keep using your 28mm figs.

Personally I enjoy playing Warhammer Fantasy from time to time, with my brain in 'michael bay mode', as just one of many wargames I play. It makes a nice change to be able to just write an army list then relax and throw dice and watch stuff die in a largely random manner.

GomezAddams
23-11-2009, 14:01
You know, I remember making the same complaints when 3rd edition rolled up and every marine assault squad got vastly out dated. I remember grumbling about how 'close combat weapon' didnt actually mean anything, and that I could arm them all with toothpicks and they'd still give the extra attack.

I stopped grumbling and went back to playing 2nd. You'd be amazed how many current edition players prefer it after giving it a go.


Not that I'm saying eithers better, it just depends on how you want to play. If its not about winning for you, then surely you're gaming group is of the same mentality...

Hicks
23-11-2009, 17:33
I don't think they make things balanced at all, it's all about power creep now. Take Space Wolves as an exemple, they are better than other marines in every way. It might be fun for the SW player who likes to win a lot, but think of the DA player who uses similar units. His version of those units are both weaker and more expensive, it's impossible to deny that the DA player is handicaped from the start. I think this is a particularly good exemple because while they have different codices, marine armies are still pretty similar because they share lots of the same units.

Now I fear for what nids might become, I don't want them to be able to steam roll everyone but the latest codices.

lanrak
23-11-2009, 18:58
HI all.
C&E, I quantify rule sets as 'amount of rules to game play ratio,' because I enjoy playing a game more than reading rules!
And as 40k has THE WORST rules to game play ratio of any rule set I am aware of... just about ANY rule set is 'better' to me!:D

When GW supported a wide range of games to appeal to ALL customers, then people could just play the GW game the suited them best.

However in a corperate attempt to increase returns,ONLY core games are promoted.:rolleyes:

So rather than 12+ games....;)
You get decent rule set for 'Tolken' at skirmish rules or regimental level.

OR GW Fantasy with 30 year old Napoleonic game mechanics/GW Sci Fantasy with 30 year old Napoleonic game mechanics...:rolleyes:

It has been proven the asthetics drive GW minature sales.
All the special rules do is give GW a 'flimsy justification to overcharge ' for thier minatures.

The current buisness model works well for short term profit...but sustianable growth in the long term is very unlikley!

GW PLC love to use self forfilling prophecies...

''We have to charge so much because people buy so few...''
(If they lowered thier price point, they could sell more and reap the economies of scale, plastic production was meant to exploit!)

''We only support one army because the players dont play the others we havnt suported for years...''
(Why produce a wide minature range if you are only going to support a fraction of them?Just produce what you are goping to support and save a mint!)

''We have to maximise returns of the new customers before they realise what lack of gameplay 40k actualy has...''

GW constsantly bang on about 'enjoying playing the game'.But place so little importance on game play during development, that playing to win -becomes the default option for some!:eek:

If the gameplay -rules ratio was better , GW could actualy develop thier games and use game play to drive minature sales!
(Like every 'actual' game developer-manufacturer!;))

I am just trying to pointing out the GW 'path of least effort to short term profit', is endagering the long term viablity of GW PLC.

IMO, ALL gamers deserve maximum game play from the minumum amount of rules.
Even if some are nieve enough to accept 'unecissarily bloated and counterintuitive rule sets ' from an exploitive company, it doesnt mean they deserve to get it!.

TTFN
Lanrak.

warhammergrimace
24-11-2009, 10:23
There are a number of options available to you if you don't like the current set of rules, play with an older version or switch to another game system.

Recently I've been playing with a number of different rules for Warhammer, which have included WHFB 1st edition, which was quite different from the current set, also used Warhammer Ancient Battles, though there is now magic system with this, but we used non magic based armies.

A lot of people complain about how they don't like the current rules, but don't or won't change the rules or play with a different set. I personally don't have any major issues with the current rule sets, I just enjoy trying out new rule systems, it can be quite fun to find another set of rules and try them out.

Tarax
24-11-2009, 11:39
Personally I enjoy playing Warhammer Fantasy from time to time, with my brain in 'michael bay mode', as just one of many wargames I play. It makes a nice change to be able to just write an army list then relax and throw dice and watch stuff die in a largely random manner.

LOL That's why/how I play 40K. With Imperial Guard I stand no chance of winning, so I sit back and let my troops die in droves and my Leman Russ(es) make the kills. :D

Maybe it's because of my location that people who start in this hobby are not the 12-years old kids, but the more mature 15/16+. Still, most people are upwards from 20. So, we may be at a point where somewhere else people have started to drift away from GW, we still play if to the fullest.

Chaos and Evil
24-11-2009, 13:19
LOL That's why/how I play 40K. With Imperial Guard I stand no chance of winning, so I sit back and let my troops die in droves and my Leman Russ(es) make the kills. :D
That's about the only way possible to play a GW core game IMHO ; playing the GW core games in a more competative style is an exercise in masochism.


Maybe it's because of my location that people who start in this hobby are not the 12-years old kids, but the more mature 15/16+. Still, most people are upwards from 20. So, we may be at a point where somewhere else people have started to drift away from GW, we still play if to the fullest.
But very few past their late 20's, I'm sure.

Dangersaurus
25-11-2009, 00:12
Why are all the rules getting more focused to becoming ballanced and competative? It ruins the spirit of the game. The point that we, at least I, play this hobby is to have fun playing the game, not winning.

...

New Lizards: 23/1/3
Only Gobos: 10/1/7
Tau: 13/2/2
Lurtz, and his merry band of Uruk-Hai scouts: 10/4/1


I don't know why this struck me as so Darn ;) funny.

Chaos and Evil
25-11-2009, 00:59
New Lizards: 23/1/3
Unhappily, my own ratio is similar.

Dribble Joy
25-11-2009, 02:14
What should (personally) be beared in mind is that regardless of the system, most people will leave wargaming at some stage. Be it 40k, WHFB, Warmachine or whatever. It is generally not something that a wide audience retains interest in.

On the subject at hand, lets compare most of GW's games against Warmachine.
I love the latter's system. It's basic rules system is brilliant, but I loathe what they have done with it. Each unit has to have some unique, special (frequently dirty) rule, that will inevitably be cohesive with something else. The whole system actively promotes competitive, rules-lawyering uber-combos and a lack of sportsmanship. 'Play like you've got a pair.' I couldn't disagree more. It's very nature encites a kind of tactical and strategic 'cowardice'.

The fact that most of the units in GW games are unique simply by virtue of their basic stats and simple rules (frequently USRs), not requiring specific 'back-up', alludes to a far more varied and free gaming system.

The comment that GW's games 'inspire' the consumer, is personally something I agree with.
If all that the games are is a mechanism for just playing the game, then half the aspect of the hobby is lost.

I didn't convert my entire army because it would further my ability to play the game, it's because of what the units I use could be doing in a background sense intrigued me.

Havock
25-11-2009, 05:57
40k/WHF have both come down to a 'one upping', every army must have something new, awesome and spectacular etc. etc.

You know, when I started out not too terribly long ago, a few years that is, chosen chaos knights were considered hardcore, awesome and the WHF equivalent of a tactical nuke. Now, there's stegadons, steam tanks and greater daemons all over place. It's more a contest of special rules than armies. One of the reason why I am going to focus more on BFG and AI, as well as Battletech.

Tarax
25-11-2009, 11:29
But very few past their late 20's, I'm sure.

