The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[von Lucky]

Stunning (I can see so many additions and the painting is making me jealous).

For all the negativity GW attracts, they have a great knack for creating submersive universives. I'm sure AoS will be the same, they've just used a microwave instead of slow cooking it in an oven. Let it cool down and it'll taste good too. Just a shame they threw the old cake in the bin when it was still good eating. I wanted my cake and eat it too. Two cakes (or more) would've solved that.

[Humorous_Conclusion]

For all the negativity GW attracts, they have a great knack for creating submersive universives. I'm sure AoS will be the same, they've just used a microwave instead of slow cooking it in an oven. Let it cool down and it'll taste good too. Just a shame they threw the old cake in the bin when it was still good eating. I wanted my cake and eat it too. Two cakes (or more) would've solved that.

I'm not convinced about that yet. So far, the Realms seem very very vague and the books they have put out cram very little text into an awful lot of pages. That leaves a lot of room for customisation, but, as with the rules, possibly a little too much. The players may have to do to much work, in which case, what exactly is the point of going to Games Workshop?

That said, I am probably a little biased as I'm not a big fan of the Realms very high fantasy style, I preferred the Warhammer world, which was slightly more grounded in reality.

I do very much like that customised Knight.

[Rhoderic]

I'm not convinced about that yet. So far, the Realms seem very very vague and the books they have put out cram very little text into an awful lot of pages. That leaves a lot of room for customisation, but, as with the rules, possibly a little too much. The players may have to do to much work, in which case, what exactly is the point of going to Games Workshop?

That strikes me as an intentional design feature as part of the new imperative to "sales optimise" the fantasy line by making the setting mimic 40K. Now there's thousands of kingdoms much like 40K has millions of planets, and everything is more diffuse so that any two races/factions could be bordering each other anywhere. It's the "everything everywhere everywhen everyhow" approach, which does have some value to wargamers who don't like fluff limitations to the effect of "The Ogre Kingdoms and Lizardmen would never encounter each other because of geography", but does also come with inherent drawbacks of its own because ultimately, fewer limitations means fewer contours. Fewer contours means fewer discernible shapes and more homogenous static. A good story needs shapes and contours.

For the most part I'm neutral to the whole "multiplanar" aspect of AoS. The Warhammer world had its own set of pros and cons, the Realms (is that what the new setting should be called?) have their own. As I mentioned earlier I don't hate the idea of multiplanar fantasy as such, but on the other hand, the Warhammer world was a venerable "old familiar" with a mood and style that became a fixture in the grand mosaic of classic fantasy.

There have been times I've felt that certain elements of the Warhammer world clash with each other, but even so, the old "core" of that setting is nothing short of delectable. That core, specifically, is the notion of a Teutonic renaissance realm of deep, dark forests and half-mad cities beset from within and without by all kinds of creatures of dark fantasy - a culture of religious zealots, witch hunters and gothic knights but also eccentric inventors, industrious engineers and wizardly academics, all of them standing defiant against beastmen, Chaos daemons, cultists, greenskins, the undead and wicked ratmen. Some other elements of the setting are decent enough as well (dwarves, elves, etc) but even they look their best when viewed through the lenses of the Empire, Chaos and other dark fantasy-styled features that are central to the setting. I hope the Warhammer world will gain more of a cult status among fantasy enthusiasts now that GW itself is, at least partly, walking away from it.

Still, I also have high hopes (laced with quite a lot of apprehension that GW may muck it up) for the re-release of Mordheim, seeing as the theme of that game really exemplifies everything that I described above as being delectable about the old Warhammer world.

I don't know if there's enough stuff in it to spark off much narrative, scenario, quasi-RPG gaming. Granted, I haven't read many of the books (that would necessitate buying them), but reports don't sound promising (fantasy bolter porn) and there's this one official campaign download I've latched onto. It involves the tribes of the Oighear, who live on a snowy plane in the realm of Metal. All we know about the plane is that it's constantly wracked with snowstorms and covered in snow, except once every thousand years there's a... storm... that... covers the plane in snow... All we know about the Oighear is that they're shapeshifters, that conveniently look and behave like any models you have, and fight eachother after each millenial snowstorm.

