In the grimdark there are.....petitions?

[Deleted]

www.change.org/p/games-workshop-limited-refocus-your-business-model-on-the-sale-of-a-game-and-support-of-a-gaming-community-vice-the-pure-sale-of-collectible-miniatures#share

I was amused by the fact this petition existed, but ended up signing it. I feel like some might be inclined to do the same on the forum, but idk. Likely not something that would have an impact but doesn't hurt. 

[N.I.B.]

Signed.

[bredkooler]

I signed. I think pretty much all Tyranid players can agree with that sentiment. The only change i would have made is to add a 5th bullet point -Make all digital products available for both eReader and iPad formats. Im just not cool enough to own any apple products.

[Jabberwocky]

I just hope GW sees this as serious, constructive feedback and doesn't kneejerk it as a list of demands.

[seanster3000]

Not signed, I know I'm going to catch hell. I like the "Forge the Narrative" path GW has decided to take with 40K. I would not want the game to be redirected towards a Warmahordes clone, sorry. Do I feel that there are some changes needed at GW headquarters? Sure, just not necessarily all the changes the petition creator states!

I know the vast majority of you out there will hate me for my stance but I hold the "Spirit of The Game" box on page 14 of the rulebook as gospel. That box gives the tournament organizers or casual gamers the greenlight to do what they will to make the game's framework fit their vision of any tournament. Don't like a rule or are you having trouble interpreting it, fine change it to whatever suits your local meta or tournament environment. No one is forcing you to play with mysterious objectives or terrain nor is anyone making you play with the rulebooks version of Maelstrom of War. I on other hand enjoy all of the aforementioned randomness and would be disappointed if it was removed from the game. I don't think GW should give up on their "beer and pretzels" take on their game it's what keeps me involved and into their game. If they were to scrap it and revert to what their competition is doing I would be disappointed. Would the game "be better" maybe but the imagination that kept me wanting more would be dead to me. One of the biggest reason I don't play much Warmachine is that I am just not captivated by the story or image the game provides. I'm giving it a fair shake and I'm slowly coming around to it, but my heart will always be with 40K!

I disagree that the rules are as bad as the internet makes them out to be, though I will admit that they could be written a bit clearer. I'm sorry but I have read the Volatile rule countless times for the Pyrovore and I only see it as units within D6" not every unit on the board. Just me I guess.

That's my stance make of it what you will, feel free to rip me a new one if you must. I'm not worried about what the internet thinks of this die hard Tyranid player!

[Inquisitor Stingray]

seanster3000: Fair is fair, I just don't quite understand why some people make it out to be a case of either good, reasonable rules or creative freedom for fluffy players, not both. Why are the two mutual exclusives? I'd consider myself a fluffy player to some degree, but even when my Hive Tyrant is facing off against a Terminator Captain in an epic showdown between man and monster, I still prefer the rules for challenges and combat to be well-written, thought out and fair. If anything, the glarring issues of the game makes it more difficult for me to 'forge a narrative'. Maybe it's just me, but there's little narrative to Genestealers tripping over shrubs when assaulting, Haruspeces getting blown away on turn one, etc. These are Tyranid examples, of course, they are my only army, but I am not ignorant of the many problems that other armies deal with as either.

[GuardDog78]

Signed and emailed off to my non-tyranid 40k buddies...

[Deleted]

The only real flak I'd give your stance Seanster is I don't think you'd have to sacrifice the forge the narrative path GW is taking to give the gamer base invested in change what they want(I don't actually even agree with the premise that that's their direction- at least in the 40k realm and the entirety of the information on the web regarding how they train their employees and corporate attitudes doesn't make me think they really give half a turd about the narrative- I feel the narrative is just the rushed subtext they trot out to force another release at this point).

The current rules are such a sad representation of the narrative imo. And I don't mean "OMGWTFBBQ DON'T USE" but like the relative point pricing on oh so many units is questionable. We have high priced lords of war(I'm not even talking tyranids at this point) that would get completely stomped by similarly priced models/units(that may or may not be lords of war). And yes, there do need to be places where the narrative and rules are divorced(no one wants to move a brood of 100000 gaunts).

