My experience providing GHB feedback to the design team and my thoughts on GHB2019

[Zanzou]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:51 AM, Iradekhorne said:

The only explanation it's GW is going to made a darkoath/std book.

Or the uncomfortable fact that GW's AoS rule/planning team is exceptionally incompetent.   Most people here aren't willing to admit that that is the truth.

(Slaves were terrible for the GHB 2018 as well- there was no battletome coming back then, so you do the math)

Edited June 24, 2019 by Zanzou

[Fulkes]

11 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

Or the uncomfortable fact that GW's AoS rule/planning team is exceptionally incompetent.   Most people here aren't willing to admit that that is the truth.

(Slaves were terrible for the GHB 2018 as well- there was no battletome coming back then, so you do the math)

From what I've seen from the internet, GW is more competent at writing this game than the average player is.

There are a few possibilities for the reason for no update that don't start throwing mud on the rules team: waiting for models to expand the army, waiting for playtesting to nail the right feel for the army, waiting for enough space in the release cycle to fit things in.

Or they are waiting on stuff stuck in China (which I assume is the issue with Warcry right now).

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, Fulkes said:

From what I've seen from the internet, GW is more competent at writing this game than the average player is.

The game rules could be better but it is my firm opinion that 40k/AOS are by far and away the best table top games out there. No one is going to find a better combo of rules/models/lore than Warhammer provides.

I find it very ignorant when people think they can do a better job with their own houserules etc... 

We can all agree that there are some areas of the game that are complete oversights... and then be frustrated that they are not fixed with an FAQ or digital pointing. But Warhammer is an amazing game and not something every Tabletop company provides.

[Zanzou]

3 hours ago, Fulkes said:

From what I've seen from the internet, GW is more competent at writing this game than the average player is.

There are a few possibilities for the reason for no update that don't start throwing mud on the rules team: waiting for models to expand the army, waiting for playtesting to nail the right feel for the army, waiting for enough space in the release cycle to fit things in.

Or they are waiting on stuff stuck in China (which I assume is the issue with Warcry right now).

You just ignored the part of my post that countered all of that- Slaves have been terrible and overcosted since the last books as well, and we were all aware of it.  Or we were still "waiting" back then, were we?? We can all agree points can't fix everything without rule changes, but they haven't even been thrown a bone.

As I said, most people here won't be willing to admit it and will try to excuse everything.

 

[Fulkes]

28 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

You just ignored the part of my post that countered all of that- Slaves have been terrible and overcosted since the last books as well, and we were all aware of it.  Or we were still "waiting" back then, were we?? We can all agree points can't fix everything without rule changes, but they haven't even been thrown a bone.

As I said, most people here won't be willing to admit it and will try to excuse everything.

 

Slaves to Darkness don't have a Battletome and you're complaining they don't stand on par with Battletome armies? Are you trolling?

We saw a shift in design from AoS 1.0 to 2.0. Some things that may have been started could have gone back for massive fireworks or left on the side as the army lacks the model support needed to finish updating it (Endless Spells and a terrain peice for everyone seems standard these days after all).

Just because they didn't rewrite a sttuggling army from the ground up in this GHB doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing. 

You're assuming the worst of other people with no evidence of your claims. Chill out, have a cup of tea and ease off the attitude. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we forgive what GW does to armies. I'm pretty salty about Allherd and Gor (much less the points changes to Gor that didn't take enough off the top end) but accusing GW of incompetence and lashing out because I didn't get what -I- wanted is a bridge too far.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Zanzou said:

As I said, most people here won't be willing to admit it and will try to excuse everything.

Haha this is a brilliant way to end an argument 😂

[Overread]

4 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

The game rules could be better but it is my firm opinion that 40k/AOS are by far and away the best table top games out there. No one is going to find a better combo of rules/models/lore than Warhammer provides.

I find it very ignorant when people think they can do a better job with their own houserules etc... 

We can all agree that there are some areas of the game that are complete oversights... and then be frustrated that they are not fixed with an FAQ or digital pointing. But Warhammer is an amazing game and not something every Tabletop company provides.

Lore is something GW have always been very powerful with and it always surprises me how many other ranges totally miss that one of the big things that gets people hooked and keeps them hooked on Warhammer, despite all its other faults, is the lore aspect of the game. Of course putting out top grade models helps tremendously. 