There were (actually they we more mid to late 30s, early 40s), but they stopped because of the Power Creep and frequent changes.


What should (personally) be beared in mind is that regardless of the system, most people will leave wargaming at some stage. Be it 40k, WHFB, Warmachine or whatever. It is generally not something that a wide audience retains interest in.

Some people die, some people have less time (work/family). We all stop at one point. But the reason we stop should not be induced by some act by GW. It should be our own choice. Apart from dying, of course. :angel: :D


The fact that most of the units in GW games are unique simply by virtue of their basic stats and simple rules (frequently USRs), not requiring specific 'back-up', alludes to a far more varied and free gaming system.

QFT

Chaos and Evil
25-11-2009, 11:38
What should (personally) be beared in mind is that regardless of the system, most people will leave wargaming at some stage. Be it 40k, WHFB, Warmachine or whatever. It is generally not something that a wide audience retains interest in.
However if you make it into your late 20's and you're still wargaming, likely you will be for many years to come, although it's not highly likely you'll be playing GW Core Games for those years...

warhammergrimace
26-11-2009, 13:07
There are plenty of gamers past their 20's out there. Both myself and my wife are past 30 and game, yes I married to a female gamer, they are rare but they do exist.

I also belong to a club that has an average age of around 40-45, with the oldest member being retired.

Most people, including GW, assume that gamers stop in their 20's or earlier, but if you leave the comfort of the GW store and join a club, you'll find a lot of older gamers. Most gamers move into other game systems after a while, they start looking at other avenues, a lot of time this tends to be historical gaming.

Most historical wargamers are in the older age bracket.

Chaos and Evil
26-11-2009, 14:38
I agree, they move on to either historicals, or more 'advanced' (adult appropriate) scifi or fantasy systems.

yabbadabba
26-11-2009, 15:35
There are plenty of gamers past their 20's out there. Both myself and my wife are past 30 and game, yes I married to a female gamer, they are rare but they do exist.
I also belong to a club that has an average age of around 40-45, with the oldest member being retired.
Most people, including GW, assume that gamers stop in their 20's or earlier, but if you leave the comfort of the GW store and join a club, you'll find a lot of older gamers. Most gamers move into other game systems after a while, they start looking at other avenues, a lot of time this tends to be historical gaming.
Most historical wargamers are in the older age bracket.


I agree, they move on to either historicals, or more 'advanced' (adult appropriate) scifi or fantasy systems.

At last some common sense!:eek:

warhammergrimace
27-11-2009, 11:20
A slight change in the subject, sort of. I been thinking of getting into playing a 1930's Pulp action game, and came across Rat Trap Productions (http://www.rattrapproductions.com/Bullpen/) and I wondered if anyone had played any of their games.

I just fancy playing some daft pulp style games, that include mad scientists, rocketmen, G-men, gangsters etc, also some sort jungle/lost world campaign, with dinosaurs, cavemen and King Kong.

I've got some of Copplestine's (http://www.copplestonecastings.co.uk/) minis and I'm now just looking around for a set of rules.

R Man
27-11-2009, 11:53
Well, The core Rules of Fantasy and 40 are actually good, they are just written in a complicated way. The real problem is that the army books and codecies are all inconsistent with each other. If GW had a proper design team then this might be less of a problem. That and proper online support. The sad part is that online support could be done really easily. One guy could do it. Perhaps they could divorce the rules updates from the new models, as this would allow the designers to act with more independence.

The thing to do, instead of waffling about this here perhaps we should make an online partition, listing what we expect from GW, that we want online support, more playtesting (or even more reasonable prices). We could go around to all the other sites, 40k online, The Round Table, Druchii.net, the Empire one etc and so on. Maybe then they'd be forced to listen.

Chaos and Evil
27-11-2009, 12:38
Well, The core Rules of Fantasy and 40 are actually good, they are just written in a complicated way.
The core rule for Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are not just 'good', they're brilliant examples of targeted games design... for kids.

Really, as childrens' games you cannot fault them.


If GW had a proper design team then this might be less of a problem.
GW have a highly experienced design team who know exactly what they're doing. The problem appears to be that you don't agree with their design philosophy (designing their games mostly for kids), not that they are poor game designers.


That and proper online support. The sad part is that online support could be done really easily. One guy could do it.
I don't see why a different style of online support to that currently offered is required for a kids' game.


Perhaps they could divorce the rules updates from the new models, as this would allow the designers to act with more independence.
Tieing the two together promotes sales, and GW is a business...


The thing to do, instead of waffling about this here perhaps we should make an online partition, listing what we expect from GW, that we want online support, more playtesting (or even more reasonable prices). We could go around to all the other sites, 40k online, The Round Table, Druchii.net, the Empire one etc and so on. Maybe then they'd be forced to listen.
You want to 'partition' (petition, I assume, as I doubt you want to cut GW up into smaller chunks) GW to... what?

- Give online "support" (which they already do plenty of, for beginners... I assume you mean online rules updates to balance the games)

That is unnessesary considering the target demographic for GW's core games.
For those who are outside of the target demographic yet still play the core games (adult tournament gamers, for example), GW's quite justifiable policy is that those gamers can look after themselves.

Why should GW re-write all their core games to make them tournament-appropriate, if that was never the intention in the first place?


- More playtesting.

Why?
GW's core games aren't primarily intended to be tournament-appropriate, they're clearly intended as wacky-fun games for kids, and adults with their brains in "Michael Bay mode" (and are, I do not hesistate to say, really excellent games when played in that style!), only a loose veneer of balance is required.


- More reasonable prices.

You mean price cuts?
An online petition won't get that (or any of the other things you ask for, in fact).
Only cold hard financial facts will convince GW that price cuts (and not price rises) are the way to go.
Clearly, the facts (market research, and years of experience) point in the opposite direction to your wishes.


=====

You seem to be wishing that the GW Core Games were tournament-appropriate (balanced, elegantly written, and tactically complex), when in fact due to their target demographic, they are in many regards the opposite of what you wish for.

They must be unbalanced, because Codex Creep (the latest army must be very good!) demands it.
They must be inelegantly written, because hundreds of special / unique rules inspire the target demographic.
They must be tactically simple, because the GW Core Games are primarily intended for children who have never played a wargame before.

I'd suggest you try an "advanced" ruleset for your 25/28/30mm miniatures, or start a more "advanced" (and incidentally, cheaper in to collect) GW game like Epic or Warmaster... because GW aren't going to be affected by an online petition into changing the entire design philosophy that has guided their core games for the last 20 years.

Supremearchmarshal
27-11-2009, 14:05
The core rule for Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are not just 'good', they're brilliant examples of targeted games design... for kids.

Really, as children's games you cannot fault them.

Sorry I took a few days to reply, was too busy. Anyway, I can see your point, but I'm afraid I disagree with it for the most part. I know a *lot* of younger players play 40k and fantasy not because of the rules, but for 2 other reasons:

1) they're supported by GW. Specialist games are well...you know in what a state they are. So the minis usually can't be bought in most stores. This brings us to...

2) Players who play these games are fewer, and far less likely to show up at GW stores, so when the kids get interested in GW, they probably won't even be aware of the other games GW offers.

Incidentally, *I* wanted to start Epic a couple of years ago. But guess what? Not opponents. But it wasn't always like that. When I was a kid, the games that brought me into the GW hobby were Heroquest and Space Crusade. I started 40k years later.

Another thing I'd like to draw your attention to is GW's third core game, LotR. This is a game targeted at kids, and yet has much more elegant rules than Fantasy or 40k.