I want more books like damnos, and cool rules, and fluff. I just feel like a lot of other game systems(virtual and otherwise) have managed to hold on to the "narrative" element without having AS MUCH of a disparity between perceived balance. And I can't comment on hordes, I've only ever played tutorials so I'm not using their ruleset as an example of my point personally(I only mention that because I feel like people of my vantage often trot fourth warma as a good example of balance).

I like beer and pretzels. But when you look at dominion as a primaris, or shadows, or Logan Grimnar as a LoW, or the way the DE/SW/Nids release took so much NARRATIVE flavor out of the armies......I have to ask did they eat enough pretzels before emptying the ale house?

Everyone's a critic though. I've seen awesome suggestions for rule fixes before on the web. Hell even some repeated often/consistently. Does that mean I've playtested all of them extensively? No. I'm not the authority on that and many more than I would be.

Are tourney results to be taken as the end all for army power? No. The scenarios and rules tourneys have are not GW's, but modified versions. Though it doesn't mean their data is worthless from a rule construction standpoint(and considering the tourney packets put out, I feel like there's a lot of ease with forging your own narrative- especially with tyranids).  Edit: and the tourney scene in North America at least, is hurting at the moment. It's shrinking and considering it's a significant part of GW's already limited clientele I do think GW should get more involved in backing the tourney events for the safety of their own economic future. Tourney players WILL buy the flavor of the month unit. If it wasn't for third party/used sellers I'd even say they're hands down the most financially invested(as a whole) members of GW's clientele. 

Dat soapbox though.

[seanster3000]

I can see your point! I differ in that I'm ok if a Hive Tyrant or Haruspex gets vaporized turn one, is it frustrating yea but it doesn't happen very game. It's all part of the game the way I see it all of our MCs are garbage and are great! I've had my Haruspex ravage Troop squads one game and then get squashed like a backyard bug the next. The same can be said for all my MCs even the "auto include" Flying Hive Tyrant.

I see your point on the rules, and the two should not be mutually exclusive. I guess I fail to see just how bad the rules are! In all of my games we play by the rulebook and we just don't come across all the rules issues that everyone else sees. I guess I'm just naïve. Even when we do have an issue we just D6 it and keep playing. I guess since all of my opponents are my friends first I really don't care if I win or lose. Hell its quite common in my games that if there is a clear winner early that player will help the losing player out to try to keep the score from being so one sided (I wouldn't play that way in a tournament though). I guess I'm in the minority here., and I'm ok with that. I think the rules as they are now are fine and I believe that there is a lack of FAQs to address the rules issues because they want to have everything up to date and then FAQ everything as a whole. That's just my guess and maybe I'm just optimistic!

I feel like they really like where some of their "shooty" armies are (Eldar, Tau, Space Marines) and they are trying to find out how they want to make their CC armies work. Give them some time I feel like they will strike a good balance! Maybe not soon enough for some people.


My fear is that by making the rules more balanced and "tight" we will lose a lot of the options and uniqueness that most armies have. I have been told countless times by the internet that you can have all the options and balance too. While that might be possible I believe that no gaming company has nor wants to gather/employ the man power necessary to investigate and play test every angle. When I play Warmacine/Hordes I just feel that the majority of my armies uniqueness is the paint that I use to paint the models. That works in a competitive game and when I want to get those competitive juices flowing I fall to Warmachine to fill that role. I want 40K to be something different.

PS I don't think that the vast majority of the internet is wrong for having the opinion they do (they have good points)! I just respectfully disagree

[Deleted]

I don't think it's naive. It's valuable to have people defending the narrative end more, it's easy to overcorrect a problem without people disagreeing with you. Frankly I commend that you voiced your opinion on a forum that I suspect mostly disagrees with your perception.

The day they kill the narrative and fluff to favor the rules is the day I'll probably drop the hobby.

[biomassbob]

Signed. Agree, fluff is important and the rules should reflect fluff whenever they can. But they don't. seanster3000 - you are entitled to your opinion and good for you in voicing it. I do disagree because as someone else said having good rules and a balanced game/dexes (internally and externally - not perfect but serious effort in balancing - means serious playtesting) should not imply that the narrative will be diminished. You will still be able to throw out rules or re-write them with your friends. You can have tyranid and imperial guard be the best of allies if you want.

