"GW hatred..." Topic

Judas, I liked your essay :o) very interesting can I add,

40K has, in its futuristic drive for more evil fantastic ways of killing, has completely forgotten a technology that we have today, that is more effective than all the huge diabolicaly designed weapons it has dreamed up……

AIR POWER…….

40K has no logic.

Hammer

Oh we're deep in the GW Hate thread den
Because we are at page ten.

I'd like a slice of heaven
For the GW hate thread will go on to page eleven.

40K has no logic?

You'd think that in 40,000 years there would be better tanks, and weapons…

Oh, I get it! Judas has a bee in his bonnet about the Tau because he never could win a game with them! LOL!! 8)=

"If you do not believe that they have power… I suggest you look at GWs sales as a result of using those symbols and imagery."

A specious argument, really. GW sells lots of stuff because kids LIKE TOY SOLDIERS, and because GW makes what most people think is a quality product, and because they make it READILY AVAILABLE (which unfortunately most other companies do not, or can't). I have NEVER met a GW gamer who if presented with a game featuring nicely painted WW II or ACW figures didn't go, "Ooo, NEAT!" and start asking questions. The kids don't care about the imagery, just that the toys are cool.

As for your assertion that all their background story is garbage, well, your opinion certainly doesn't make ANYTHING true, and thank the gods for that!

Got quite a lot of people posting here who are talking out of their arses . Theres a lots of middle england quasi fascists "i'd vote for the BNP if they'd bring back traditional values" types . No wonder young folk like me are very put off from historical wargaming .

On the 40k universe in general this thread stinks of ignorance and snap judgements.

Tau and their general uselessness in close combat-
-tau are about 4ft tall
-tau are rational and therefore believe it is far better to shoot people at range rather than charge at them like the psycho-loonie brigade, especially when that would be playing to the enemies strengths.
-tau's early encounters with other hostile races are the tyranids and orks, 2 races whose entire evolutionary process has lead to them being good in close combat, which went on to reinforce their preference for ranged combat .

40k and the illogical mindset.
-the sci-fi universe is set 40,000 years in the future!!!! due to the mini-apocalypse unleashed by mankinds first steps of evolution as a psychic race, human civilisation had disappeared for several thousand years until roughly 10,000 years before the present day.
-at this point the storms that were caused in part by humanities psychic upheaval and stopped inter planetary travel broke . The Emperor, a genius-scientist/next level of evolution human being created armies of genetically engineered soldiers and reconquered human space .
-much of humanity has devolved to a semi-barbarous state, and this medieaval mind set is encouraged as it instils fear and hatred of all that is different throughout mankind. At the same time anyone displaying the rational traits demonstrated by folks on thiis thread are executed as 'heretics'.
-so by the present day of the setting humanity has lost much of our modern way of thinking, everything being surrounded in religous superstition and hatred of the 'outsider'.
-this is what makes it possible for them to make the mistake of repeating our comparitively recent military histories greatest blunders across the galaxy, as they do not think in a rational enough manner to see a different way of doing things .

It's more than just the Tau, the Eldar are just as flawed. It's supposed to be a dieing race, dieing is a very good word for it as their most common troops used are the guardians. And they aren't much more than cannon fodder with pitifuly short ranged weapons. And the Eldar are supposed to be how many 1,000+ years more advanced than all the other races? Even with their fall, they've still maintain a sizeable head start on all the other races.

Where is the Eldar's powered armor? Where is what should be superior body armor on all their troops? Where are what should be their superior weapons? All for the sake of balance the Eldar should have the best equipment and the most expensive troops. If they are that advance, even if they are on the decline, Eldar fighting against the Imperial Guard should look like a battle between the Humans and the Minbari.

I'm not gonna launch a strong defence of eldar as they are presented in their current codex . They 'worked' in second ed, this edition where their superior technology was very well represented . they only work fluffily now if you leave out the humble guardian[the armies basic trooper] whose arms and armour make no sense in reference to the background[the only fluffy way i can see to field them is in minimum squads with a starcannon in deep cover, and this is generally frowned upon] .
As a side note an eldar swordwind army will cut through most imperial guard like minbari vs b5 humans .

Wow! I bow down before the all-powerful instigating powers of MMurphy! 10 pages and still going strong!

hey worked in second ed- the codex then reflected their general technological supereority, the one now does not .

damn the lack of an edit function.

they worked in second ed- the codex then reflected their general technological supereority, the present one does not .

damn the lack of an edit function.

