Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

[Caitsidhe]

So the newest rumors deal with custom "Objective Cards" for use with the Maelstrom Missions. We must take all rumors with a grain of salt. My view that the Maelstrom Missions are a big, steaming mess are well known, so additional rules can't make them any worse. At best they might offset the silliness, at worst they will just make the clumsy rules suck in an entirely new way. Since these are just rumors and we have no mechanics to analyze, I'm not going to discuss what I think they will do. Instead, I'm going to just talk about the whole method of delivery, should this series of rumors prove to be true. I like enumerating my various thoughts one at a time and supporting them independently. I have done so below:

1. This smacks of desperation.

Look, I know this 7th Edition roll out was hashed together in the last six months. Everyone knows it. Every single aspect of the "new" 7th Edition rules are either cut and pasted from 6th Edition, improvised new mechanics with clearly no testing, or come from about a page of Faq/Errata that was supposed to be applied to 6th Edition. We aren't stupid. If all of this had been a carefully planned roll out, the new Codex or Faction specific cards would have all hit the shelf at the same time. Cards don't, after all, require much preparation. They would have been a nice, money making accessory to drop on us opening night as it were. Instead, they were improvised and thrown together at the same furious rate as 7th Edition itself when the reviews of the Maelstrom Missions started coming in. The very idea is a sloppy band aid which has the added benefit (from Games Workshop's point of view) of selling you something additional rather than admitting to a mistake. Look, I'm all for the silly objective cards being fixed. I just think it stinks of desperation that you are going to try and do it like this. Just how bad are your sales going?

2. You guys have an identity crisis.

So which Games Workshop are we talking to today? Is is that obstinate curmudgeon that raps his cane on the floor over and over again as he croaks "we aren't a game company.... our games aren't intended to be competitive... they are just designed to tell stories whippersnapper!" Or are we talking to the slick sharks who are running the Corporation from the top down who clearly want to use competitive play as the engine to fuel the sales, but simply say they aren't doing that? :D If the rumor about being able to customize our decks is true, the only purpose is to create a "card game" within the larger game whereby we build for advantage, i.e. to try and offset the idiotic lunacy of the current missions. In other words, you want us to pay first to put sanity back in and second to get one up on our opponent. It stands to reason that he/she that doesn't remove some of the random from their deck is at a serious disadvantage from those that do. So which is it? Are you putting the GAME back in your Games Workshop name? If so, just say it. :) I mean it isn't as if we haven't noticed what paying to play via dataslates and supplementary books provides us. It isn't as if we are blind to the fact that 7th Edition changed the rules so we could spam pricey items like Monty Python.

3. Fire whomever you have working on customer relations and those (probably the same guy) that are advising you on marketing.

Whatever it is you are doing isn't working. The secrecy isn't building excitement. I've noted annoyance, particularly when the rumors that generate are far better and more functional than the product you put out. Let me spell that out for you, the absolute secrecy and maniac calendar you use doesn't create excitement. It causes some people to hold off on buying things until they see the rules. It causes other people to speculate and thus mechanics are born in the community rumor pool. Those mechanics have been, hands down, better than everything you have put out. Your weird way of doing things just about ensures that your rules will suffer by comparison. If we, the community that actually plays the game as well as being the only people who actually test it, have come up with workable, liked rules which we attribute to your upcoming product, you are doomed unless you have either come up with the same rule or something better. That is a virtual impossibility based on the fact that you don't play or test. What you are doing is setting yourself up for failure.

I want to get back to the custom card rumor. Here is my advice Games Workshop. You are getting this for free. Evaluate it carefully because I know you are paying people to give you this kind of consult and they are not doing you a good service. Now that this rumor is out there, stop the presses. Listen to what the learned and sage PLAYERS are speculating about what you are going to do. I assure you that they will figure out how those rules could/should work. You can just steal their ideas. They are the people who actually know what they are doing. The best part about it is that they will never know you are selling them back their own ideas. They will just be pleased to have guessed correctly and commend you on being so clever as to come up with the same ideas as themselves. This is a situation that can be win/win for you. Oh, and one last thing, if you are going to do this... release all the decks at the same damned time.

[Harley]

Well you make some good points here. I agree about the mistakes with secrecy and marketing. The marketing stateside is abysmal.

Let's be honest, stock was plummeting in 2014 for Games Workshop. It's like someone pulled the plug on the bathtub of a boat they have been sailing across the ocean of gaming lately. They had to do something.

It's ironic after how much hate I got from certain community members by comparing GW to a certain well known card game manufacturer yet here they are... publishing cards... for a game... :cool:

Honestly, just like all of GW's products, I want to believe its going to be really cool and fun. But I know when the shiny new polish rubs off and the rough edges show it won't be. Like a dollar store toy, it looks good until you use it and easily breaks.

[Blood Shadow]

I can quite honestly say I haven't got a clue what this post is ranting about....maybe it's me but all that text, I'm just not clear what your message is????

I like the 7th ed rules, I like the current system and I love 40k, it's the best game out there...