They must be unbalanced, because Codex Creep (the latest army must be very good!) demands it.

There's a problem with it though. It cannot be sustained indefinitely, and then you get Codex: Dark Angels. :D


They must be inelegantly written, because hundreds of special / unique rules inspire the target demographic.

Again I'll have to disagree. Rules can be elegant and inspiring. Anything else is just shoddy design IMO.
Besides, notice how GW has, on the whole, simplified the options in the codices (no more armoury, just to name one exampe).


They must be tactically simple, because the GW Core Games are primarily intended for children who have never played a wargame before.

I agree mostly. Though tactically simple *and* elegant/intuitive would be ideal, no? Few people like to argue about rules, or spend time searching through rulebooks.

yabbadabba
27-11-2009, 14:24
@ Supremearchmarshal - when I were a lad nobody played toy soldiers. So I had to go and make opponents. Whats wrong with that?

Chaos and Evil
27-11-2009, 14:40
I know a *lot* of younger players play 40k and fantasy not because of the rules, but for 2 other reasons:

1) they're supported by GW. Specialist games are well...you know in what a state they are. So the minis usually can't be bought in most stores. This brings us to...

2) Players who play these games are fewer, and far less likely to show up at GW stores, so when the kids get interested in GW, they probably won't even be aware of the other games GW offers.
Quite true.

But the reasons why "1" occured are due to the Specialist Games either:

A - Requiring the use of less miniatures (BFG, Mordheim, Necromunda, etc)

or

B - Being more appealing to adults due to more tactically complex / simulation style rule systems (Epic, Warmaster, Battle of Five Armies... BFG could sit here too, the poor thing)

All the A's were sidelined as GW wants to sell lots of toy soldiers (they're a business, after all!).
All the B's were sidelined as the adult wargaming market simply isn't anything like as big, or as liable to spend large ammounts of cash (selling to the Core demographic is simply a lot more profitable).

This led to "2" occuring, which naturally shrank the ammount of people purcasing models for the "Advanced" GW games like Epic even further.

Neither point 1 or 2 actually refutes my own point, which is that GW's Core games are marketed towards, and designed for, children. If anything they reinforce my point that GW is focusing all their energies on areas that don't involve marketing tactically complex wargames to adults.


Incidentally, *I* wanted to start Epic a couple of years ago. But guess what? Not opponents.
People are justifiably nervous of spending 100 on a new Epic army, when they have no guarantee of liking the game system (so they continue to spend 300 a time on new Warhammer 40,000 armies instead :angel:).

I restarted Epic in my area a few years ago by buying and painting two armies.

After showing people the game a bunch of times, we now have a regular gaming circle of Epic players, and in fact most of them have quit Warhammer 40,000 completely as a consequence of discovering the more adult-appropriate Epic.


But it wasn't always like that. When I was a kid, the games that brought me into the GW hobby were Heroquest and Space Crusade. I started 40k years later.
Aye I had several of the self-contained "side games" back then too, and they were certainly one of the avenues through which people entered the arena of GW gaming... GW as a whole used to be a landscape of wider vistas, instead of a landscape of three very deep canyons. :)



Another thing I'd like to draw your attention to is GW's third core game, LotR. This is a game targeted at kids, and yet has much more elegant rules than Fantasy or 40k.
I agree that LOTR is somewhat more elegantly written (making more use of generic, rather than unique, special rules, for example), but it has no greater tactical complexity than the other Core games.


There's a problem with it (Codex Creep) though. It cannot be sustained indefinitely, and then you get Codex: Dark Angels. :D
A small blip of a more adult sensibility, soon replaced with the usual march towards ever larger armies (lower points costs) and ever more unique special rules.


Again I'll have to disagree. Rules can be elegant and inspiring. Anything else is just shoddy design IMO.
Besides, notice how GW has, on the whole, simplified the options in the codices (no more armoury, just to name one exampe).
The armouries are largely still there, just moved over into the individual unit entries. Sure they were dialed back for a time but they're increasing again as time goes on.

Also I disagree that army list options have been decreased... they have just moved, from 'micro' character-building options to more 'macro' options like what guns your tank will have.

Look at Codex: Space Marines, or Codex: Imperial Guard... less character weapon/gear options than before, but a greatly increased set of unit and tank types (how many turret options has a Razorback got now? How many hundreds of different configurations of Leman Russ is it now possible to build?), many of which have unique special rules which serve to inspire the customer but which also decrease game balance and increase rules complexity.

So overall complexity of rules is still going up, whilst individual unit entires are becoming a little simpler.


I agree mostly. Though tactically simple *and* elegant/intuitive would be ideal, no?
Ah but elegantly-written rules don't serve to inspire the customer as much as loads of unique special rules do...

What's more inspiring to a novice Space Marine player, having a unit called Vanguard Veterans which have a weapon skill stat of '5' instead of '4', or a unique special rule which allows them to 'Charge after deep striking!'.

Either option would serve to make 'Vanguard Veterans' better than their 'Assault Marine' compatriots, but one of those options is really inspiring, whilst the other option is just maths.

So GW choose the less balanced, more inspiring option, time and time again.

As a consequence, Warhammer 40,000 is both tactically simple, and inelegantly written... and I do not hesitate to say I think they're doing the right thing!

Leinad
27-11-2009, 15:59
As a late 20's gamer, who no longer plays GW I have a couple of comments:

1) I think that there might be too much credit given to the game designers in some sense. Warhammer Fantasy was not designed as a kiddies game, the original game was definitely designed for adults, and the core game mechanics have not drastically altered through the editions, and lets not forget it's cousin Warhammer Ancient Battles, which is definitely not aimed at kids. However the direction that the army books have taken recently does appeal more to kids (for the worst IMHO).

Warhammer 40K though definitely strikes me as a Kids game these days.

As for Lord of the Rings, I have never played it but have heard that it is a far more deep and tactical game than it first appears, and Rick Priestly who designed it is GW's one exceptional Games Designer (Warmaster is a superb example of an very deep yet essentially simple game), unfortunately I think his gaming ideology and GW's direction do not agree at the present time so his best work is found elsewhere.

2) Where does the idea that GW is only interested in appleasing a younger audience come from? A lot of the companies current decisions do agree with this however they also produce very high quality, difficult to assemble and expensive metal models which would seem to me to be aimed at expert painters and modelers and not the products of a childrens toy manufacturer. I kind of feel that GW don't really have a actual marketing plan have just reached their current position more by accident than design with people pulling in different directions. Another example of this is their outlook on tournements it would seem a number of the game designers are not interested in them and are not competative gamers however elsewhere in the company there is people who can see that there is money to made off competative gamers so encourage them by staging tournaments.

3) Adult gamers I feel are also less likely to keep an interest in GW due to their extortionate price in comparision with other mini manufacturers out there, of which they are more aware than younger newcomers to the hobby, GW does a reasonable job of insulating them from the greater gaming community.

R Man
27-11-2009, 22:15
The core rule for Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are not just 'good', they're brilliant examples of targeted games design... for kids.

Really, as childrens' games you cannot fault them.

But is it really? The stereotype of the gamer is one of an annoying 12 year old but is this the truth, or just the result of bitterness by older players. As has already been pointed out these games were originally the polar opposite of kid friendly. And what does 'kid friendly' mean anyway?


GW have a highly experienced design team who know exactly what they're doing. The problem appears to be that you don't agree with their design philosophy (designing their games mostly for kids), not that they are poor game designers.