There's such a thing as a sandbox setting, and then there's a desert.

That does sound like dreadfully bad writing...

[Hupp n at em]

I don't know if there's enough stuff in it to spark off much narrative, scenario, quasi-RPG gaming. Granted, I haven't read many of the books (that would necessitate buying them), but reports don't sound promising (fantasy bolter porn) and there's this one official campaign download I've latched onto. It involves the tribes of the Oighear, who live on a snowy plane in the realm of Metal. All we know about the plane is that it's constantly wracked with snowstorms and covered in snow, except once every thousand years there's a... storm... that... covers the plane in snow... All we know about the Oighear is that they're shapeshifters, that conveniently look and behave like any models you have, and fight eachother after each millenial snowstorm.

There's such a thing as a sandbox setting, and then there's a desert.

Hmmm didn't know they were outsourcing to the local kindergarten.  Of course, this is so devoid of imagination that I don't even know if the kid joke works...   

[Humorous_Conclusion]

That strikes me as an intentional design feature as part of the new imperative to "sales optimise" the fantasy line by making the setting mimic 40K. Now there's thousands of kingdoms much like 40K has millions of planets, and everything is more diffuse so that any two races/factions could be bordering each other anywhere. It's the "everything everywhere everywhen everyhow" approach, which does have some value to wargamers who don't like fluff limitations to the effect of "The Ogre Kingdoms and Lizardmen would never encounter each other because of geography", but does also come with inherent drawbacks of its own because ultimately, fewer limitations means fewer contours. Fewer contours means fewer discernible shapes and more homogenous static. A good story needs shapes and contours.

I think you're probably right here. But for me, the key difference is that Warhammer 40,000 still had a recognisable style, for all its multitude of planets. Its dark fantasy gothic look is still distinctive and different from other sci-fi Universes.

The Realms, on the other hand, seem to be entirely vague at this point. As you say, fewer contours.

[Gibby]

Age of Sigmar may well be a very fine game, but the style just doesn't do it for me. Big super powered (and giant shoulder pad/weapons) fantasy isn't my thing at all - I'm interested in the people I can identify with. The plucky swordsman in the front rank who is pooing his undies as his unit advances towards hordes of undead, who hopefully aren't wearing big talll undead themed hats and rib bone robes, but are just the disturbed remains of the swordsman's own folk, heniously animated by foul magic. That swordsman is more interesting to me than Big Muscle Bastard with Axe The Size of a Road Sign who is MEGA POWERFUL.
It's not like Age of Sigmar is the only Super Power fantasy out there - far from it, but this it the GW thread and the fact that AoS replaced the Old World I knew and loved (which had been losing its more grounded style for years anyway) means that AoS bears the brunt of my whinging. If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

[Hobgoblin]

Age of Sigmar may well be a very fine game, but the style just doesn't do it for me. Big super powered (and giant shoulder pad/weapons) fantasy isn't my thing at all - I'm interested in the people I can identify with. The plucky swordsman in the front rank who is pooing his undies as his unit advances towards hordes of undead, who hopefully aren't wearing big talll undead themed hats and rib bone robes, but are just the disturbed remains of the swordsman's own folk, heniously animated by foul magic. That swordsman is more interesting to me than Big Muscle Bastard with Axe The Size of a Road Sign who is MEGA POWERFUL.

Very well put. The outsized weapons puzzle me (and GW is not the sole culprit here, by any means). Much of the technical excellence of many modern sculpts is completely undone by the fact that the weapons are incongruously large. Rather than making them look menacing, the size of the weapons suggests that they are made out of ... foam.

[Vermis]

It's not like Age of Sigmar is the only Super Power fantasy out there - far from it, but this it the GW thread and the fact that AoS replaced the Old World I knew and loved (which had been losing its more grounded style for years anyway) means that AoS bears the brunt of my whinging. If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

My sentiment exactly.

Very well put. The outsized weapons puzzle me (and GW is not the sole culprit here, by any means). Much of the technical excellence of many modern sculpts is completely undone by the fact that the weapons are incongruously large. Rather than making them look menacing, the size of the weapons suggests that they are made out of ... foam.