Why hate on it so much? It makes no sense, perhaps spell out more clearly what you've lost out on?

[Eldar_Atog]

I can quite honestly say I haven't got a clue what this post is ranting about....maybe it's me but all that text, I'm just not clear what your message is????

I like the 7th ed rules, I like the current system and I love 40k, it's the best game out there...

Why hate on it so much? It makes no sense, perhaps spell out more clearly what you've lost out on?

The rant started about custom Objective cards but Caitsidhe lost himself a bit in writing it out. He does point out some things that I agree with but he touched on too many subjects at once.

[Caitsidhe]

I can quite honestly say I haven't got a clue what this post is ranting about....maybe it's me but all that text, I'm just not clear what your message is????

I like the 7th ed rules, I like the current system and I love 40k, it's the best game out there...

Why hate on it so much? It makes no sense, perhaps spell out more clearly what you've lost out on?

You haven't got a clue what I'm talking about? At least your honest about it. I don't think is is possible to be any clearer than I was already, so if you don't get what I'm saying now, no amount of my trying to restate it is going to help. It suffices to say that I never said anything to the effect that I've "lost out" on anything. I didn't state I hated the game, nor did I state I liked it. I was directly addressing certain issues and making key suggestions. I realize that "all that text" can be daunting, but I feel certain you can rise to the task. It is worth mentioning that addressing certain issues isn't the same as hating. Unlike our idiotic political parties here in the States who believe all issues are black and white, it is possible to critique something without being a hater, just as it is possible to say you like something without being a fan boy. Do you follow that? :D

[Blood Shadow]

Ok but please now I've read it twice and still lost your thread....you're cross about objective cards? That bit I got.....the rest I'm still a little confused

[Caitsidhe]

Ok but please now I've read it twice and still lost your thread....you're cross about objective cards? That bit I got.....the rest I'm still a little confused

I'm not cross about the cards. :) I think the Maelstrom Mission design (which keys on the cards) is clunky, random and poorly designed. The new rumor is they are going to expand on the cards by producing Codex or Faction specific cards. I'm not opposed to this idea. I think that at this point it is a good idea to try and fix the Maelstrom Missions. I just don't think they went about it properly. Essentially, I'm calling them on poor choices, and suggesting what I believe to be a better approach. For the record, as I stated in my first post, I don't think the codex/faction specific cards can do any harm. The Maelstrom Missions are so badly done that add on rules can't make them any worse, but they might make them better. I just think if they are going to do them, they should do them right. That means I think they should listen to the ONLY real play testers for this game, i.e. the Players. I also think the new cards should all be released at once, not parted out in this irritating foolishness that just continues an imbalance.

[Krefey]

Ugh, my browser just ate my response.

Point 1) GW do play test, but they obviously do it in house where they don't have the mass of nerdom to try and find every little nuance or rules interaction advantage that they can. I dispute the statement that cards require no preparation. There would be the time needed to decide what each objective would be, if ti works for the army in question (in this case Orks), the cards then need to be deisgned (artwork, text layout etc), printed, packaged and shipped. Not only that, but they need to be integarated with teh codex (I am making the assumption here that the codex will ahve a D66 table like the rulebook does for the current set of missions) in which case you need to factor in the codex design, layout, printing and shipping times too. GW generally has a pipeline of releases where the items are ready for release months in advance of the actual release date too. So the Orks stuff woudl likely have been ready or going out to printers / manufacturing plants before 7th ed even hit the streets. This is pretty standard manufacturing / production process.

point 2) *shrugs* got nothing for this one really. They do seem to make some odd choices. The only thing I'd say is that the Maelstrom of war missions are a subset of the rules. They aren't mandatory. So the whole building a rules framework for the various types of player out there to be able to use elements of that suit their preferred style of gaming makes sense to me.

point 3) The Ork release. They pre-released new miniatures, new unit rules etc before the codex has been released. I don't know about you, but this has gotten me pretty excited about the Ork release. I ahven't played Orks since 4th edition I think and I'm keen to buy the miniatures and start a new Ork army thanks to the way they've trickled out the releases ebfore the codex. Admittedly I probably won't actually buy anything because I've got too much hobby stuff on my plate at the moment as it is though.

Regarding the mechanics that the community has come up with based on rumours or sheer wishlisting and speculation. Yes, some are better than what GW have released, but some are also a lot worse. Some of the decent ones are also only good when you don't take into account the other changes that have happened in the new rules. It's a bit of a mixed bag imho.

The final point, is that all the speculation and what not that all the learned and sage players on the interwebs is all great, but as mentioned, by the time the rumours hit, the production process is already under way anyway. Plus a lot of internet users like being armchair economists or whatever when they have no actual experience in the areas they are telling GW to fix.

[Wolfshade]

Caitsidhe, , with the risk of being called a fanboi, you are unfortunately wrong.
Though this may come down to me reading what you have written as a literal truth rather than some hyperbole borne out of frustration from a game system that you wish were better.