But every book seems to have a different author. Not only that but this doesn't explain changes in design philosophy. A classic example is what happened to the orcs in Fantasy. The author didn't seem to understand them much, and compared to the next few army books there seems to be a completely different focus and attitude.


Tieing the two together promotes sales, and GW is a business...

Why can't they earn sales through having a good rule set with prompt updates? Remember, even though GW is a buisness they do relly on word of mouth mostly, so reputation is important. I would have thought a bigger concern would be if a designer wanted to create new units, then there would be a huge delay between their presence in a codex and the appearance of the actual model, but with things like the Skaven Abomination this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.


You want to 'partition' (petition, I assume, as I doubt you want to cut GW up into smaller chunks) GW to... what?

Opps, My bad. Apologies.


- Give online "support" (which they already do plenty of, for beginners... I assume you mean online rules updates to balance the games)

That is unnessesary considering the target demographic for GW's core games.
For those who are outside of the target demographic yet still play the core games (adult tournament gamers, for example), GW's quite justifiable policy is that those gamers can look after themselves.

I mean FAQ's and ettera and such. Whats wrong with that? And so what if GW policy is that, they can change it. They are not bound to divine law to operate this way.


Why should GW re-write all their core games to make them tournament-appropriate, if that was never the intention in the first place?

Because Tornements are an excellent testing ground and area of communication. Besides thats the way things seem to be swinging these days. Remember the word of mouth, it needs to be good. And having Tournement appropriate rules does in no way harm home play. The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy.


- More reasonable prices.

You mean price cuts?
An online petition won't get that (or any of the other things you ask for, in fact).
Only cold hard financial facts will convince GW that price cuts (and not price rises) are the way to go.
Clearly, the facts (market research, and years of experience) point in the opposite direction to your wishes.

Yeah. But we all can dream can't we? My real concern is that when GW does run into money problems they will just ramp up the price again, and loose even more customers, so GW will ramp up the price again, and loose more customers, and so on and so on.


You seem to be wishing that the GW Core Games were tournament-appropriate (balanced, elegantly written, and tactically complex), when in fact due to their target demographic, they are in many regards the opposite of what you wish for.

They must be unbalanced, because Codex Creep (the latest army must be very good!) demands it.
They must be inelegantly written, because hundreds of special / unique rules inspire the target demographic.
They must be tactically simple, because the GW Core Games are primarily intended for children who have never played a wargame before.

This seems to be alot of presumption. Balance is never a bad thing, ever. I don't think that the rules are kid friendly and warhammer does have alot of tactical suff in it, its just that it can be bypassed too easily. I disagree with the whole codex creep thing, If this were so Lizardmen, WOC, and Skaven would keep going up in power, but this is not the case. If anything GW does seem to be going against the unique rules angle, with Universal Special Rules and such becoming broader, appearing in the core rules, and more army wide rules. And there were far more of these in the early days which were most certainly not kid friendly. The core rules do focus on all the basic military tactics (flanking, baiting etc.) in a round about way. Often this is undermined by monsters, elite units and such which can bypass the situations that these mechanism were intended to create.

Chaos and Evil
27-11-2009, 23:16
...what does 'kid friendly' mean anyway?
That the game is easy to play, the tactics simple and easy to understand, and really really inspiring.


I mean FAQ's and ettera and such. Whats wrong with that? And so what if GW policy is that, they can change it. They are not bound to divine law to operate this way.
But why the immediate and pressing need, if the games aren't meant for tournaments?


...Tornements are an excellent testing ground...
Tournaments are a good testing ground for noting which unit types are overpowered (and are thus spammed by tournament players)...

...which would be of prime utility, if tournaments (and anything more than fairly loose balance) were actually important to the Core game design philosophy.


Besides thats the way things seem to be swinging these days.
For you, in your area, maybe.
But not for the majority of GW's customers... that majority is composed of 11-14 year olds who just play games with their mates.


...having Tournement appropriate rules does in no way harm home play. The idea that the two are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy.
If having the rules more balanced means stripping out all those wacky-fun unique special rules (like those Vanguard Veterans I was talking about earlier going from "May Assault After Deep Striking!" to having weapon skill "5"), and if the core demographic are consequently less inspired to play the game, and thus buy less toy soldiers before quitting the game... then having tournament appropriate rules for the Core games should be actively avoided!


Balance is never a bad thing, ever.
See my above paragraph. :)


I disagree with the whole codex creep thing, If this were so Lizardmen, WOC, and Skaven would keep going up in power, but this is not the case.
I barely changed my army list when the Lizardmen army book was updated, in fact my army composition now would have been legal under the previous book's Core/Special/Rare limits... but as a whole my army became several hundred points cheaper (enough that I was able to fit a whole extra Stegadon into my army) and my win/loss ratio overnight went from about 50/50 to 90/10.

Or look at the sequence of the last 5 Marine Codexes (an easy comparison because they're all very similar) and see how the power level clearly increases with each new release.

Denying Codex Creep is just silly. :)


If anything GW does seem to be going against the unique rules angle, with Universal Special Rules and such becoming broader, appearing in the core rules, and more army wide rules. And there were far more of these in the early days which were most certainly not kid friendly.
I agree, the early years of GW gaming were less child-focused than they are now.


The core rules (of Warhammer Fantasy) do focus on all the basic military tactics (flanking, baiting etc.) in a round about way. Often this is undermined by monsters, elite units and such which can bypass the situations that these mechanism were intended to create.
So you agree that the tactical possibilities of the Warhammer Fantasy rules system have been paved over with a broad highway of Army Books that make simple (child-appropriate) "listhammer" more possible than ever before?

R Man
28-11-2009, 11:09
That the game is easy to play, the tactics simple and easy to understand, and really really inspiring.

So games for adults must be complex, difficult and dull? No, adults can enjoy simple things, perhaps more so than children and teenagers.


But why the immediate and pressing need, if the games aren't meant for tournaments?

Why the hell not? Seriously, home games benefit too, as does GW by the good will it would generate and GW does rely a lot on word of mouth.


Tournaments are a good testing ground for noting which unit types are overpowered (and are thus spammed by tournament players)...

...which would be of prime utility, if tournaments (and anything more than fairly loose balance) were actually important to the Core game design philosophy.

So because tournaments are not central to the design philosophy they should be ignored? They are still an important forum for the game.


For you, in your area, maybe.
But not for the majority of GW's customers... that majority is composed of 11-14 year olds who just play games with their mates.

11-14? What proof do you have that this is the case. It is, until proven otherwise, a stereotype resulting from prejudice and resentment.


If having the rules more balanced means stripping out all those wacky-fun unique special rules (like those Vanguard Veterans I was talking about earlier going from "May Assault After Deep Striking!" to having weapon skill "5"), and if the core demographic are consequently less inspired to play the game, and thus buy less toy soldiers before quitting the game... then having tournament appropriate rules for the Core games should be actively avoided!

Shouldn't fluff, the excellent models and imagery created by the artwork do the inspiring? Many other games manage without these wacky rules and may not be as large as GW but they are much younger.


I barely changed my army list when the Lizardmen army book was updated, in fact my army composition now would have been legal under the previous book's Core/Special/Rare limits... but as a whole my army became several hundred points cheaper (enough that I was able to fit a whole extra Stegadon into my army) and my win/loss ratio overnight went from about 50/50 to 90/10.

Or look at the sequence of the last 5 Marine Codexes (an easy comparison because they're all very similar) and see how the power level clearly increases with each new release.