And this. I think I'm getting to the point where I have trouble understanding why others jump up and down in excitement because of some mini waving about a coffee-table-onna-stick. "Don't you have eyes...?"
Giant weapons are vanity, IMO, in a couple of senses of the word. It's that guy with the axe blade not much bigger than his hand that you have to watch out for. He's the one that means business, not the poser (in a couple of senses of the word!) trying hard to convince you with his makeshift metal manhood.

[Gibby]

It's why I roll my eyes at novels where a character has named his/her sword/primary fighting weapon. No weapon would last more than a few fights, unless you never intended to use it. So yeah, vanity really. Obviously the odd fantasy weapon made of a borderline magical material so it never breaks gets around that, but it needn't be a coffee table-on-a-stick as Vermis so wonderfully phrased it. If a weapon not only looks too massive and daft to fight with, but also too massive and daft to even lift, then its wielder is a superbeing who I already fail to identify with and drama is automatically lost for me.

[Dim_Reaper]

I don't really have an issue with a fair bit of the oversized weapons. It's part of the aesthetic of Warhammer's Heroic Styling, and again, rolling that back now could have an adverse affect on those who do like that sort of thing. Mind you, it's possible to find a suitable middle-ground. I rather like Felix Paniagua's Avatars of War range for this. The weapons and designs are very characterful, but without overdoing it.

I definitely feel there's a cold, contrived element to GW's more recent designs, almost as if they're trying too hard but completely missing the point.

What puts me off isn't the aesthetic, but the characterisation. Fluff of the Wardian variety, immersed in Marty Stus/Mary Sues who shrug off competition and never face a real challenge. The fiction is full of it, and I was already turned off Black Library by the likes of Malus Darkblade, and multitudes of Space Marine porn before they gave a more general and impressively stupid reason to not read those books (the "there is no canon", and "all of it's true and none of its true" shenanigans. Black Library basically admitting that their fluff is of no importance or relevance whatsoever, so you'd have to be an idiot to buy it, really).

I agree with Gibby though about a bit of relatable humanity. Pathos. It is so utterly missing from recent GW work. Everything has to be bigger than some simple idea. Take Ollanius Pious, the human guardsman who stood between the Emperor and Horus in a crucial moment. A point of sacrifice from a simple man who had no chance against a primarch, but probably one of the most interesting scenes in the Horus Heresy, and so GW changed it. Ollanius was ascended to an Immortal, so no mere human. It made the simple act so contrived, like every single minor idea has to be connected, like the Prequel Star Wars trilogy...

Sadly, it seems the gamers buy this bullshit. I hold on to a melancholy tale of the coolest army concept I ever heard of for WHFB. A poster from one of my other forums mentioned it: a Storm of Chaos Empire themed army, made up mostly of Militia, and a few other bits. The theme was a ragtag army made up of surviving villagers from Archaon's attacks, forming together into regiments, mostly civilians, some City Guard (Men at Arms), an old monument (Cannon) and carrying other things, such as each Militia unit having a standard that was each made from the signs of their destroyed Village's taverns. When he posted the idea up on a Warhammer forum, people concentrated on the fact that it was a shit army list. He was so discouraged, he never bothered to make it, which is tragic, really.

That's the saddest thing about WHFB. It was wasted on WHFB players. They have what they deserve now, imo. Banality, to match their taste. It's such a shame they've suddenly found standards for once. One wonders where they were for most of 8th Edition.

[Rhoderic]

The Realms, on the other hand, seem to be entirely vague at this point. As you say, fewer contours.

The funny thing is, I think that if one pares down the setting to its central-most theme - Sigmar and Chaos - it does have a flavour. It's Wagnerian angel-knights versus horrors of hell, fighting over hyper-magical realms of flying islands, waterfalls many kilometers high, eternal lava-flows, etc etc.

There's two big problems with this, though. First, it reduces all the classic mortal Warhammer factions to bit players. Now when a player brings his or her Empire troops, Wood Elves, Dwarves or whatever, then for purposes of the grand AoS story they're just "some random blokes from some random kingdom" getting swept along in a war that isn't really theirs to win or lose.