But good rules and balanced dexes allow everyone from fluffy, casual and competitive gamers to benefit. I don't understand that you think with good tight rules we will lose options. We have already lost options realistically. Also, GW has had plenty of time to fix the game - they clearly don't care rather then "they are trying, they just need more time". Look how many years the game has been a mess one way or another. I started in 4th edition - I can recall a fex or tyrant ever using a deathspitter (I certainly didn't use them). How many editions of the game and dexes do nids need before all the ranged weapons are decent choices? If you are thinking that if GW decides to make the game good they will remove piles of weapons and biomorphs to make it easier to do that is possible. But they do that already with lousy rules. For example, our 4th edition dex had lots of options for the fex (and the plastic kit came with those options which was great). Now a number of those options had poor rules and/or just didn't work right in the game. Rather then keep what worked and fix the problems GW removed lots of fex options in the 5th ed dex. Did removing these options and the other stuff they did make the 5th ed dex a good dex? No, it was a poor product with lots of bad internal balance and poorly executed/thought out rules. Sure there were some good ideas but lots of bad.

So you are entitled to disagree but I do take issue with some of your points/views.

[arapaima]

Doubt the staff really care abt what we think. They may even hold it in any esteem when it comes from major forums like warseer or dakka dakka where there are folks who ask for this focis. Last i know closes to a direct feedback in regards to the forums was an editor of black library thinking warseer is such a shithole, it is a mistake to even go there. If that be the case, i doubt anyone in the team will care abt what we want.I know warseer can be very (please do not swear) with alll the vitirolic and rage flying but they missing out on chance to listen to community feedback, after all we providing them a a chance to move that back log of genestealer.

[arapaima]

Doubt the staff really care abt what we think. They may even hold it in any esteem when it comes from major forums like warseer or dakka dakka where there are folks who ask for this focis. Last i know closes to a direct feedback in regards to the forums was an editor of black library thinking warseer is such a shithole, it is a mistake to even go there. If that be the case, i doubt anyone in the team will care abt what we want.I know warseer can be very (please do not swear) with alll the vitirolic and rage flying but they missing out on chance to listen to community feedback, after all we providing them a a chance to move that back log of genestealer.

[seanster3000]

Without derailing this thread (I like this thread there are some really great points posted here) any further I guess I'm just confused, jaded, or blinded by this lack of external/internal balance. I can that some units are better than others, but why am I wrong for being ok with that? I still find myself using the Haruspex from time to time and eh, he works sometimes it's still a cool model. I can see your point on the Deathspitters (though I used them in 4th lol) at least in this codex they don't hold the same weight as the Devourers or the rest of the Hive Tyrants ranged weaponry. I guess where we differ is that I'm not too upset by that, I feel that GW will smooth out the options sometime soon. I am not going to call for GWs head because one (or some) of the Hive Tyrant's weapon choices are lackluster. I find that most of the units hold up pretty good for what I use them for even, Pyrovores and Haruspexes. I also think that most (not all the options in our codex are pretty good (yeah some suck I'll give you that). At the end of the day sometimes things work my way in a game and sometimes they don't sometimes "crazy units" (like the Pyrovore)and sometimes I don't. That's why I like the direction Tyranids are going I feel like we have lots of options so my lists never have to be the same, and I'm ok with not all of them being perfectly balanced/playable as long as I can find ways to enjoy them I will use them.

I do think that GW cares about our opinions, I think they read forums and websights and listen to the questions people ask at their different events. I also think they try to work our opinions in when they can (maybe not as much as some of us would like). Though I have to say this is an area that I can agree they need to be better at. Though on the other hand they should not radically change things just because someone or some people on the internet have a different vision of what their game should be either.

[rehkal]

Signed.

seanster, I can see where you are coming from but GW does not have to destroy 'forge the narrative' in order to provide a better set of rules and/or support the rules they have. Right now we are getting zero response to any of the major problems/questions that are being asked on rules. Our codex is a good example of that, look at all the blatant problems there are with it and how many times people have sent inquires to GW to get clarification.. and still our FAQ and errata makes no mention of the biggest problems.

Supporting the game aspect does not mean limiting the flexibility of the system. It just means you are communicating and actually -helping- the community that makes the game a success.