Rules have always been their weaker side, I think because their rules writers are not "strict" enough in how they construct and communicate the rules. Jump over to something like Warmachine or Magic the Gathering and the rules are far tighter. Whilst there's still debate and issues they are more from interaction of rules in more complex situations - whilst in Warhammer one can get confused even on basic core concepts of the rules. Just recently GW have been revealing that there is a strict order of progress through the turns, with each turn having specific phases of action. This wasn't communicated well/at all in the core rules and led to great confusion when armies like Slaanesh came out with there "fights last" mechanic which then clashed with other fight phase mechanics etc... 

So some of GW's rules confusion is created by themselves in the way they write. 

I think the key is to realise that GW's rules writers are not the best, that there are community and 3rd party and other companies which can write better rules. The key is that GW writes a single rule set that is distributed to the whole market. Ergo for all their faults they do at least achieve a good baseline standard and they do distribute it. So you can play it anywhere. Many local rules sets are often very niche, some never getting beyond their own club and organisation at the national let alone international level, is tricky at best .

2 hours ago, Zanzou said:

You just ignored the part of my post that countered all of that- Slaves have been terrible and overcosted since the last books as well, and we were all aware of it.  Or we were still "waiting" back then, were we?? We can all agree points can't fix everything without rule changes, but they haven't even been thrown a bone.

As I said, most people here won't be willing to admit it and will try to excuse everything.

 

Slaves are the same as pretty much all the armies without a Battletome - they are substandard. 
This is clearly intentional and reflects the fact that AoS as a game and product has had dramatic shifts in its very short lifespan. At launch GW weren't going to even bother with a "proper" set of rules. Back then AoS was basically a boutique line of models with no points, army abilities, heck they shattered a good number of proper functional armies into multiple "subfactions" for basically no decent reason other than they could. Honestly at that point in time it seemed that GW's attitude was that AoS was going to be a rolling model delivery system. Featuring small armies that GW could likely retire or just add "new factions" with only 3 or 4 models; relying on players using the "Grand Alliance" concept to basically have all Grand Alliance armies. With a few (Stormcast to name one) that would just be huge armies in their own right. 

Since then AoS has gone through a lot of changes, from the 1.0 kneejerk rules and points that were thrust out very fast just to change direction, through to the full 1.0 releases and then into the 2.0 launch. As a result some armies have had quite a lot of books (eg Khorne) whilst others have had none because no one set of rules until 2.0 was stable for long enough to give GW time to get the material out. 

 

So yep Slaves are still waiting and will continue to wait along with the other factions. GW has been pushing out Battletomes very fast this year, held up only by Sylvanath being messed around due to a trade issue outside of GW's control and by the fact that the middle of the year (what we are in now) has some big releases including Contrast Paint, Apoc for 40K and Warcry for AoS. These were all known about (contrast was known not in name but that there was a big paint update/release) since the beginning of the year so things are, on that side, on track. 

It's not ideal ,but don't forget under the Old World and last edition (and earlier) releases of rules you'd have waited this long and perhaps had only a fraction of the Battletomes out - ergo you'd still be waiting and you might even reach AoS 3.0 before seeing a hint of a Slaves Battletome. Patience is about all we've got 

[Zanzou]

Where to begin?  ☹️ I critique because I want support for the game to be better.  Yes there have been some improvements, but there is a lot missing.

--No one is forcing GW to push out AoS, new versions of AoS, entirely new factions before they have their basic sh*t together. Part of the rule-planning incompetence is continuing to push new  versions and give rules to entirely new factions while LEAVING THEIR CURRENT, OFFICIAL AoS ARMIES WITHOUT RULES FOR YEARS.  For anyone saying it will be better with 2.0, I'll stop complaining ONCE all factions are fully supported- not a moment sooner because  I have seen them pull support for things that they have sold in "Age of Sigmar" boxes before.  Justifying why it may be different now will fall on deaf ears until I see everything is supported with my own eyes.  

-I can appreciate the sentiment, but saying WFB was worse does not make this better.

-While Slaves are ever "waiting" on any battletome, as the worst-performing army in the game they could have easily buffed their ALLEGIANCE benefits in ANY GHB to make them  more competitive.  Although lacking, Seraphon is in a much higher tier than Slaves for example.  This is basic.

-Putting all battletomes aside, many slaves WARSCROLLS are overcosted against other faction WARSCROLLS.  They would not have broken the game by buffing their warscroll balance...  Say, last year? If a battletome comes out, it can easily come out with new points as needed.