Worldshatter said….Got quite a lot of people posting here who are talking out of their arses . Theres a lots of middle england quasi fascists "i'd vote for the BNP if they'd bring back traditional values" types . No wonder young folk like me are very put off from historical wargaming……..

Your age shines through, not only because of your above comments which are unnecessary in an adult debate but because of your apparent deep knowledge of the 40K world. You discuss it like a true veteran of a thousand battles on a thousand worlds, You are obviously well educated in GW 40K lore and have bought their world lock stock and plasma barrel. definately not a troll but perhaps one of the flock of GW sheep.

Hammer

Remarkable! Page 10! LOL!! Having kept silent for a while and just followed the exchanges, I've been struck by several things:

1) The tendency of several posters to resort to a response that (roughly) goes something like this: "Capitalism is infallible, godly, and righteous! Making money hand over fist is goood! GW is merely following the correct business model, therefore you have no business criticizing them, and there's clearly something genetically wrong with you, etc."

2) The inability of some to distinguish *fluff* from *substance.* GW IMO -and I stress In My Opinion- is what the Reverend Jackson called a certain former president's speech; "Cotton candy; it's sweet, but there's nothing to it!" ;)

3) The inability of some others to refrain from personally insulting remarks.

Also, I'd like to offer a modest correction:

"OK, but then WHY has it been going on for so long with weapons like artillery and machine guns. It only took them 6 years in WWI to finally get over the trench idea of warfare, and within WEEKS of WWI ending they realized that mechanization of the battelfield made trench warfare a BAD idea… "

Correct to a point, but the First World War/Great War lasted four (4) years (1914-1918). Within two (2) years the whole trench warfare is *bad* idea had pretty much sunk in with *some* military brass (ie., Haig and Nivelle sure as HELL didn't properly get it!). Technology evolves devilishly fast in modern war, yet lower-tech solutions will abound when the cutting-edge stuff isn't available. Then again, there's always the tried-n-true method of employing *captured* stuff against one's enemies…;)

It *is* amusing that on the evidence, the ostensibly advanced technology weapons of the WH40K universe functionally are *inferior* to the well documented battlefield performance of FIRST WORLD WAR weaponry! Gotta love them business-uber-alles game designers…;)

And technology can be lost, as the lessons of a given war can be lost. Look at the Allied armies at the beginning of WW2, going to war assuming that the way in which it would be waged would be a mere continuance of 1918! Even the Germans relied more on the horse to move supplies than popular mythology and German propaganda newsreels would have one believe…

Just my two yuans' worth…;)

Leland R. Erickson
(Himself)

About the normal average Joe Public not finding fantasy remotely interesting and acceptable: considering the popularity of Harry Potter, Tolkien, Star Wars and such, there seems to be a decent amount of interest and acceptance out there for fantasy genre in general.

Griefbringer

<<About the normal average Joe Public not finding fantasy remotely interesting and acceptable: considering the popularity of Harry Potter, Tolkien, Star Wars and such, there seems to be a decent amount of interest and acceptance out there for fantasy genre in general.

Griefbringer>>

Bingo. ;)

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Page 10… *sniff*. I remember when this thread was just a baby! Man, I love you guys!

Soon it will be going off to college. Will it call? You know it won't. But atleast we'll see it at Thanksgiving and Christmas time. Sigh.

I think this thread is circling the drain. Here's what the actual discussion has produced:

People don't like GW because:
- Marketting hype/flavour of the month marketting approach
- Army lists and even miniatures are made useless by the way new releases are done.
- GW competes directly with the independant retailers that took the risk to build the market in the first place but only enters the area after the hard work and risk has been taken on by the indies.
- bad experiences dealing with them as an independat retailer (minimum stock levels, bad at filling orders, etc.,).
- they don't allow anyone else to sell their stuff online in the US
- overzealous about their trademarks including threatening legal action on trademarks they don't even have registered
- some cases of employees being treated rather poorly
- price keeps going up and up (oh, and up)
- cartoony looking models that are out of scale with themselves and other miniatures in GW's product lines
- bad support of Specialist games including dropping them from White Dwarf magazine support or production altogether
- use of the names of historical figures in ways that are inappropriate or silly
- overpriced hobby support products (wire cutters, paints, putty, etc.,).
- thoughts that 40k fiction content might not be appropriate for the age group that is the target market
- cancelling or neglect of veteran gamers nights at GW stores in favour of catering to new players.
- fantasy & sci-fi aren't appealing to everyone
- arrogance of redifing wargaming as "The Games Workshop Hobby"
- pushy salespeople in the GW stores
- Cult of personality/secrecy surrounding game designers
- Use of edgy/gothic imagery as a marketting tool
- Poor rules sets designed to be best at selling miniatures rather than being great games
- Ground scale/model scale problems (check the range of the weapons)
- Poorly thought out, inconsistent background fiction
- Edition/army list changes require massive buying to keep playing
- Imaturity of fans of their products

Lots of these things are just opinions of various people. Lots of them are connected and lots of them are probably true about a variety of games.