Second, "Heaven vs Hell" is a terribly one-dimensional theme with little room for complexity or nuance. Even granting that they downplayed the biblical connotations (a good idea in and of itself) and emphasised some other connotations in their stead (there's quite a bit of Wagner in there, a bit of astrological mysticism, a bit of fantasy esotericism to the effect of celestial dragons and the Chaos gods, etc), it's just not all that fleshed-out of a theme. In 40K, the Imperium of Man is an incredibly complex thing full of subtlety and contradiction, like some baroque piece of art that never stops giving. Its new counterpart in AoS, the whole Sigmar/Azyrheim faction, is a pale and flat imitation.

Funnily I wouldn't hate the thought, in and of itself, of a fleshed-out setting that's entirely focused on the whole celestial/immortal/hyper-magical/multiplanar aspect of fantasy with numerous factions that are all "beyond mere mortals" - for instance, a third faction (beyond the first two of Sigmarines and Chaos) could be some sort of celestial dragonkin of a sphinx-like mentality fighting for their own cause, a fourth could be Sigmarines breaking away from the rule of Sigmar to form a rebel faction that still fights for the cause of order but uses less wholesome means to do so, a fifth faction could be the followers of some sort of "trickster god" who's never fully on one side or the other, a sixth could be a society of transcendent esoteric wizards using golem-like constructs as their armies, and so on. But - and I want to stress this - that's an entirely different kind of setting, and to speak of displacing or eclipsing the Warhammer world with that other thing would be a fundamentally misguided conversation. It's like if GW was to scrub away the whole 40K setting because they've decided they'd rather do cyberpunk instead. (To be clear, I'm saying that as someone who likes cyberpunk.)


TLDR: GW right now is trying to make a new fantasy setting by mixing stuff from the old Warhammer world with new, rather different stuff, even when the new and old don't really mix very well. The new "angels vs daemons" paradigm is a bit flat by itself, while at the same time eclipsing the old, "quaint" Warhammer races/nations/factions and turning them into bit parts. In a world where immortals wage war, mortals are but ants in the undergrowth.

If that makes me a troll, then so be it.

It doesn't, though. That's not what an internet troll is.

[Gibby]

I don't really have an issue with a fair bit of the oversized weapons. It's part of the aesthetic of Warhammer's Heroic Styling, and again, rolling that back now could have an adverse affect on those who do like that sort of thing. Mind you, it's possible to find a suitable middle-ground. I rather like Felix Paniagua's Avatars of War range for this. The weapons and designs are very characterful, but without overdoing it.

I fully accept that this is a subjective issue, and I own some figures whose weapons are a bit too big, but they aren't impossibly big or absurd. When done well, an oversized weapon compliments the style of the figure, but does not define it.

What puts me off isn't the aesthetic, but the characterisation. Fluff of the Wardian variety, immersed in Marty Stus/Mary Sues who shrug off competition and never face a real challenge. The fiction is full of it, and I was already turned off Black Library by the likes of Malus Darkblade, and multitudes of Space Marine porn before they gave a more general and impressively stupid reason to not read those books (the "there is no canon", and "all of it's true and none of its true" shenanigans. Black Library basically admitting that their fluff is of no importance or relevance whatsoever, so you'd have to be an idiot to buy it, really).

Nothing turns me off a setting quicker than blatant inconsistency. Sure, contradictions may arise with a setting as old as the ones we discuss, but those should always be minor and feel more like the sort of conflicted accounts we have with our own history. Even worse is when a setting loses any sense of boundary, because for me "anything goes" is like saying "nothing matters". It may indeed be a failing of my imagination, but it leaves me cold and I cannot really get immersed if I don't have some kind of grasp of at least some measure of internal truth to a setting. Perhaps I'm a bit of a saddo that this is an issue for me?