-I don't even play/own Slaves,  I play Aelves/ Sylvaneth.  I am just sad seeing them sold as an official AoS army in the state that GW has left them, among other armies. They are just one example of GW's incompetence. Stormcast is a poster-child, and Sylvaneth has received a battletome twice since release.  You can say "Oh well one is Post 2.0" but guess what-  Sylvaneth's 1.0 battletome is kicking Slaves butt hard in "2.0" right now.  This destroys the health of the game if your less popular factions are not even up to date with rules.   All factions should be up-to-date before moving on to another expansion- this should be so basic.

 

You can bend over backwards excusing a half-broken range, defending GW's financial needs or whatever you want to do.  Nothing can justify basic rule support missing from the game ( the game as they released it) for years.

4 hours ago, Fulkes said:

Slaves to Darkness don't have a Battletome and you're complaining they don't stand on par with Battletome armies? Are you trolling?

We saw a shift in design from AoS 1.0 to 2.0. Some things that may have been started could have gone back for massive fireworks or left on the side as the army lacks the model support needed to finish updating it (Endless Spells and a terrain peice for everyone seems standard these days after all).

Just because they didn't rewrite a sttuggling army from the ground up in this GHB doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing. 

You're assuming the worst of other people with no evidence of your claims. Chill out, have a cup of tea and ease off the attitude. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we forgive what GW does to armies. I'm pretty salty about Allherd and Gor (much less the points changes to Gor that didn't take enough off the top end) but accusing GW of incompetence and lashing out because I didn't get what -I- wanted is a bridge too far.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Zanzou

[Overread]

@Zanzou the point is the 1.0 tomes were very basic, they were a kneejerk reaction to trying to get the game going again. 2.0 is a totally different beast of a game, more fleshed out and generally better. There wasn't really any point in GW releasing all 1.0 battletomes (taking years to do that) and delay 2.0 and Endless Spells. Why delay all that when teh 1.0 was already more of a panic release to turn sales around on a game that wasn't doing as well as it should have. Furthermore there was a massive CEO and management change at GW Central. The AoS at launch wasn't just a different product it was the product of a whole different management approach. 

 

2.0 was cleaning up the mess, it was getting solid battletomes and more improved rules out in a big launch that really sparked AoS becoming popular to the masses. 

And yeah everyone agrees, Slaves, Aelves, Gutbusters etc... they are all in need of Battletomes and GW is giving them to us; already this year alone we've had Skaven, Flesh eaters, gitmob, slaanesh (that was a long long time waiting for any rules and model updates!) and others. 2019 is the year for Battletomes and, to keep with Slaves, there's a very high chance Slaves would be next due to Warcry and the big chaos mortals boost of interest that will generate. At launch of AoS no one was getting Battletomes. 

In 1.0 Battletomes were mostly just points and gathering up the warscrolls and not much else

In 2.0 they've faction abiltiies, spells, subfactions, etc... they are fully fleshed out proper tomes as we'd expect. I'm sure once Slaves get their tome things will improve. 

[pseudonyme]

In fact, they should have squatted all armies. We would not have those discussions.

[Skreech Verminking]

8 minutes ago, pseudonyme said:

In fact, they should have squatted all armies. We would not have those discussions.

Well with a huge chunk  of the people gone, I guess it would be hard to discuss much

Edited June 24, 2019 by Skreech Verminking

[Dead Scribe]

I would agree.  Keeping armies like slaves to darkness around is to me almost dishonest.  Players pick that army up and then find out how garbage their rules are and it is definitely a feel-bad experience.  

They should have just pulled all of the older armies completely and then whenever they felt like doing a slaves to darkness or whatever book, reintroduced them.

[HammerOfSigmar]

From what GW did in the recent months, I don't think the races without battletome won't need to wait for too long, probably this year or 2020. Remember, in recent months, beast of chaos get integerated and get a new battletome, so did the gitz, skaven and slaanesh, fyreslayer and FEC are also special, they have their battletome but their alleagiance ability is on the GHB18. In fact, for the last few updates, Khorne is the only fraction with a standard battletome already getting updates.

Moreover, compared with GHB 18, GHB 19 has removed 7 fractions alleagiance(14 in total) since they get a battletome. I know that player starting from AOS 1.0 might think they have waited long enough. However, please don't just ignore GW's effort to update old fractions in the past few months and just complain that GW doesn't care the old fraction at all.