Denying Codex Creep is just silly.

Compared to VC, Daemons and Dark Elves Lizardmen are fine. Also the previous Lizardmen book was not especially strong either. Blood Angels and Dark Angels are weaker than later marines, but they were made a while ago under a different philosophy. The jury is still out on Space Wolves but Space Marines and Guard, while competative, are not more powerful than the few dexe's that preceded them.


So you agree that the tactical possibilities of the Warhammer Fantasy rules system have been paved over with a broad highway of Army Books that make simple (child-appropriate) "listhammer" more possible than ever before?

Yes I agree with this, though I will add, if players avoid the extremes such as lots of big monsters and hero's then the game can still be very tactically involved.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2009, 11:53
So games for adults must be complex, difficult and dull? No, adults can enjoy simple things, perhaps more so than children and teenagers.
Almost... games for adults should be Tactically Complex, Difficult to master, and really really inspiring.

Otherwise you're just playing a kids' game and fooling yourself into thinking you're not.


Why the hell not? (produce FAQ's with a high level of priority) Seriously, home games benefit too, as does GW by the good will it would generate and GW does rely a lot on word of mouth.
GW rightly figures that by the time you're running into weird rules disputes, you're mature enough to figure them out on your own... the core demographic will never run into the kind of rule problems that a more experienced player will, or at least not with anything like the same frequency.


So because tournaments are not central to the design philosophy they should be ignored?
Any time there's a conflict between making the game tournament appropriate (that means balanced and tactically complex) and making the game really really awesome, the latter should be chosen.

Because awesome sells more than balanced.


11-14? What proof do you have that this is the case. It is, until proven otherwise, a stereotype resulting from prejudice and resentment.
I have no prejudice or resentment about GW's targeting of the Core games mainly towards the young teen demographic, in fact I applaud it as I think it's the single most profitable thing they can do.


Shouldn't fluff, the excellent models and imagery created by the artwork do the inspiring? Many other games manage without these wacky rules and may not be as large as GW but they are much younger.
Everything about the games must be really really awesome and really inspiring.

Models, artwork, background texts (or "fluff", as you fondly call it...), White Dwarf, Games Days, the Website, Games Workshop Hobby Centres (the shops), and yes also the rules.

In the GW company philosophy, everything must be subservient to the "Rule of Cool".

Because "cool" sells, whilst "adult appropriate, tournament intended" doesn't, or at least not as much.


Yes I agree with this (Warhammer Fantasy has become more child-intended through the course of 7th edition), though I will add, if players avoid the extremes such as lots of big monsters and hero's then the game can still be very tactically involved.
So if you modify the game rules to make the game less kid-intended, you can make it into a slightly more adult game system...

...you might as well use a different, purpose-built adult 28mm Fantasy rule system, instead of hamstringing yourself into not getting to use your cool Dragon or Wizard models (just so the game is balanced), surely?

R Man
28-11-2009, 21:23
Almost... games for adults should be Tactically Complex, Difficult to master, and really really inspiring.

Otherwise you're just playing a kids' game and fooling yourself into thinking you're not.

Why? Because there adults? The game should be mechanically simple, but involved, because simple mechanics cut down on metagame ******** and confusion and make it easier for the game to actually be played.


GW rightly figures that by the time you're running into weird rules disputes, you're mature enough to figure them out on your own... the core demographic will never run into the kind of rule problems that a more experienced player will, or at least not with anything like the same frequency.

Which may be fine in a set gaming group, but what if someone new comes in and finds that they are playing the 'wrong way'? Especially when there are no actual rules to tell them this. Same it true for pick up games. Ideally people should be able to sort things out but in reality this does not happen, especially when the rules make several possibilities seem likely. This is why clear rules and ettera and FAQ's are needed.


Any time there's a conflict between making the game tournament appropriate (that means balanced and tactically complex) and making the game really really awesome, the latter should be chosen.

Because awesome sells more than balanced.

Why should the two be in conflict. This is a false dichotomy. Elegant rules can be inspiring in and of themselves. And balance may not get people into gaming, but it keeps them in.


I have no prejudice or resentment about GW's targeting of the Core games mainly towards the young teen demographic, in fact I applaud it as I think it's the single most profitable thing they can do.

I mean, this is a vibe that runs through the site every now and then.


Everything about the games must be really really awesome and really inspiring.

Models, artwork, background texts (or "fluff", as you fondly call it...), White Dwarf, Games Days, the Website, Games Workshop Hobby Centres (the shops), and yes also the rules.

In the GW company philosophy, everything must be subservient to the "Rule of Cool".

Because "cool" sells, whilst "adult appropriate, tournament intended" doesn't, or at least not as much.

But they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Ease of play is another thing that's good for players as it allows them to understand quickly how to play and this allows them to have fun sooner.


So if you modify the game rules to make the game less kid-intended, you can make it into a slightly more adult game system...

...you might as well use a different, purpose-built adult 28mm Fantasy rule system, instead of hamstringing yourself into not getting to use your cool Dragon or Wizard models (just so the game is balanced), surely?

So, to be balanced dragon's and wizards must be gone? Stop with the false dichotomies. Being balanced would not stop these from being used, only allow other people to use their 'cool' models and have a chance of not getting pasted.

Tarax
29-11-2009, 09:49
I have some issues with the things both R Man and C&E have stated.

Someone said that the pricing determined the age of the gamer, whereby younger players would buy more expensive toys and older players cheaper. This may come from the assumption that older players have less money to spend on games, because they have to pay for rent/mortgage, food, etc.
I think that cheaper products are directed at children and more expensive products are directed at adults. Simply because of the fact that adults will take more care of their properties.

Another thing I like to point out is the transition of age. If games like Warmaster, Epic and such are tuned towards adults, then why do people not go there? If it was true, I would see several people from my gaming group play these games. And I don't. Or could it be that they do not transcend to adulthood, and stay children longer? Or could it be that they do not want to abandon their model collections? Or could it just be that they still like the game, despite its discrepancies?

And I agree with most things Supremearchmarshal said. The game can be more tactical while reducing all those 'special' rules. If you enter a GW-store, you will find other kids and even the staff can't direct you to those Specialist Games. These can only be found in their own homes.

And I also agree with the fact that the Games Developers have no (sense of) direction where the games is going to. They simply do what they do because of other reasons, mainly monetary. One thing I feel GW should do is take a broader look at all their armies (as to me the core rules are pretty good as they are) and define them. From that standpoint onwards they could sculp an army that befits that role. Eg, Skaven/Tyranids are horde armies, so thay should have rules that will show on the battlefield that a horde is the winning combination. These armies should not have any unit or weapon that defeats this role, like being able to have multiple Carnifexes or many exotic weapons for Skaven.

Dai-Mongar
29-11-2009, 10:26
These armies should not have any unit or weapon that defeats this role, like being able to have multiple Carnifexes or many exotic weapons for Skaven.

That's just, like, your opinion man. :cool:
Nids have always had big beasties and Skaven have always had exotic weapons.

yabbadabba
29-11-2009, 10:50
I have some issues with the things both R Man and C&E have stated.
Someone said that the pricing determined the age of the gamer, whereby younger players would buy more expensive toys and older players cheaper. This may come from the assumption that older players have less money to spend on games, because they have to pay for rent/mortgage, food, etc.
I think that cheaper products are directed at children and more expensive products are directed at adults. Simply because of the fact that adults will take more care of their properties.