Let's break it down.

1.

Regarding the time frame GW rolled 7th ed out. Unless you work at GW HQ you do not know that it was created in 6 months. I certainly cannot claim to know this. I will agree with the sentiment that it seems very soon after 6th, frustratingly so. I was expecting another 2 years or more of 6th, but ho hum.

While I cannot comment directly on the rules, as my rule book is yet to appear [damn you TotalWargamer only two weeks late and counting - seriously why do I still use these guys], but I would suggest that every irreration of the rules was a copy of the previous ones and improvised new mechanics.
I cannot see how you can make any changes that aren't either recycled old rules or new rules. The only way a new rule cannot be improvised would be for it to copy a mechanic from another system, which would be poor. I am quite happy with the recycling of old rules, the shooting and S vs. T, WS table, are all old mechanics that seem to work quite well, and isn't the whole idea of releasing a new version is to re-use what works well and change things that don't. (Though I will not get into an argument about what works well and what doesn't as that is futile as everyone's experiance is manifestly different and therefore what works well for one may not work well for another).

Regarding the testing, GW has done and do continue to play test, as stupid as you may consider them, they are not stupid enough not to test play games before the rules are released. Yes, the do no longer have them as open as they were, nor do they test play with the wide community as a whole, but just because you do not see it does not mean that it does not exist.

The incorporation of FAQ/Errata from 6th is just what you should expect. Consider if there was a bug in a software, you report it and they create a patch for it, you would expect that bug and it's fix to be incorporated into the next version. This is part of having a revisionist ruleset.

Having not played a Maelstrom Mission I cannot comment on how well they work or don't. I can say that I am looking forward to trying it out, though I am a little apprehensive.

So what it comes down to is that it "smacks of desperation" that they do in house testing (as they always have), have a revisionist ruleset whereby things are either used from previous rules or are new (I am still unsure what other type of rule there can be), where FAQ and Errata are addressed in a new version (this actually sounds sensible, though it would be better if these weren't here in the first place) and they are rapidly releasing Maelsotrom Missions.

2.

Citadel Miniatures are a miniatures firm, they have always said that. Now, I think there are two ways for them to sell miniatures, either make the best looking miniatures in the market (which I think for the most part they have done, but again this is my opinion, and some of these new Kickstarter minatures are gorgeous (though stuck in monoposes)) or by having a great ruleset (which I am not sure that they have).

In terms of usign a competitive play as an engine to fuel sales, I am not so sure. Certainly, there are many that enjoy tournaments, hence the active tournament scene, but if GW were really trying to push it then surely they would be more active in their support for it and go back to the days of running tournaments other than those out of Nottingham.

I would wager that most people who play games do so because they want to and enjoy it rather than owing to some competition. But any competitive game will always be formed into a tournament format, from sports, to board games, to computer games, bell ringing, tree-felling, tiddly winks anything. But regardless the majority of people who play in a tournament, those tournaments would only make up a small percentage of their time spent on the hobby.

I am going to posit something quite contravesial here, tournmanent players are not the best market for GW to aim at, and if they did so [warning anacedote] they would be ignoring the majority of their player base. The reason for this is that a tournament player tends to play a list. They will scour a codex for the most efficient build and then buy and paint a list and that is it. They will then use that list all year or even longer. A hobbyist, will continue to accrue and grow their armies even when they are not flavour of the month, they will include units considerd sub-par by some for reasons like "completeness", "the model looked good", it is in the codex.

So why would you market to a sub-section of your market and not the the whole. Look at video games and how they alost uiniversally ignore the female demographic, they could almost double their sales if they appealed to females.

The way I understand it, and I may be wrong, the choice to play with cards or without are yours so no one is forcing you to pay for it. Same with dataslates or even a new codex. Certainly, the opportunity to tailor ones card deck would introduce a new strategic element to the game and I am not sure why that is a bad thing. The argument that a player is at a "serious" disadvantage for not removing certain cards is the same argument put forwards by people that claim that if you take a "sub-par" unit or do not build in multiple redundancy into your army then you are at a "serious" disadvantage. It isn't, it is that person excercising their right to play the game in the manner that they wish to. If we take the extreme argument, then you end up with each army having a monobuild with a mono-set of cards, you end up playing chess but with dice.

So I can see why you would think they have an identity crisis but looking at the same results I don't agree

3.

This is probably the section that I most agree with you.

The secrecy does build an element of excitement, you only need to check how rapidly threads on this forum grow when a new morsel of information is released. But, whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is an elemenent where GW currently have their hands tied owning to the deal with New Line cinema. From a commerical point of view it makes sense to release products and then tell people about them. Consider the thing that is the CHS case, GW annouced via codecii units that didn't have models so enterprinurial 3rd parties rushed to market to fill that gap, essentially, beating GW to the punch so that they could not release the model themselves. It also does not make sense to create a product in its finished form and sit on it for months, creating a buzz for it then releasing it, after all, those units cost time and money sitting in a central warehouse.