Edited June 24, 2019 by HammerOfSigmar

[Enoby]

I really want to see Slaves get better, but I feel GW are more hesitant with them due to the fact they can be used in any god armies. For example, let's say that Chaos Warriors got a huge buff (2 attacks at 3/3/-1/2) with no points change; Slaves would now have a good unit, but Khorne/Slaanesh/Tzeentch/Nurgle now have a fantastic unit. I think, for Slaves, they need to focus on their allegiance abilities over the units - allowing their substandard units to be good in the Slaves allegiance. Don't get me wrong, they're still overcosted and pretty bad in the other allegiances (and could do with a points change) but they have to be extra careful with Slaves.

[Dead Scribe]

Slaves to Darkness has almost no offensive capability at all, they have an ok defensive unit in warriors, and the demon prince can be made to be useful.  Considering how awesome the model range is for them all, thats almost criminal.  The varanguard models are some of the best models in the entire game and they are just horrible rules-wise.

[pseudonyme]

40 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well with a huge chunk  of the people gone, I guess it would be hard to discuss much

OK, I confess, my comment was a non added value sarcasm, and I am sorry for that.

While in my 40s, I jumped into the hobby quite recently so never got into WFB. But as I understood, lots of people considered, and still consider, AoS as à "Skirmish wargame". And I would say that, with that in mind, that GW are expecting people to have multiple small / big enough armies, instead of investing à lot in one.

Now, should GW be more clear on the future of legacy armies ? Yes, absolutely. Their silence is deqfening and frustration. Should GW put more effort in the GHB for thèse legacy armies ? Sûre, maybe.. Should the people who invested à lot in an army never / not currently supported by à battletome continue ranting without any clue that GW will do something for their army ? Probably not.

I get the frustration, and I feel for the Slave to darkness lovers, expressing your frustration and expections is one thing, ranting over and over is very annoying from this side of the fence.

Hope it won't taken to harshly.

[Overread]

54 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would agree.  Keeping armies like slaves to darkness around is to me almost dishonest.  Players pick that army up and then find out how garbage their rules are and it is definitely a feel-bad experience.  

They should have just pulled all of the older armies completely and then whenever they felt like doing a slaves to darkness or whatever book, reintroduced them.

Eh that would only have worked if they were pulling the models and not bringing them back ever. Ergo making entirely new armies from the ground up. And yes that might well have been better for AoS's health if it were an isolated game.

 

However GW chose to keep the lore continuing on from the Old World and to keep the game (mostly) accessible to those former players. Furthermore at launch GW didn't want rules for the game to be formal and there were no points. So what you're suggesting is tha they'd have launched AoS - then as they started 1.0 they'd have pulled the whole range of models barring those that got Battletomes at that point. Honestly that would have been a disaster. It would have turned way more gamers away from the game instantly; destroyed a lot of chance to bring back gamers that had been lost to other games and dropped GW's revenue earning off AoS significantly. 

 

Right now I do very much agree forces like Greenskins should have been formally retired earlier, but for armies like Slaves to Darkness they are a major faction and they are certainly not being retired. Yes right now their rules are not the best, they are not alone in that; furthermore they have a nearly100% certain future within the game. 

 

Right now Slaves are purely playing a wiating game for their Battletome. Plus don't forget historically this is very normal GW practice - some armies missed whole editions in the past before getting rules updates and yes they suffered for it. And yes gamers were vocal about it but still collected them all the same. Slaves are not selling strong at present any way - their Christmas battlebox is still up for sale whilst all the others have run out months ago. So we know that they are not selling strong and that makes sense considering their lack of a battletome, lack of GW focus and lack of marketing. All that adds together to lower the chances of people starting them right onw, but that situation will change.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Overread

[Dead Scribe]

Normal GW practice or not, it is probably other than people complaining about balance all the time, a primary feel-bad that people leave over.

[Forrix]

8 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

The game rules could be better but it is my firm opinion that 40k/AOS are by far and away the best table top games out there. No one is going to find a better combo of rules/models/lore than Warhammer provides.

I find it very ignorant when people think they can do a better job with their own houserules etc...  

We can all agree that there are some areas of the game that are complete oversights... and then be frustrated that they are not fixed with an FAQ or digital pointing. But Warhammer is an amazing game and not something every Tabletop company provides.