I agree with Gibby though about a bit of relatable humanity. Pathos. It is so utterly missing from recent GW work. Everything has to be bigger than some simple idea. Take Ollanius Pious, the human guardsman who stood between the Emperor and Horus in a crucial moment. A point of sacrifice from a simple man who had no chance against a primarch, but probably one of the most interesting scenes in the Horus Heresy, and so GW changed it. Ollanius was ascended to an Immortal, so no mere human. It made the simple act so contrived, like every single minor idea has to be connected, like the Prequel Star Wars trilogy...

First I've heard of that retcon, and that is indeed a flagship representation of how to ruin the humanity of a story.

Sadly, it seems the gamers buy this bullshit. I hold on to a melancholy tale of the coolest army concept I ever heard of for WHFB. A poster from one of my other forums mentioned it: a Storm of Chaos Empire themed army, made up mostly of Militia, and a few other bits. The theme was a ragtag army made up of surviving villagers from Archaon's attacks, forming together into regiments, mostly civilians, some City Guard (Men at Arms), an old monument (Cannon) and carrying other things, such as each Militia unit having a standard that was each made from the signs of their destroyed Village's taverns. When he posted the idea up on a Warhammer forum, people concentrated on the fact that it was a shit army list. He was so discouraged, he never bothered to make it, which is tragic, really.

That's the saddest thing about WHFB. It was wasted on WHFB players. They have what they deserve now, imo. Banality, to match their taste. It's such a shame they've suddenly found standards for once. One wonders where they were for most of 8th Edition.

You are 100% correct. A couple of years before I discovered the LAF, I was on The Warhammer Forum. The majority of people there, and this isn't a criticism really, were tournament style mega competitive gamers. They had no concept of playing an army purely based on fluff or a particular story; if it was a shit list it was a shit list, and so playing it would be a waste of time. The sad thing is, it is a big of a Borg Collective type situation. Imagine you start out as a thematic, story driven player because you came to Warhammer after reading one of the good novels. You build an army much like the one you describe (which, by the way, I would be delighted to see and play as or against), and take it to the club. After your 10th crushing defeat against players taking army lists they read online, you think "bollocks, I may as well take a list to counter what they've done so I have a chance". Suddenly, another hyper competitive tourny player has appeared.

It's a rant for another time and another place, but I notice a trend around the web and wargaming community of blaming rules for a lack of balance, but there rarely seem any mention of a players' own responsibilities in creating a fun time for them and their opponent. Ignoring the saddos who get kicks out of winning an unlosable game, you often see people taking and/or looking for the most optimum lists for games, before ever playing or wondering about what the story-based theme of their army is. You even see threads in the Frostgrave folder here of people asking what the best starting lists are, etc. Just freaking play and try stuff out! Build an army/force/gang around a story driven idea and then tweak it to make it at least useful - and take it from there. The bigger a game gets, the harder it will be to balance in and of itself - players have a duty to not be dicks with the army lists. Just saying. The players who are so tournament driven that they cannot bear the idea of a ruleset not being perfectly fine tuned to allow for a level playing field all the time, with all 15 factions, should just play Chess with wargaming figures. IMO. Etc.

(Turns out that rant was for here and now... sorry )

It doesn't, though. That's not what an internet troll is.

Well, it's been implied here that criticism of GW/AoS is the work of bitter trolls who haven't even looked into what they criticise. I feel the need to just add the armour of a disclaimer.

[Humorous_Conclusion]

Sadly, it seems the gamers buy this bullshit. I hold on to a melancholy tale of the coolest army concept I ever heard of for WHFB. A poster from one of my other forums mentioned it: a Storm of Chaos Empire themed army, made up mostly of Militia, and a few other bits. The theme was a ragtag army made up of surviving villagers from Archaon's attacks, forming together into regiments, mostly civilians, some City Guard (Men at Arms), an old monument (Cannon) and carrying other things, such as each Militia unit having a standard that was each made from the signs of their destroyed Village's taverns. When he posted the idea up on a Warhammer forum, people concentrated on the fact that it was a shit army list. He was so discouraged, he never bothered to make it, which is tragic, really.

I never had any time for the hyper-competitive stuff. My armies, for all games, have always been either a mix of the models I like best or based around a specific theme. II have never cared about building an effective army. And I actually like the random elements of 8th edition.