As for rumour and speculation and the fake rules that are born from them, I think you are looking at things through rose tinted glasses. I remember the outrage people had when they believed fake rumours, the horror amongst those who thought the fake 7th rules were real, the dissapointment when early news (from play testing) was taken as gospel then revised. So while there may be some good community rules out there, there are also some crap ones and to say that they are "all hands down better" is just not true, unless you like the idea of silenced thunder hammers so not to scare the bat riders as a good thing...

The the comment about community rules and play testing. Yes, so we have the issue of early rules, and that play testing openly could against their contract with new line cinema. But community rules are not always great and workable. Every couple of months this is demonstrated when people on this forum and others try to create their own 40k version. It is so dependent on meta it is unbelivable.

Apparently I am mistaken, this section about customer relations and marketing, was actually a point on rules again and how they do not create the rules you like.

What you could have said is things along the line of.

GW approach to social media has been very poor. Instead of utilising things like FB to interact with fans outside of GW stores, it was used to push their media and not in a very sucessful way. The retreat from FB and other social media shows a level of incompetance and lack of understanding of how marketing works.

One of the best things GW did was to create Eddie to ask questions to and get a response, this was seen by many as a golden light that perhaps the dawn was about to break, but instead, Eddie was removed.

Engaging in a personal base is a very important way to help those who play feel part of it. If there were a small team of people that could respond rapidly to questions and complaints and create a single answer pool and have those as living FAQ documents. Or explain why a certain decision was made regarding the points for this and the points for that. Creating "wish lists" for games designers going forward to check and balance against.

That, that would be useful.

As for marketing, GW does none. And they are quite effective at using it. As Marilyn Manson once said, "there is no point spending money advertising if someone else will do it for you for free". And to some extent that is what we do. We leap on every morsel of rumour examine it, tell our friends about it and do lots of good word of mouth. It is this word of mouth that GW relied on to grow, however, we are no longer in the 70s, 80s or 90s. We are truely in a digital age and GW may need to consider actually advertising. Having clear cut marketing cmapaigns that are specific to the regions and not just a one size fits all approach.

Word of mouth works well where you have a base from which it can spread, principally a brick and mortar store, unfortunately, we are living in a digital world where more shopping is done online than in stores and if that continues then the word of mouth market starts to fail. It also means that in areas with low population densities word of mouth is more difficult to achieve.

In terms of customer relations, I would like to make this one point. When it comes to faulty and missing kit, GW customer service is excellent.

So while I do agree with you that they need better/different PR and Marketing, I would approach it from a different angle altogether.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't think GW have ever aimed their rules at a slick competitive thing. Ever.

You only need to read interviews with their design staff, or talk to them at an event, and you'll soon see they're going after the rule of cool. Someone has a cool idea, it gets passed on, and if they're lucky, becomes a reality.

And seriously man, if you're that unhappy with the game, why bother continuing? The stuff you accuse GW of is either quite paranoid of you, or how it's always been (narrative over competition etc). You claiming otherwise doesn't change that.

[Charon]

Regarding the time frame GW rolled 7th ed out. Unless you work at GW HQ you do not know that it was created in 6 months. I certainly cannot claim to know this. I will agree with the sentiment that it seems very soon after 6th, frustratingly so. I was expecting another 2 years or more of 6th, but ho hum.

You can probably narrow it down around the Astra Militarum Codex. I always wondered why the Deathstrike (which can only fire indirect) has a minimum range when the indirect fire rule tells you to ignore minimum ranges.
So you can say that Astra militarum was wirtten with the 7th edition almost finished. 7th cleared that up as direct now ignores the minimum range while indirect doesn not.
Knights and Tyranids both had rules which either got changed or useless with 7th edition. So it is safe to say that 7th was nothing fixed. Knights where released march and Tyranids in january. That leaves a very narrow time window from concept to polishing.

[Mr Mystery]

No, you can narrow down the odd rule here and there to that.....not the same as the entire book.

[Wolfshade]

Interesting conspiracy time.

7th edition is on time but it was 6th that was the cash cow.

Who knows?

[Mr Mystery]

Here's another one.

GW did not design their game solely with me in mind, therefore they're incompetent.

[Charon]

Possible but not probably. It may just be the feeling of my gaming group but... 7th feels unfinished.
Yes there where issues with each editon. Sometimes glaring, sometimes more of personal taste. But this is really the first time we where consenting (after playing a lot) in just to ignore an edition completely.
We are optimistic that we can create "a better" psi phase and fix up most of the powers so they can compete and while we are at it we can redo vehicle rules.
7th really left us speechless... not in a good way.

[Caitsidhe]

Caitsidhe, , with the risk of being called a fanboi, you are unfortunately wrong.

I've read enough of your posts to know you are not a fanboi (I like your spelling... very Japanese). Disagreeing with me is a fair stance. I don't label people based on that.