I agree on this for the most part. As much as I'll complain about AoS rules, for the most part they're pretty solid. Its the outliers that are the issue. Something that interests me about GW and their design process is how (in modern times) is that they can put out solid rules and battletomes for the most part but then have a few absolutely bonkers oversights. Most recently terrain rules that effectively eliminate faction terrain, literally in the case of Skaven. In my headcannon, the GW writers are all highly competent professionals except for one guy who literally wears his pants on his head and is cross-eyed. No one wants to critique his ideas for fear of offending him.

More seriously, I feel GW is playing it fast and loose with the battletomes lately but then being highly conservative with the latest Big FAQ and GHB. I can understand them not wanting to overhaul a product after people buy it or require people to print off a huge FAQ to carry around with their battletomes but they're really going to need to do something soon. This development and support style is creating problems that aren't getting fixed (well, we'll see what the upcoming PDF has but minor points tweaks aren't going to fix everything, especially for factions that are getting left behind).

As for the combo of rules/models/lore I'm going to say the emphasis for me on that is models and overall community size. I really like the lore of Warmachine/Hordes and I haven't played the new edition but based on how the last stacked up to the then 40k/Fantasy editions I'd say the rules are better. Model wise though, well, I like the design of Privateer Press miniatures just as much as GW's minis but their material/casting technology is noticeably behind the curve. Wyrd game is probably the best alternative to GW in my opinion on the whole but nobody plays it in my area and the Other Side miniatures that I've seen aren't quite up to GW standards but its close. The models come pre-assembled (yay!) but the ones I've seen look like they were assembled by child slaves (nay!). Their models in general have finer details which can be a bit more difficult than heroic style minis to paint. I went to Malifaux (also Wyrd games) tournaments but from my experience I'd say it has the best skirmish rules I've played.  These models aren't pre-assembled on are on par with GW minis except for the finer detail issues I've mentioned (style difference really).

So in short, GW (specifically AoS) is the top game out there right now but its not by that big of a lead for me. If Privateer Press modernizes their miniatures or GW slides more in the rules department I'll probably switch to Warmahordes or try to get Malifaux going in my area.

[tripchimeras]

4 hours ago, Overread said:

Lore is something GW have always been very powerful with and it always surprises me how many other ranges totally miss that one of the big things that gets people hooked and keeps them hooked on Warhammer, despite all its other faults, is the lore aspect of the game. Of course putting out top grade models helps tremendously. 

Rules have always been their weaker side, I think because their rules writers are not "strict" enough in how they construct and communicate the rules. Jump over to something like Warmachine or Magic the Gathering and the rules are far tighter. Whilst there's still debate and issues they are more from interaction of rules in more complex situations - whilst in Warhammer one can get confused even on basic core concepts of the rules. Just recently GW have been revealing that there is a strict order of progress through the turns, with each turn having specific phases of action. This wasn't communicated well/at all in the core rules and led to great confusion when armies like Slaanesh came out with there "fights last" mechanic which then clashed with other fight phase mechanics etc...

Agree that I think a huge point that cannot be reiterated enough is that GW does not make rules first games.  They are the biggest and the "best" for a couple reasons which mostly gel with yours:

1. They make the best models.  Sure this is subjective, but it is a wide majority opinion.

2. They have the best lore, with mountains of novels, lore, and flavor.

3. And I think the single biggest factor for me, they have a near monopoly on massed battle fantasy and sci-fi wargames.  KoW is the only real company owned alternative, with 9th age being the only other if you are willing to risk it on the uncertainty that comes with community rulesets, both of which funny enough are largely populated by GW models. A couple new ones have come out since WHFB died, but good luck finding games, which brings me to #4.

4. In a hobby that requires a large financial commitment and a ridiculous amount of time and energy, GW is one of a very few number of companies you can pretty well depend on that in a decade  the models you own now can be brought to a game without almost any meddling and just get played as is.  You know on any given weekend if you wander into a gaming store with wargaming support you are going to be able to find a GW pickup game.  You know your investment in the hobby is about as safe as humanly possible.  BTW for those that were suggesting that GW should have just retired everything from WHFB when switching to AoS, this is why they simply could not afford to do this.  It would have been better for the game in a vacuum, but longevity and sustainability of investment would have taken a huge hit, it would have felt like a far bigger betrayal of the WHFB player base then it already did, and a lot of us that did eventually come back, probably never would have if they had full stop retired the old armies.