Possibly that's why all the talk about AOS rules making for more story-based less competitive gaming has left me cold, because that was how I always played it.

[Vermis]

I fully accept that this is a subjective issue, and I own some figures whose weapons are a bit too big, but they aren't impossibly big or absurd. When done well, an oversized weapon compliments the style of the figure, but does not define it.

I don't think GW's too bad for this kind of trope. I'd point at other companies first.

Nothing turns me off a setting quicker than blatant inconsistency. Sure, contradictions may arise with a setting as old as the ones we discuss, but those should always be minor and feel more like the sort of conflicted accounts we have with our own history. Even worse is when a setting loses any sense of boundary, because for me "anything goes" is like saying "nothing matters". It may indeed be a failing of my imagination, but it leaves me cold and I cannot really get immersed if I don't have some kind of grasp of at least some measure of internal truth to a setting. Perhaps I'm a bit of a saddo that this is an issue for me?

Well I feel precisely the same, and I am a saddo, so...

It's a rant for another time and another place, but I notice a trend around the web and wargaming community of blaming rules for a lack of balance, but there rarely seem any mention of a players' own responsibilities in creating a fun time for them and their opponent... The bigger a game gets, the harder it will be to balance in and of itself - players have a duty to not be dicks with the army lists. Just saying. The players who are so tournament driven that they cannot bear the idea of a ruleset not being perfectly fine tuned to allow for a level playing field all the time, with all 15 factions, should just play Chess with wargaming figures. IMO. Etc.

I get where you're coming from, but I do think that GW's core two still bear a fair bit of the blame because they're both centred so much around listbuilding and pretty unbalanced. The latter, not just because the games were so big, but because what hints I've heard of the studio indicated that they thought everyone played free 'n' easy and that minimal playtesting resulted in 'ballpark' points costs. (The state of AoS is maybe less surprising if that's true) In other games, a bit more attention to playtesting and a bit more focus on tabletop action mean that there may not be such as thing as a bad list, no matter how fluffy. Or at least, less disparity (and less kerbstomping) between good and bad lists.

Or maybe I'm talking nonsense. I dunno. I do know I'm thinking of plenty of fluffy lists for Dragon Rampant and I'm not too worried.

[Dim_Reaper]

Nothing turns me off a setting quicker than blatant inconsistency. Sure, contradictions may arise with a setting as old as the ones we discuss, but those should always be minor and feel more like the sort of conflicted accounts we have with our own history. Even worse is when a setting loses any sense of boundary, because for me "anything goes" is like saying "nothing matters". It may indeed be a failing of my imagination, but it leaves me cold and I cannot really get immersed if I don't have some kind of grasp of at least some measure of internal truth to a setting. Perhaps I'm a bit of a saddo that this is an issue for me?

As far as I'm concerned, absolutely not. You hit the nail on the head with Inconsistency. GW frequently runs with this sort of enforced unreliable narration, yet, it is very selectively unreliable. There are things that the Imperium should not know about, and yet are stated as plain facts without any hint of it being second hand information. For me, it's always been a problem with 40k. My specialist area is Orks (I'm the kind of Saddo who writes articles about them) and there's always been that enforced mystery. It's funniest in the first book from Rogue Trader. In Waaargh the Orks!, the introduction discusses the mysterious Brainboyz, who could have been Snotlings perhaps, and how did it happen? On the next page it tells you.

Personally, I'm rather tired of the Imperial Centric certainties. Because I have barely any interest in the Imperium. Most of the races/factions that I like are constantly up in the air, and for no good reason. For years, Ork Players have become accustomed to Andy Chamber's fluff on resonance and sporing. These things are, I feel, really good sci fi, rather above GW's usual stamp. So naturally I was a bit pissed when the recent book handwaves all of these "complicated" bits with what is essentially "Well the Orks don't care, nor should you", which funnily enough reads to me as: "We can't be bothered to stick our neck out on anything about Ork Origin and Depth above the usual dross we typically write about, even if all we had to do was copy it from every other Ork book since Gorkamorka that included it."