But I will say this, there's certainly enough reason for someone to dislike or hate them if they so choose. There's certainly enough reason for people to not buy their products if they so choose. Just the way a friend of mine was treated as an employee is reason enough for me to never buy their stuff again— and that's just one reason (though it may have been just a local manager).

Oh, this will be a pointless addition. Do a google search for images on "wargaming" most of what you'll get will be historicals. Not saying sci-fi and fantasy are not wargaming, but now that I think about it. When you say you do play these wargames, the real thought that does pop into people's heads are the historicals. I asked a few people I know that don't wargame.

It would seem that for all the marketing hype that GW does. The only people that really know about GW, are the people that either wargame or play video games. The average consumer doesn't even know about them, and it seems a lot of video gamers never played any of GW's games miniature or video. Seems like a lot of wasted money if that's all the further they've gotten, it's still a niche market after all.

And you summed it all up completely very well Nathaniel.

Nathaniel,

Thank you for your well structured synopsis of the 'cons' of GW. That is the topic of this thread. Probably the first in the last 200 posts that are on topic. Because you are about to receive a tidal wave of 'pro' GW responses, could you please provide an equally level headed synopsis of the 'pros' people have expressed. Hopefully—truely people—hopefully this dang thread will slide off the top of WWII Discusion board.

Moderator,

This thread has nothing to do with WWII. GW does not produce a game or minis for this genre. This thread—though humorous at first—is nothing but an eye sore for those of searching for a serious discusion of our hobby. Can you please remove this thread from the WWII Discussion Message Board? The SF and Fantasy boards are a much more logical choice.

Thank you,
Andrew

There is so much tripe going on in this that an intelligent debate is very hard to get.

Bug Stomper: What do YOU describe as Fluff, and could you give me an instance of WHY GW does NOT produce Fluff…

Worldshatterer: Could you describe how the argument: The Tau decided that long range warfare was more rational has prevented them from realizing that against races with a HUGE advantage in close comat that they should NOT work on brushing up their close-in game (ie: get better at close combat), when they are already sufficiently practiced and formidable at Long-ranged warfare… A military usually does not ignore their weaknesses when confronted with them, but (if it is SMART – which the Tau are supposed to be: Smart, rational, etc) it will correct those weaknesses.

Why have the Tau, who are a rational race, not corrected their weaknesses, when they obviously have the technology to do so?

BlackWindowPilot: I agree with the position that you have made regards to WWI. My "6 years) was the time frame that it took most of the armies to begin to give up the primary battle strategy of trench warfare and begin to mechanize their forces, even if that mechanization came in the form of a draft horse.

My position was exactly what you have pointed out: That in ANY society where war is a constant, innovation with the most readily available means will be used and exploited to its fullest. 40K obviously has the ability to make things fly, yet they do not make use of this advantage. the 40K universe has the ability to make armor, yet the misuse this resource as well. They obviously have the ability to make high-tech weapons, yet these too are used in a manner that looks more like a Napoleonic engagement (which WWI was built upon Napoleonic Tactics as they had developed through the period of the ACW).

I should point out that I do not "dislike" GW. I dislike their ability to produce a coherent backstory that is both rational and will hold together under scrutiny. Many of their models I find to be attractive, but I will probably have no use for them, as I game in mostly 15mm and 6mm scales. I do have a LOt of Epic Tau from forgeworld that I use for other 6mm games (Striker, StrikerII, StrikerIII, DS-II, etc), and if they prodoce some Epic scale Elysians I will probably pick up a lot of those as well…

I also have no problem with fantasy or Sci-Fi… even the fluff. As it has been pointed out by someone "It is sweet, but there is nothing to it." someimes cottom candy fluff is what is wanted…My point is that fluff should not pretend to be anything else. And not admitting to the shortcomings will marry you to them, and you will not learn to recognize defficiencies and irregularities in a system. Maybe some people are more satisfied with burying their heads in the samd?