The game rules are not in my list of why GW is successful, because I think their rules are only as important to their success as they need to be to facilitate the strengths above.  That is to provide a fun and narratively fulfilling experience, and one that can be played competitively in a setting where skill determines the outcome of the game rather then just blind dice rolling luck.  GW rules have always delivered the first of these two things in flying colours, and if there is something GW rules actually do better then its competition it is in delivering flavour through rule mechanics, and list building.  I have never played another table top game where building a list felt so rewarding, so personalized, or so unique to my narrative or tactical vision.  On the other side GW's great weakness has always been competitive balance and play.  They have always managed to stay on just the right side of the line between competitively playable and not (except for a brief stint at the beginning of AoS where it was competitively non-viable), but at times it has been quite the struggle for them.  A big part of that issue comes from what @Overread mentions with loosely written rules.  However that loose writing style I think is one of the reason their rules are able to convey so much more flavour then those of their competitors, so there is a trade-off here.  I think even bigger then this in their struggle in competitive play though, is the shear breadth of their model ranges, and their concerted effort to give the player tons of army variety and customization, a ton of play styles, and making every unit feel unique.  This makes balancing of the game extraordinarily difficult, and even in a best case scenario GW games are never going to be as balanced or strategically varied as some of their competitors.  But that is okay, because the benefits more then outweigh the downsides for me. 

I think we as a community need to do a better job of recognizing this, and while GW needs to do a much better job with fixing mistakes (I can't remember the last time GW tried to fix something, where the fix didn't raise almost as many questions as the original problem) , we also need to understand that there is a really good reason that they carried all of the old WHFB stuff over to AoS, but there is also very clear reasons those things still are not very functional competitively.  I think the new GHB continued the (much slower then any of us probably wanted) process of refining AoS into doing all of the things that made WHFB the gold standard of fantasy gaming for 25-30 years.   But after all of that you still think rules balance means more to you, KoW or Malifaux is waiting for you.  I just think with the former you are going to miss the flavor way more then you think and with the latter, so long as you don't mind saying goodbye to massed battles, and ginormous monsters you won't be disappointed (assuming 3rd edition isn't a broken mess, idk).
 

GW is one hell of a flawed company, and I am someone who has absolutely been very negative on them before, and often I still am.  Hell I rage-quit after 8th was disbanded, sold off every model I owned and swore off GW forever.  But at the end of the day GW understands there player base, and AoS is proof.  While it was one hell of a sloppy roll-out, and the executives at the top during that roll-out may have forgotten who their player base was for a minute, within 6 months the bones were in place to fix that issue, and I really don't think GW is going to make that mistake again.  As AoS stands right now, the hobby is in the best place its been since mid-8th edition, and in a far better place then it was late 8th.  Honestly, it is probably more balanced then Warhammer has been in a very very long time, so I am going to count my blessings haha.   

[Dead Scribe]

I agree.  There are a lot of rulesets out there that I think are better and more fun.  But you can't find any players for it because everyone plays GW games, bad rules or otherwise.

[RuneBrush]

I think it's worth remembering that gone are the days when we used to get one or maybe two army releases a year - you could go three or four game versions without receiving a new army book.  We're in a much better place now, generally with an army book every couple of months, but with the number of armies out there, we're still going to be waiting for some armies to receive some love.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

 

I find it very ignorant when people think they can do a better job with their own houserules etc... 

Agreed. I can't tell you how many times I've seen tournament organizers mess up their own events by mistakenly thinking they have the ability to "fix" the games with their oh-so-clever scenario designs.

GW is not perfect in rules writing, but they are so, so, so very much better at it than 99.9% of the players.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Sleboda

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, Overread said:

Rules have always been their weaker side, I think because their rules writers are not "strict" enough in how they construct and communicate the rules. 

QFT.

Also, to nobody in particular, a grumpy grammarian comment: It's "than" not "then" when comparing things. 

For example, "Pittsburgh is a much nicer city than Baltimore."

Use "then" to describe a sequence.

For example, "Take one look at the illiteracy rates in Baltimore and then decide to live in Pittsburgh instead."