1.
Regarding the time frame GW rolled 7th ed out. Unless you work at GW HQ you do not know that it was created in 6 months. I certainly cannot claim to know this. I will agree with the sentiment that it seems very soon after 6th, frustratingly so. I was expecting another 2 years or more of 6th, but ho hum.

The problem is they didn't even go two years. The roll out of this edition was a month short of two years. If we subtract another 4-5 months for printing and distribution, we are talking about them having 1.5 years to design the new rules. :D A year and a half isn't a bad time frame to create new rules, but we must take this in context. Did they start doing 7th Edition the DAY after releasing 6th Edition? :D I think it is far more likely they waited at least six months (and even that is cold comfort). If we do the simple math, we find that they end up with about six months to design the entire edition. :D When broken down like that, it is easy to understand why 7th Edition is basically a cut and paste of 6th and other books with the new Psychic Phase and the unimpressive Maelstrom Missions thrown in. Look, I understand your points. I am just pointing out the calendar. I will also point out (and Mr. Mystery will no doubt say I'm paranoid) that their unfortunate sales report happened within that 1.5 window and at a point about six months or so before we heard the first rumors of the 7th Edition roll out. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I think it is entirely logical to assume they got a crappy sales report, wanted to bolster numbers, and did the thing guaranteed to make minimum sales, i.e. a new Edition. They didn't have much time to do it and thus we got 6th Edition all over again except for one page of Faq/Errata, a new Psychic Phase, and six more Mission. A Revisionist rules set is one thing, paying for the book twice for an added page of Faq/Errata is another. :)


In terms of usign a competitive play as an engine to fuel sales, I am not so sure. Certainly, there are many that enjoy tournaments, hence the active tournament scene, but if GW were really trying to push it then surely they would be more active in their support for it and go back to the days of running tournaments other than those out of Nottingham.

I think it is fair to be on the fence here, because I am supporting my argument entirely based on circumstantial (albeit powerful circumstantial) evidence. I think Games Workshop is fine not directly running or supporting tournaments because they are well aware that they don't have to do so. Why work harder than you must? Why spend money when the community itself has a segment of its population that will do tournaments with or without them? In this, I agree with what you state later, that they do the best advertising they can do without spending a penny. That, however, is irrelevant to the argument I am making. I am talking about the mechanics and the new system by which you pay to play more effectively. This Edition rewards you for having more books, spamming units, and mingling armies. It is, in fact, a power gamer's dream setup. Hell they aren't even subtle about it. In the case of summoned Daemons (a clear plug for selling them) you get free upgrades to units as long as you actually have the models with the upgrades. What I am suggesting, based on the logistical approach, is that Games Workshop has made a calculated appraisal that by connecting winning with acquisitions they will make more sales. This is the model that card games use too. This newest rumor (if true) emphasizes this even more. Being able to "stack your deck" is a huge advantage if your opponent does not do so. :D


I would wager that most people who play games do so because they want to and enjoy it rather than owing to some competition. But any competitive game will always be formed into a tournament format, from sports, to board games, to computer games, bell ringing, tree-felling, tiddly winks anything. But regardless the majority of people who play in a tournament, those tournaments would only make up a small percentage of their time spent on the hobby.

We can agree to disagree here. In my own experience people enjoy games because we are by nature somewhat competitive. That is why MOST games are competitive. I still remember the first time I played musical chairs in elementary school. The proof is in the pudding. Most games have winners and losers. Even among the other animals, almost all play is some form of competitive training tool. Watch kittens wrestle and pounce each other. I digress. I enjoy playing games. I simply know myself enough to know why I enjoy them. Games are not an excuse for me to hang out with my friends and socialize. I have friends. I can socialize with them without an excuse. :D When I come to play games, I'm there to play games. Does that make sense? I understand that not 100% of the population is competitive. I realize there are people out there who get together and do jigsaw puzzles, collect stamps, and run model railroads together in cooperative, storytelling manner. I am also aware, as are you, that they are a tiny percentage of the population. Most people who play games are competing. The games over the centuries reflect that desire and enjoyment.

[Mr Mystery]

100% of people are competitive though.

But not everyone uses their hobby to express that.

Games over the centuries is one thing. But this game? Never intended for high level, cashmonies winning competition ala Poker, or even MTG. Demanding it become so all of a sudden just looks daft.

[Wolfshade]

I don't actually have a problem with people complaining that the game isn't what they would like it to be.

[Mr Mystery]

Me neither, but when they're saying it's a failing of game design, because it's not what they want is.....odd.

There are games out there for that sort o thing, and lots of niches inbetween. And each game occupies certain niches. They don't have to occupy all niches at all times.

[Caitsidhe]

100% of people are competitive though.

But not everyone uses their hobby to express that.

Games over the centuries is one thing. But this game? Never intended for high level, cashmonies winning competition ala Poker, or even MTG. Demanding it become so all of a sudden just looks daft.