GW's largest market is in the UK. The perceived 12-16 year old market of GW is middle class, which generally is large enough to support a market and has a lot more spare cash than other classes. Factor in whinge power and GW will feel that they can charge a premium price and still get their money from their core market.


Another thing I like to point out is the transition of age. If games like Warmaster, Epic and such are tuned towards adults, then why do people not go there? If it was true, I would see several people from my gaming group play these games. And I don't. Or could it be that they do not transcend to adulthood, and stay children longer? Or could it be that they do not want to abandon their model collections? Or could it just be that they still like the game, despite its discrepancies?

And I agree with most things Supremearchmarshal said. The game can be more tactical while reducing all those 'special' rules. If you enter a GW-store, you will find other kids and even the staff can't direct you to those Specialist Games. These can only be found in their own homes.

There are many reasons why alot of adults don't move onto specialist games. The "adult" nature of the rules is not a specific design feature - all these games were created because the designers wanted games like this and wanted to play them. They were not designed specifically for a market, they created their own market. Maybe this is why they didn't survive as long.
The progression comes from 2 areas - friends and GW stores. I first got into Necromunda just as I was about to wolk out on 40K, all those years ago. It suited my need at the time, and after a few months rejuvenated my interest in 40K. I still go back to SG's when I need a break from alot of the players I see in 40K, WFB and LotR. Without SG's in stores, alot of opportunity of exposure to these games are gone. And I would hazard that the majority of GW's assistant staff in stores have never played an SG, let alone played a campaign with one.


And I also agree with the fact that the Games Developers have no (sense of) direction where the games is going to. They simply do what they do because of other reasons, mainly monetary. One thing I feel GW should do is take a broader look at all their armies (as to me the core rules are pretty good as they are) and define them. From that standpoint onwards they could sculp an army that befits that role. Eg, Skaven/Tyranids are horde armies, so thay should have rules that will show on the battlefield that a horde is the winning combination. These armies should not have any unit or weapon that defeats this role, like being able to have multiple Carnifexes or many exotic weapons for Skaven.

Again it is important to remember that concepts lead rules in GW. Skaven, Dwarves, Tyranids - all have a hard core of defined (and protected) IP. This is what then drives the designs, the way the army plays and eventually the rules. The games aren't written for the furnace of competitive play that is tournaments and these armies play better in narrative scenarios and narrative campaigns. The very clunky nature of the army mechanics is often what defines them.
Skaven exotic weapons and Carnifex hordes in Tyranids are a part of how the armies visually work in the designers heads. Thats why they are there.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2009, 12:52
Why? Because there adults? The game should be mechanically simple, but involved, because simple mechanics cut down on metagame ******** and confusion and make it easier for the game to actually be played.
I agree.
Wargaming rules intended for use by adults should be complex, not complicated.
GWs Core games are the latter, but not the former.



Which may be fine in a set gaming group, but what if someone new comes in and finds that they are playing the 'wrong way'? Especially when there are no actual rules to tell them this. Same it true for pick up games. Ideally people should be able to sort things out but in reality this does not happen, especially when the rules make several possibilities seem likely. This is why clear rules and ettera and FAQ's are needed.
Ah but GWs core demographic dont have such a need for a defined 'correct' way to do things. What they need is an inspiring framework, not a rigidly defined tournament appropriate system.


Why should the two be in conflict. This is a false dichotomy. Elegant rules can be inspiring in and of themselves. And balance may not get people into gaming, but it keeps them in.
Because GWs design philosophy is that in order to inspire the customer, lots of special rules should be used. These unbalance the game system.


So, to be balanced dragon's and wizards must be gone? Stop with the false dichotomies. Being balanced would not stop these from being used, only allow other people to use their 'cool' models and have a chance of not getting pasted.
You read my words wrongly.
I did not say that you should stop using 'cool' models in order to have a more balanced game experience (which is something youre already doing anyway apparently, and having a less-than awesome gaming time as a consequence).
I said that you should think about using a different rule system that has been purpose-designed to be balanced when using those 'cool' models.




If games like Warmaster, Epic and such are tuned towards adults, then why do people not go there?
Let us investigate. :)


If it was true, I would see several people from my gaming group play these games. And I don't.
You asssume that your group has not been symied from progressing in some manner... perhaps by the very company that sells them their (very profitable) 25/28/30mm models?


Or could it be that they do not transcend to adulthood, and stay children longer?
No need to be silly, the reasons are more complex than simple peter pan syndrome.

Or could it be that they do not want to abandon their model collections?
Ah but there are more adult 25/28/30mm rule systems available... they could be using those.


Or could it just be that they still like the game, despite its discrepancies?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, its due to wanting to play a game that has as wide a range of opponents as possible... even if that means having to play with the lowest common denominator of wargame systems (GW Core games) as a consequence.

Or perhaps, due to GWs careful avoıdance of mentioning how several of the SGs are much more adult in style, they dont even realise what theyre missing. Perhaps you dont either.





The "adult" nature of the rules is not a specific design feature....
I would disagree in so much as to note that the Epic rulebook specifically goes out of its way to state that Epic is designed for 'experienced wargamers', in a passage that talks about how to resolve rules disagreements (remarkable in of itself in that Epic is a very tightly written rule system where rules disputes are incredibly rare). The inference is clear; Epic is designed specifically and primarily for an adult demographic, whilst some other games (carefully not mentioned by name) are not.


Apologies for the poor punctuation in this post, I am using a turkish keyboard at the moment.

R Man
29-11-2009, 22:46
Ah but GWs core demographic dont have such a need for a defined 'correct' way to do things. What they need is an inspiring framework, not a rigidly defined tournament appropriate system.

So you speak for all of this core demographic do you? And there's that inspiring again. It seems to be a mantra. The truth is, its meaningless jargon. 'Inspiring' is not something physically defined and as such it is not, and never will be, mutually exclusive to good design. Why the arbitrary barrier?


Because GWs design philosophy is that in order to inspire the customer, lots of special rules should be used. These unbalance the game system.

Once again, stop it with this. Special rules might be inspiring, but there is no reason something else cannot also be inspiring in their place.


You read my words wrongly.
I did not say that you should stop using 'cool' models in order to have a more balanced game experience (which is something youre already doing anyway apparently, and having a less-than awesome gaming time as a consequence).
I said that you should think about using a different rule system that has been purpose-designed to be balanced when using those 'cool' models.

First of all, I never told you about how I play my games, or how much fun I was having, so please don't pretend to know this. It just makes you look like you're projecting. Second of all, while the rules are not what they could be there is still alot of warhammer to like, the models, the full, the imagery, you know, all that 'inspiring' stuff that will somehow go away if the rule book gets a logical structure.

Chaos and Evil
29-11-2009, 23:20
So you speak for all of this core demographic do you?
Sure, why not. :rolleyes:


And there's that inspiring again. It seems to be a mantra. The truth is, its meaningless jargon.
If it is jargon, then it is at least GW jargon... the only other possible explanation for the GW games development style is to say that the games designers are incompetent. Having met and spent some time with most of them at various times, I rather tend towards there being a clear and intentional design ethos.


Once again, stop it with this. Special rules might be inspiring, but there is no reason something else cannot also be inspiring in their place.
Name something that would be just as inspiring.
Use the Vanguard Veteran special rule that allows them to charge after Deep Striking, and just with the stats give them another ability that is just as inspiring and cool.