I just don't get GW. They're sitting on a gold mine of brilliant fluff. They barely have to invent anything. So why they insist on changing things, which only tends to annoy their existing customers anyway is entirely beyond me.

It's a rant for another time and another place, but I notice a trend around the web and wargaming community of blaming rules for a lack of balance, but there rarely seem any mention of a players' own responsibilities in creating a fun time for them and their opponent. Ignoring the saddos who get kicks out of winning an unlosable game, you often see people taking and/or looking for the most optimum lists for games, before ever playing or wondering about what the story-based theme of their army is. You even see threads in the Frostgrave folder here of people asking what the best starting lists are, etc. Just freaking play and try stuff out! Build an army/force/gang around a story driven idea and then tweak it to make it at least useful - and take it from there. The bigger a game gets, the harder it will be to balance in and of itself - players have a duty to not be dicks with the army lists. Just saying. The players who are so tournament driven that they cannot bear the idea of a ruleset not being perfectly fine tuned to allow for a level playing field all the time, with all 15 factions, should just play Chess with wargaming figures. IMO. Etc.

Whilst this is very true, I think it's possible to overstate the responsibility of players. I mean sure, it is an issue that can be overlooked, but it takes two to tango. GW have been manipulating the shit out of powergaming for at least a decade now. During mid 4th-late 5th Edition 40k, this was particularly prevalent, and GW promoted it. It's hard to tell whether these new, less deliberately power-gamey changes in tone have had much to do with them actually addressing criticism from disgruntled fans (given 40k's, and now AoS' ludicrous PAY TO WIN nonsense, I seriously doubt it) or just trying to hand off as much work and responsibility from themselves to the gullible morons who buy from them, is anyone's guess.

(Yes, I am still also in the gullible moron category, and that why I feel I can call them gullible morons. We are.)

Blaming the fans is difficult, when GW have fostered and created that community to begin with. Recent impressions suggest that they might be trying to shrug off that stance, but the fact is, their games haven't changed enough to suggest they actually have, only that their rhetoric has changed. I feel that change is to make it abundantly clear what they're not prepared to do, which seems to be making a decent wargame and making fans happy. Sure, big games get hard to balance, but it's not as if GW have tried to balance their games at all in the past decade. Quite the reverse. In most cases, the most recent 3 publications are always better than everything else (this is even true of AoS: there is clearly a massive gap between the free rules updates and the 3 books you pay for), and the most recent will probably be equipped the clobber the previous.

It's all about power and politics. GW are entirely sales orientated. They don't care about anything else, and their rules writing (calling it writing is generous) shows this utterly clearly. Their fanbase goes along with it, because the alternative is either developing taste and quitting, or trying to change their local gaming group (and having known a few gaming groups I'd probably rather stand in front of a firing squad than try that one). Ultimately, the only people in this whole situation with the power to change and influence enough people are GW, and their corporate interests are better served in having twitchy, insecure and over-competitive power gaming douche bags than genuine human beings.

It is possible that letting go of so much of their control over how gamers play will end up costing them (making gamers competent enough to realise that they actually deserve better) or whether they'll get away with it, who knows. Certainly, the fostering insecurities has been costing them for years. The amount of loyal customers is dwindling by the year. They've had a sales boost recently, but if we discount WHFB players panic buying before their ranges disappear, and the few people like me who got a massive hobby injection from the new game, and of course, affordable pre-heresy space marines, it's still the same failing company. It's like I said. Their sales people know how to make a shit year look like an okay one. But like sales people across the globe, they have no idea what sells.

Well, it's been implied here that criticism of GW/AoS is the work of bitter trolls who haven't even looked into what they criticise. I feel the need to just add the armour of a disclaimer.

We can move this beyond implications if you like. I'm still relatively active on a few GW forums. Any criticism I've had for the company has usually resulted in this assertion being levelled at me. It is one of the multitudes of rather tiresome "White Knight Stock Arguments", as I've come to call them. Defenders of GW insist they are a point of strength. I'd say as it shows White Knights invariably make things personal, I'd say it's not only a point of weakness but incredibly telling. The White Knights don't have anything else. Because the "trolls" tend to be the ones using logic.