But that is the thing, Mr. Mystery, I'm not demanding it. The market will demand that. I'm suggesting that Games Workshop wants it both ways. They claim they aren't a competitive game, and yet it has winners and losers. It has victory points. It has objectives. The entire structure of the game is competitive. What is more, I am suggesting that their new business model (a slow evolution of the old one) hinges on the competitive nature of human beings. What I am saying is that you have accepted their politically correct statements about the game not being competitive. I, on the other hand, see that statement as nothing but lip service thrown to one type of gamer even as they market the rules to another type of gamer.

I agree with you that not everyone uses this hobby to express competition. There are clearly two fringe camps (narrative and sport) at either extreme. The vast majority of players, however, are dead in the middle both competitive and who like a good story. What I am suggesting is that Games Workshop is telling us one thing, but we can judge what they really believe by their actions. They have rigged the game where you pay to play more effectively. That is only important to people who care about winning. Do you see where I'm going with this? Actions speak louder than words. We have an entire edition which CLAIMS to be about forging the narrative, but provides absolutely nothing in regards to forging a narrative. This edition simply allows you to make up crazy armies and encourages you buy more and broader in selection to do so. The Maelstrom Mission cards are not the least bit narrative or even interesting. There is no story to any of them. They are dull. Sieze Objective Three. Seize Objective One. If you destroy a building get a point. If you shoot down a flyer get a point. If you destroy a unit get a point. If you destroy three or more units get a D3 points. That would only be considered "narrative" if you were a freaking robot.

There is nothing in this edition which brings more narrative elements to the game. The only changes in this Edition involve logistical list building.

[Charon]

100% of people are competitive though.

But not everyone uses their hobby to express that.

Games over the centuries is one thing. But this game? Never intended for high level, cashmonies winning competition ala Poker, or even MTG. Demanding it become so all of a sudden just looks daft.

You dont need that.
You count victory points and compare them to determine who came out on top. That is competitive.
You can go and run along with a friend. Thats not competitive. You are just running, enjoying the weather and talking.
Draw a start and finish line and it becomes competitive.
If we are "forced" to play competitive (as there is no Ai or designated gamemaster to play against) we want that both sides have near equal chances and solid rules to rely on.
I dont think that is too much to ask of a multimillion company.

[daboarder]

I don't think GW have ever aimed their rules at a slick competitive thing. Ever.


Except when they ran tournaments....


And did the whole "less is better" justification

[Wolfshade]

I've read enough of your posts.
I'm sorry, no one should do that :)


[Time frame]
I do agree with the sentiment, indeed I did say so, that it seemed too quick. Part of me wonders if 6th was actually a 7th Alpha that was quickly polished (rolled in glitter if you prefer) to get to market all these things that they wanted in 7th, and that 7th is the actual game.

My issue was with the claim that we *knew*, we can hypothesie and draw conclusions as logical as you like. You set out your conclusions based on your assumptions, yet if I were to set out the assumption that a small team started building 7th a year before 6th was finished, that gives another year. Change the assumption that 7th is actually what and when 6th should have been, but GW needed a chash injection and woosh we get 6th development time + 1.5.

We can guess and make damn good ones but we won't know for sure. But the the point 2 years between editions, I do believe that to be too soon.



[Pay to Win model]
OK, I think that that sets it out a little different to how it is initally posted and I see where you are coming from.
I wonder how long GW has actually been doing this? Consider a unit of 5 grey knights back in 2nd ed, they could destroy half the opponent in the pysker phase, but only if you had brought the lead 5 man squad (significantly more expensive than 5 terminators or 10 tactical marines) and Dark Millenium.
The more expesnive the model pts wise the more expesnive the model £-wise.
Or how at codex jump it was the new dex with the new list was the new undefeatable army?

I've not played with enough dataslates to make a judgement about this. Certainly, though, the ability to ally and do stuff like that played into the gamers with the biggest resources.

I think the cynic will see it as GW's pay to win and the believer/optamistic/anti-cynic will see it as creating more flexibility.

On the similiar issue, as 6th rolled on, I became increasingly concerned with the number of add-ins that could potentially make pick up games rather ill matched.

With regard to the summoning deamon list, there were concerns over the spamming of Tervigons (though as far as I understand it, the deamon summoning is more extreme than this).


[Tournaments]
Sorry, what I meant by "I would wager that most people who play games do so because they want to and enjoy it rather than owing to some competition", the competion I meant was the actual tournament, of course we play to win. I have never met anyone who didn't. Within my gaming group you don't mind if you don't win owing to the environment and that we've know each other for far too long. But you still go into the game with that winning mindset.

So, while most people play musical chairs to win the prize, they don't go in to be the national champion (if there is such a thing)
[ed. apparently there is: http://musicalchairswc.com/]

So people play to win because they enjoy the game/activity. But they don't hear of the tournament and learn to play because of that (though I am sure having posted this there will be a couple of people who said that this was their experiance).

[Charon]

I do agree with the sentiment, indeed I did say so, that it seemed too quick. Part of me wonders if 6th was actually a 7th Alpha that was quickly polished (rolled in glitter if you prefer) to get to market all these things that they wanted in 7th, and that 7th is the actual game.