First of all, I never told you about how I play my games, or how much fun I was having, so please don't pretend to know this. It just makes you look like you're projecting.
Apologies then.
I assumed when you said that you prefered a balance game experience, and when you agreed that some monsters, wizards, characters etc. unbalance the Warhammer Fantasy game, that you were doing something to improve your game experience.
Please forgive me.


Second of all, while the rules are not what they could be there is still alot of warhammer to like, the models, the full, the imagery, you know, all that 'inspiring' stuff that will somehow go away if the rule book gets a logical structure.
Well the GW design philosophy clearly does not regard the rules as being seperate from all the other aspects of the game you mention. They clearly regard the rules as 'just' another way to inspire their target demographic, in addition to the background, the artwork, the miniatures, etc...

...so, where is that online petition you wanted to start up and get everyone to sign, in order to 'force them to listen' and then change their design philosophy...?

Supremearchmarshal
30-11-2009, 00:57
@ Supremearchmarshal - when I were a lad nobody played toy soldiers. So I had to go and make opponents. Whats wrong with that?

I did try. There's not many miniature gamers where I live, and finding players who play 40k was not easy. There's more people who play historicals or WH Fantasy and either aren't interested in Sci-Fi or have heard of GW's bad reputation. :angel:

The 40k players mostly aren't interested because the game isn't supported, there's the risk of having no opponents, and they prefer the 40k scale. But who knows, maybe one day...


All the A's were sidelined as GW wants to sell lots of toy soldiers (they're a business, after all!).
All the B's were sidelined as the adult wargaming market simply isn't anything like as big, or as liable to spend large ammounts of cash (selling to the Core demographic is simply a lot more profitable).

I do wonder about this, since I haven't seen much hard proof of who are GW's most spending customers. And if it is true, the kids get most of their money from their parents... who could well be (ex-)GW gamers themselves. As was mentioned before, GW relies a lot on word of mouth, ans I do wonder if they're shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the veterans.


This led to "2" occuring, which naturally shrank the ammount of people purcasing models for the "Advanced" GW games like Epic even further.

Epic is a special case IMO. Unlike say, Space Hulk, it used to be a core game. I think it's popularity drop was directly influenced by the 3rd edition rules, which were too dull (e.g. there was very little variety between units). Yep, a system can be elegant, but dull. Which is a real pity, since Epic: Armageddon is IMO both elegant and inspiring.


People are justifiably nervous of spending 100 on a new Epic army, when they have no guarantee of liking the game system (so they continue to spend 300 a time on new Warhammer 40,000 armies instead :angel:).

Yep, that's the way it goes unfortunately. Do bear in mind though, if (like me) they can't find opponents, they can't get much out of those 100. Unless of course, they buy the models for painting and modeling, but I think most people would prefer the 28mm scale for that.


I restarted Epic in my area a few years ago by buying and painting two armies.

After showing people the game a bunch of times, we now have a regular gaming circle of Epic players, and in fact most of them have quit Warhammer 40,000 completely as a consequence of discovering the more adult-appropriate Epic.

Now this is a good idea. In my case it would be risky as two armies are rather expensive and then there's the postage costs... But I've been thinking of selling off some of my 40k stuff, and I guess some stuff can be bought from other producers... I'll think about this. Thank you for the idea.


Aye I had several of the self-contained "side games" back then too, and they were certainly one of the avenues through which people entered the arena of GW gaming... GW as a whole used to be a landscape of wider vistas, instead of a landscape of three very deep canyons. :)

Well said. Thank heavens for FFG :)


I agree that LOTR is somewhat more elegantly written (making more use of generic, rather than unique, special rules, for example), but it has no greater tactical complexity than the other Core games.

I'm inclined to agree about the complexity. But the point I was trying to make is about the elegance of the rules; they make it easier for the books to


Look at Codex: Space Marines, or Codex: Imperial Guard... less character weapon/gear options than before, but a greatly increased set of unit and tank types (how many turret options has a Razorback got now? How many hundreds of different configurations of Leman Russ is it now possible to build?), many of which have unique special rules which serve to inspire the customer but which also decrease game balance and increase rules complexity.

Complexity is not bad by itself. It's when rules are complicated, contradicting, poorly-worded etc. that the problems arise. As for balance, sure, it becomes harder the more options you have. But IMO it's never too difficult to produce reasonably balanced rules (they can never be prefect, obviously). Still, GW core games have some truly awful balance issues.


Ah but elegantly-written rules don't serve to inspire the customer as much as loads of unique special rules do...

What's more inspiring to a novice Space Marine player, having a unit called Vanguard Veterans which have a weapon skill stat of '5' instead of '4', or a unique special rule which allows them to 'Charge after deep striking!'.

Well as a kid I remember how awesome a Chaos Warrior's statline seemed lol. More seriously though, even then I didn't like it when units had oodles of special rules - I found it annoying when units could "break" the core rules, unless the unit was something *really* special (usually 0-1 units and Heroes). Different strokes for different folks I guess.


Either option would serve to make 'Vanguard Veterans' better than their 'Assault Marine' compatriots, but one of those options is really inspiring, whilst the other option is just maths.

Same as above - seeing those Chaos Warrior profiles (WS 6 back then I think) was scary enough itself! :D


As a consequence, Warhammer 40,000 is both tactically simple, and inelegantly written... and I do not hesitate to say I think they're doing the right thing!

Again, you seem to insist that simple and elegant cant go hand in hand. Again, I'll point you to Lotr. Elegant (by no means perfect, but significantly less complicated than 40k) and, as you said, simple.


If it is jargon, then it is at least GW jargon... the only other possible explanation for the GW games development style is to say that the games designers are incompetent. Having met and spent some time with most of them at various times, I rather tend towards there being a clear and intentional design ethos.

I do not believe GW has a coherent long-term design goal for it's core games (except to reduce points so people buy more models). They have a noticeable tendency for "pendulum-swing" design. Also, I always have had the impression that a lot is left to the whim of the designer (let's not forget the Iron Warriors pie plate army!).

R Man
30-11-2009, 01:11
If it is jargon, then it is at least GW jargon... the only other possible explanation for the GW games development style is to say that the games designers are incompetent. Having met and spent some time with most of them at various times, I rather tend towards there being a clear and intentional design ethos.


Actually, as I said earlier they actually create some very good rules, they just write them less clearly than they should be.


Name something that would be just as inspiring.
Use the Vanguard Veteran special rule that allows them to charge after Deep Striking, and just with the stats give them another ability that is just as inspiring and cool.

There's no why then can't have that rule, as long as it is clearly written, and works logically within the structure of the rules. Elegence does not stop these, just requires that they be presented elegantly.


Apologies then.
I assumed when you said that you prefered a balance game experience, and when you agreed that some monsters, wizards, characters etc. unbalance the Warhammer Fantasy game, that you were doing something to improve your game experience.
Please forgive me.

Characters, Magic and Monsters are not inherently unbalanced. They can be, or when they are spammed but overall the best way to balance a game is to avoid spamming units or taking overpowered ones, regardless of how monstrous they are. And don't think I didn't notice that covert attack. I don't need to improve my gaming experience as my friends tend to be reasonable players as most people are. What I want improved is the clarity of the rule books I read.


Well the GW design philosophy clearly does not regard the rules as being seperate from all the other aspects of the game you mention. They clearly regard the rules as 'just' another way to inspire their target demographic, in addition to the background, the artwork, the miniatures, etc...

And I keep telling you, they don't have to be mutually elusive. Elegence is about presentation and clarity, not about making things bland. They can still be used to 'inspire', just in a different way.