Edited June 24, 2019 by Sleboda

[pseudonyme]

3 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

Agree that I think a huge point that cannot be reiterated enough is that GW does not make rules first games.  They are the biggest and the "best" for a couple reasons which mostly gel with yours:

1. They make the best models.  Sure this is subjective, but it is a wide majority opinion.

2. They have the best lore, with mountains of novels, lore, and flavor.

3. And I think the single biggest factor for me, they have a near monopoly on massed battle fantasy and sci-fi wargames.  KoW is the only real company owned alternative, with 9th age being the only other if you are willing to risk it on the uncertainty that comes with community rulesets, both of which funny enough are largely populated by GW models. A couple new ones have come out since WHFB died, but good luck finding games, which brings me to #4.

4. In a hobby that requires a large financial commitment and a ridiculous amount of time and energy, GW is one of a very few number of companies you can pretty well depend on that in a decade  the models you own now can be brought to a game without almost any meddling and just get played as is.  You know on any given weekend if you wander into a gaming store with wargaming support you are going to be able to find a GW pickup game.  You know your investment in the hobby is about as safe as humanly possible.  BTW for those that were suggesting that GW should have just retired everything from WHFB when switching to AoS, this is why they simply could not afford to do this.  It would have been better for the game in a vacuum, but longevity and sustainability of investment would have taken a huge hit, it would have felt like a far bigger betrayal of the WHFB player base then it already did, and a lot of us that did eventually come back, probably never would have if they had full stop retired the old armies.

The game rules are not in my list of why GW is successful, because I think their rules are only as important to their success as they need to be to facilitate the strengths above.  That is to provide a fun and narratively fulfilling experience, and one that can be played competitively in a setting where skill determines the outcome of the game rather then just blind dice rolling luck.  GW rules have always delivered the first of these two things in flying colours, and if there is something GW rules actually do better then its competition it is in delivering flavour through rule mechanics, and list building.  I have never played another table top game where building a list felt so rewarding, so personalized, or so unique to my narrative or tactical vision.  On the other side GW's great weakness has always been competitive balance and play.  They have always managed to stay on just the right side of the line between competitively playable and not (except for a brief stint at the beginning of AoS where it was competitively non-viable), but at times it has been quite the struggle for them.  A big part of that issue comes from what @Overread mentions with loosely written rules.  However that loose writing style I think is one of the reason their rules are able to convey so much more flavour then those of their competitors, so there is a trade-off here.  I think even bigger then this in their struggle in competitive play though, is the shear breadth of their model ranges, and their concerted effort to give the player tons of army variety and customization, a ton of play styles, and making every unit feel unique.  This makes balancing of the game extraordinarily difficult, and even in a best case scenario GW games are never going to be as balanced or strategically varied as some of their competitors.  But that is okay, because the benefits more then outweigh the downsides for me. 

I think we as a community need to do a better job of recognizing this, and while GW needs to do a much better job with fixing mistakes (I can't remember the last time GW tried to fix something, where the fix didn't raise almost as many questions as the original problem) , we also need to understand that there is a really good reason that they carried all of the old WHFB stuff over to AoS, but there is also very clear reasons those things still are not very functional competitively.  I think the new GHB continued the (much slower then any of us probably wanted) process of refining AoS into doing all of the things that made WHFB the gold standard of fantasy gaming for 25-30 years.   But after all of that you still think rules balance means more to you, KoW or Malifaux is waiting for you.  I just think with the former you are going to miss the flavor way more then you think and with the latter, so long as you don't mind saying goodbye to massed battles, and ginormous monsters you won't be disappointed (assuming 3rd edition isn't a broken mess, idk).
 

GW is one hell of a flawed company, and I am someone who has absolutely been very negative on them before, and often I still am.  Hell I rage-quit after 8th was disbanded, sold off every model I owned and swore off GW forever.  But at the end of the day GW understands there player base, and AoS is proof.  While it was one hell of a sloppy roll-out, and the executives at the top during that roll-out may have forgotten who their player base was for a minute, within 6 months the bones were in place to fix that issue, and I really don't think GW is going to make that mistake again.  As AoS stands right now, the hobby is in the best place its been since mid-8th edition, and in a far better place then it was late 8th.  Honestly, it is probably more balanced then Warhammer has been in a very very long time, so I am going to count my blessings haha.   

You should listen to the honest wargamer Stormcast faction focus podcast épisode with Jacob Rage of sigmar. There he says that Malifaux is a far better system than AoS, BUT, AoS has the best fun community ever