If it was like this I wonder why 6th seemed more polished and smooth than 7th.
If 6th was the beta version of the 7th, they just missed chance after chance to tidy up their frame and blanced out the phases. One big complaint was how weak melee is compared to shooting. 7th did not change that, shooting got even more powerful. If I would be a conspiracy theorist, I would point to the new orc releases which seems to be only shooty stuff (same as tyanids) when melee was a big part in their army theme.

[Harley]

How many times to we need to rehash the whole short memoried statements like "GW never intended for 40k to be played competitively" only to be reminded by someone that GW ran competitive 40k tournaments worldwide for over a decade.

Designing a more balanced game with competitive play in mind is not prohibitive to casual play. Claiming you never intended balance because it wasn't your primary focus is a cop-out.

I don't think Cait is trying to say GW fails at game design because GW didn't create it the way he/she wants. I think what is being said is that the design fails because it creates a conflict of interest between competitive and casual play. Having this bi-polar approach confuses and divides the community.

It is impossible to argue that balancing the game and making it more permissive to competitive play will not increase sales. Everyone wins. There are 0 negative aspects to balance, formatting, and trimmed game play because if you want to play casually and don't like them, you don't have to!

As for how polished 7th is... does it really matter? It's here. None of us know what really happened or can change it. It seems pretty obvious though that if you look at the release schedules and GW's stock prices, they were bombing in 2014 and have recently hit the after burners to try and pull up.

[Wolfshade]

How many times to we need to rehash the whole short memoried statements like "GW never intended for 40k to be played competitively" only to be reminded by someone that GW ran competitive 40k tournaments worldwide for over a decade.

Tbat in and of itself is not a problem. The makers of settlers of catan didn't write the game planning for it to be played in a tournament setting. The maker of musical chairs never intended there to be a world champion chairer, however, human nature being what it is has made these activities which people wish to win at to have a tournament scene. Just becuae you run a tournament does not mean that you are aiming your game to be played like that. It could simply be seen that you are doing it because a) you think you can make money from it, b) someone is going to run it anyway, c) you can

The big trouble is that you will never achieve balance. So many things are so situational, that in some circumstances the best wargear choice is the worst option, an assault squad with twin meltaguns is great at tank hunting but playing against horde armies and you will need twin flamers instead, so what is worth more points?

If I play in a meta whereby I will more likely face a tank than a horde then the flamer is the cheaper option, if the circumstance were reverse the flamer then becomes the better and therefore more expesnive option.

[Charon]

The big trouble is that you will never achieve balance. So many things are so situational, that in some circumstances the best wargear choice is the worst option, an assault squad with twin meltaguns is great at tank hunting but playing against horde armies and you will need twin flamers instead, so what is worth more points?

Actually this is a very small part. True balance will never be achieved. But you could start by redoing unreasonable priced units ang give purpose to any unit out there.
The flamer has a purpose.
The melter has a purpose.
You can do the same with units. If 2 units have the same purpose, are in the same slot and do the same damage you aim for the "cheaper" one.
CSM Bikes and Raptors are a good example for this. For only 3 points difference you get +1T, Turboboost, Jink and better ranged weapons.
Both are in the same slot, have the same job. One units is way more durable and flexible as the other, thus the less durable and less flexible one remains on the shelf.

[Harley]

The big trouble is that you will never achieve balance. So many things are so situational, that in some circumstances the best wargear choice is the worst option, an assault squad with twin meltaguns is great at tank hunting but playing against horde armies and you will need twin flamers instead, so what is worth more points?

If I play in a meta whereby I will more likely face a tank than a horde then the flamer is the cheaper option, if the circumstance were reverse the flamer then becomes the better and therefore more expesnive option.

I agree that it can never truly be balanced, that is just the nature of any game.

However, it's clear that often there is no attempt at all. In business we would say that several sections have no conformity to quality control. There are just inexcusable oversights such as Sororitas and Wolves having absolutely 0 codex anti-air options, invisible Belakor, 4 Riptides, 2++ rerollable saves, the list goes on and on.

This, "modelling company, not a game company" mentality is like a video game producer making games with awesome graphics but poor gameplay. It's not a design choice. It's a design flaw.



CSM Bikes and Raptors are a good example for this. For only 3 points difference you get +1T, Turboboost, Jink and better ranged weapons.
Both are in the same slot, have the same job. One units is way more durable and flexible as the other, thus the less durable and less flexible one remains on the shelf.

Pretty much this.

[crandall87]

In regards to the original post I have to disagree with your first point. I like the maelstrom of war missions as they offer a different way to play the game (which you don't have to use if you don't like them). The randomness can be troublesome at times, but so many games are won by randomness and luck so if it happens in 40K it's not exactly an abnormal thing. In regards to the cards for all we know GW could have a warehouse full of all the faction cards ready to ship but they are no longer a company who are going to release bucket loads of products in one go. No doubt we will see items like these released when they have gaps in their miniature release schedule. That said I think GW are testing the water with these cards which might be why we are seeing them in limited availability to begin with. It wouldn't be good business sense to print up loads of different decks if no one wants them or like the idea of them.