...so, where is that online petition you wanted to start up and get everyone to sign, in order to 'force them to listen' and then change their design philosophy...?

I'm, unfortunately, not savvy enough with the internet to do that.

Joewrightgm
30-11-2009, 03:56
So I haven't read many of the posts, but I am responding to the original poster:

With regards to your specific example: I tried this with a local opponent (he was elves) and I was Mordor, and I barely made combat with half my army; and when you're engaging elves on a 1 to 1 basis with orcs, you're in for a rough day.

I think lately, GW has been trying to throw in a few powerful abilities in every codex or army book in order to make a more fun and interesting game. What happens is players attempt to exploit or spam multiple units with said powerful abilities in the name of competitiveness.

So, I think, instead of policing and more thorough play-testing and balancing, they leave it up to the individual players to sort it out.

Think of it like free speech: If you are exposed to some form of message that you find disagreeable, you can whine and protest that speech, or you can walk away/change the dial/turn it off. If the majority of a population decrees something to be inappropriate or offensive, then society will police itself and that message with die away because no one listens (in theory).

GW is relying (however unwisely) on players using their good judgment and the spirit of the game (having fun) to guide them away from 4 rune priests with Jaws of the World Wolf and Lash Spam lists.

Again, obviously for anyone but someone who is competitive and/or a tournament goer these lists are not fun to play against (a generalization, but bear with it for a moment). Players (again, in theory) will say "huh, that list is really not fun to play against; I'll ask this guy over here to play", thus the community polices out such lists by virtue of the fact that the offending players don't get games, to say nothing about the players who are not getting games simply giving up or becoming less competitive.

I play the game of 40k for fun, and I'm lucky to be in a community that prizes fun and creative lists and embraces the spirit of the hobby. Maybe I'm lucky in that respect.

Tarax
30-11-2009, 08:51
That's just, like, your opinion man. :cool:
Nids have always had big beasties and Skaven have always had exotic weapons.


Again it is important to remember that concepts lead rules in GW. Skaven, Dwarves, Tyranids - all have a hard core of defined (and protected) IP. This is what then drives the designs, the way the army plays and eventually the rules. The games aren't written for the furnace of competitive play that is tournaments and these armies play better in narrative scenarios and narrative campaigns. The very clunky nature of the army mechanics is often what defines them.
Skaven exotic weapons and Carnifex hordes in Tyranids are a part of how the armies visually work in the designers heads. Thats why they are there.

It may be my opinion (and yes, it is!), but what you both say does not correspond with what GW does. Ie, they portray a race in a certain way in the background. They create stories both for that race as well as for other races to fight against (eg. they write the Tyranid codex but also describe battles between Space Marines and Tyranids in the Space Marine codex) that expand on that first portrayal. Next they write the rules, in which they want to keep that portrait. But in order to make the race more interesting, they forget about it and write it so that you don't have to create an army that befits that portrait. To get back at my example, Tyranids are described as a horde army, with may Hormagaunts and Genestealers. Such an army also contains a couple of Carnifexes and/or Hive Tyrants. But on the tabletop you (often) see only the bare minimum of Hormagaunts and several Carnifexes AND Hive Tyrants.


Let us investigate. :)

You asssume that your group has not been symied from progressing in some manner... perhaps by the very company that sells them their (very profitable) 25/28/30mm models?
...
Ah but there are more adult 25/28/30mm rule systems available... they could be using those.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, its due to wanting to play a game that has as wide a range of opponents as possible... even if that means having to play with the lowest common denominator of wargame systems (GW Core games) as a consequence.

Or perhaps, due to GWs careful avoıdance of mentioning how several of the SGs are much more adult in style, they dont even realise what theyre missing. Perhaps you dont either.


So, I think, instead of policing and more thorough play-testing and balancing, they leave it up to the individual players to sort it out.
...
GW is relying (however unwisely) on players using their good judgment and the spirit of the game (having fun) to guide them away from 4 rune priests with Jaws of the World Wolf and Lash Spam lists.

There are 2 problems with these quotes. First, the game should be competitive, in a way that both players have an equal chance of winning. Maybe the game is not designed for tournaments, but even in friendly games I want to know that I stand a chance of winning, despite my army or army selection. Which brings me to point 2, where people do not always play the way you want. You can say that I can walk away, but that only leaves me alone in my quest for like-minded gamers. They will play the way GW wants them to (Do they really?) and will buy every new army which can give them an auto-win. They not necessarily will see the game as negotiable, where my view is appreciated and they will make compromises.

So where does that leave me? And them?

Dai-Mongar
30-11-2009, 12:13
It may be my opinion (and yes, it is!), but what you both say does not correspond with what GW does. Ie, they portray a race in a certain way in the background. They create stories both for that race as well as for other races to fight against (eg. they write the Tyranid codex but also describe battles between Space Marines and Tyranids in the Space Marine codex) that expand on that first portrayal. Next they write the rules, in which they want to keep that portrait. But in order to make the race more interesting, they forget about it and write it so that you don't have to create an army that befits that portrait. To get back at my example, Tyranids are described as a horde army, with may Hormagaunts and Genestealers. Such an army also contains a couple of Carnifexes and/or Hive Tyrants. But on the tabletop you (often) see only the bare minimum of Hormagaunts and several Carnifexes AND Hive Tyrants.


I probably should have started to quote your previous post earlier, because I meant that Tyranids and Skaven being horde armies was your opinion. That, and I couldn't resisit a movie quote. :p
Especially with Skaven, they've always had wierd machines in every edition of Warhammer. GW constantly plays up the crazy machines that they have, and the fans lap it up. Even with all those crazy engines, they're still a horde army.
Tyranids I can understand your point with. The vastness of the Tyranid swarms is often referred to in fluff, and it seems at odds with the "Nidzilla" lists that you see these days.
I think the main reason that the lists have been designed that way is to allow players more freedom in choosing their armies. When I was working on building a Nid army, I bought up about 100 Macragge Termagants because I liked the idea of a neverending swarm of gribblies; when my friend bought all my Nid stuff of me to start his army he was instantly enamoured with the Carnifex and wanted to cram as many Carnifices in his army as was possible. Different strokes for different folks.

lanrak
30-11-2009, 12:17
Hi all.
GW PLC appear to be focused on short term profit, by means of the least effort possible.
The corperate managment dictate to the game developers what they are going to do next and the time to spend on it.


The game developers would much prefer to develop great game play as the main long term marketing strategy.(As was the case pre PLC interferance .)

I agree that the INSPIRATION should be left to the asthetic,art inspires!
And the skilled artists at GW towers provide exceptionaly inspiring art!

The function of the rules is to give clear instructions on how to play.

So making the game rules purposly over complicated , trying to inspire sales , is negativley effecting long term growth.

There is NO proof that 'inspiring special rules' improve sales.

But there is plenty of proof that the current GW buisness model is causeing a reduction in customer retension and actual customer numbers.

Everyone has an oppinion, but if GW buisness model is so great, why does EVERY OTHER buisness appear to chose a completly different buisness model to GW?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Tarax
01-12-2009, 13:57
I probably should have started to quote your previous post earlier, because I meant that Tyranids and Skaven being horde armies was your opinion. That, and I couldn't resisit a movie quote. :p
Especially with Skaven, they've always had wierd machines in every edition of Warhammer.

I agree that Skaven always had exotic weaponry, but often this trumps the horde aspect.

And to your quote, I know where it is from and I only expect to see it come from The Dude. :cool: ;)