I do however agree with your third point. Look at any blog, or Facebook page that post rumours. I've posted some in the past and the amount of extra likes, hits etc. you get is huge. A percentage of this turns into sales which you think GW would like. If they showed us sneak peeks before they were leaked they would notice the increase in traffic to their website. Forgeworld seem to do a good job of building excitement with their little blog. Why GW isn't doing the same is beyond me. Also in regards to rumours I've noticed we seem to get two sets of rumours these days, one set correct and one false. I wouldn't be surprised if GW are deliberately leaking false information to keep us all guessing. As you say some rumours sound better than the actual releases but some of them could have been born from wish listing maybe.

[flufflogic]

I got into 40K around 2nd edition - the first ever thing I bought was the new plastic Khorne Berserkers - and I've really watched GW drive it over the deep end.

2nd edition was a compromise between the utter chaos of RT and what would become the hyper-tightened play of 3rd ed. The models were clunky, the rules could be too - but play was easy, and gamers were plentiful. 3rd edition kept enough people that games were still easy to find, but now we had a proper force organisation system. But the fact people can even say "7th edition 40K" blows my mind. I mean, 3rd edition doesn't feel that long ago, and to be honest 4th ed felt like a revision. To think that there's been 3 more editions and each has further made a mess of play is astounding, truly.

GW, if it is to survive, needs to do some serious work. Part of that will be, frankly, simplifying kits to make them cheaper. I'm sorry, but as a vet of 2/3/4 I simply can't think about getting back into it now. Armies are a seriously expensive investment, books doubly so, heck even paints are! Back when I played there was a huge scene of players who were under 18 who would regularly bring fully painted armies to play. Those same players left the game, and many couldn't afford to go back now and certainly their kids could not. It's become a game for older players with serious disposable money, and that's just not a viable business model.

Another thing they need to work on is some serious simplification of rules. There's a million unique rules, and for new players it's very intimidating. So, simplify! Have codices have a back cover foldout and/or tearaway sheet that summarises units and abilities. Make it easy and friendly! Board games are having a huge resurgance, and GW should be riding that. Instead, they're the expensive overly complicated thing in the corner by all the weird foreign games miniatures, while young gamers buy into the likes of the Star Wars ship combat game.

Speaking of that Fantasy Flight X-Wing game, there's some huge lessons there too. Every ship that has special rules comes with those rules, and all the counters it requires. How nice is that? Now imagine if tanks came with their blast template, or squads came with the templates for special weapons like flamers. Heck, why not have cards that summarise the unit in there?

At the same time, GW is sat on a million properties it refuses to do anything with. Gorkamorka, Necromunda, Mordheim, Space Hulk, Hero Quest, Space Crusade, Warhammer Quest - these are beloved franchises they exiled to obscurity. How hard would it be to, say, release dungeon tiles for Warhammer Quest with a rulebook for using Warhammer models in the game? People would buy them for D&D and Pathfinder too, it'd make them a fortune. But no, better the IP rots than that.

It's really frustrating to watch as Forgeworld produces the only truly interesting stuff, while GW throws away everything they had. They can change that, but time is short. I wouldn't be shocked if they get the White Wolf treatment and a games software company snaps them up for the IP alone...

[Harley]

In regards to the original post I have to disagree with your first point. I like the maelstrom of war missions as they offer a different way to play the game (which you don't have to use if you don't like them).

I agree that they are a great idea, but submit that they were poorly executed. Since It's very possible to get a hand right off that you are unable to score, meaning you lose the game at no fault of your own, the game becomes about luck an not strategy. The unfortunate outcome is that people just play for annihilation since it's one factor you can control. They just should have been done differently.

[Wolfshade]

I do however agree with your third point. Look at any blog, or Facebook page that post rumours. I've posted some in the past and the amount of extra likes, hits etc. you get is huge. A percentage of this turns into sales which you think GW would like. If they showed us sneak peeks before they were leaked they would notice the increase in traffic to their website...


A point associated with this, that I had not considered. Where a blog has "monetized" (I had that "word") their blog, they get revenue stream and there are two ways to get people to visit the page you either post something that you know people will like or post things that you know people will hate. So how many "rumours" are made up in order to direct traffic to their blog?

Certainly, I having seen ridiculuos comments on websites have been spurred to sign up and comment about how factually wrong they are about something, so I wonder if that plays at all?


Part of that will be, frankly, simplifying kits to make them cheaper.
No, no, no a thousand times no! Complicated kits are brilliant, part of the appeal is that the kits are beautiful. Do you remember the snap fit kits back in 2nd? They were awful. I have tens of marines in the same weapon across chest pose and it is quite frankly boring. Multipart plastic kits are brilliant as you can pose the models in as many ways under the sun, with extra little bits and bobs and doodads. The first two boxes of assault marines I brought because I had a specific use for them, the next six were because I loved building that kit.