Oh, and Nazrat…

It is not an opinion that there back story is garbage… I have listed SEVERAL specific points about the Tau that are at COMPLETE opposition with the Taus stated Racial type.

Any "Rational" being knows that it is better to kill at a distance than at close quarters. It is safer. Some racial types may prefer to get in close, but a stated preference to get in close does not automativally follow that they will be BAD at close combat, just like a stated preference for long-ranged combat makes for pitiful close range skills.

That is called a presumption.

Did you ever see that Movie with Tom Selleck "Quigley Down Under" (Please do not go off on a rant about the movie Q. Down under, it is being used to make a point)? In the movie Tom Selleck's character is asked my Alan Rickman's character if he is familiar with the revolver by Samuel Colt. Selleck's character replies "I never had much use for one". Notice that Selleck's character never really answered the question, so Rickman's Character Assumes (Makes the presumption) that Selleck's character is no good with a colt revolver… Unfortunately as the Denouement of the movie shows, Selleck's character is VERY good with a Colt.

In the GW products they have this tendency to just Say "Such and Such race is bad at such and such", but in a culture of continued warfare… You are going to find that one race my be slightly less efficient or capable of certain types of warfare… They are ALL going to catch on to the fact that without a decent combined arms ability… You just get squashed really quickly, and those few forces that pick up on modern tactics and strategic operations are going to QUICKLY dominate ALL the others. That is the way that War works.

You may have one or two winding up fighting continued insurgencies, but they will not have the logistical capabilities for fighting a prolonged war without being able to sufficiently protect a supply line, and that will again that a combined arms approach.

I have seen no-one offer a qualified defense of any of thesze points other than saying "Just because you say it is so does not make it so"

Well… I have provided SEVERAL specific points to support my position.

I suggest that those who disagree provide ome spcific points to support their positions, and I would prefer not to have GW product quoted to me. I have already made the case that their prodct has a flawed position. Provide a rational to show that it does not if you disagree…

"When you say you do play these wargames, the real thought that does pop into people's heads are the historicals. I asked a few people I know that don't wargame."

Ah, such an incredibly detailed poll you've run! It MUST be true, since the "few people" you asked only knew of historicals. Man, you guys are funny!!

Honestly, the vast majority of people I have ever mentioned my hobby to either a) get an extemely confused look on their face and say, "You play WHAT?", or b) say, "Oh, like those games from the store at the mall?", meaning GW. But that neither proves nor disproves anything. It's a teeny, tiny hobby, guys, that the vast majority of average Joes know NOTHING about, museum dioramas notwithstanding (THAT was a funny nonsequitur of a point earlier). I just don't understand the Us or Them attitude of a few of you.

That is not a non-sequitor…

A non-sequitor is like saying

The dig has fleas there for it must be hot outside.

when you say that you play these wargames, the real thoought that pops into people's heads are the mail services.

His statement was a presumption, and not a too inaccurate presumption at that.

When you say "Wargame", probably the first thought that pops into people's heads (who do not know about the "wargaming hobby") is the thought of the military using role-play (ie planning and simulating a real attack of defense in a military operation) to re-create and train soldiers in the real-world battlefield… I have to agree that this is a "Historical" view of wargaming even though it is not wargaming on a table top. It is war gaming with real tanks, and men, and guns, but with play bullets.

Again.. a simple Google on "Wargames" reveals two whole pages without the mention of any fantasy or sci-fo wargames, and then the thrid page only has two or three (depending upon how you count) links to sites with fantasy or sci-fi wargaming. The forth page has no mention of fantasy or sci-fi, and the fifth page has two mentions of Fantasy or sci-fi.

The sixth through tenth pages contain as few links to fantasy and sci-fi as the first through fifth.

I call that a majority of view that wargames are historical, and that fantasy and sci-fi, while also wargames are a minority view. That evidence does not reflect the actual numbers that play those games, but for a brief cross section of the hobby… It does show a trend toward the historical side… Pity that…

If you would like I can go through the top 100 sites to get hit counts off of the web-sites to see how many people are looking into each part of the hobby as represented by the google search "wargames" (excluding of course those links which are about the movie "Wargames", which amounted to about 1/5 (I did a count) of the links on all pages of the search.

Judas— Regardless of all your "specific points" that you have rabidly ranted about, it's STILL just your opinion. I can't see how the things that upset you so much could be viewed as fact by any "rational being". It's a story, made up to give a background to a miniatures war game. As such, it really isn't required to be on the level of any of the fine SF writers you listed. It would be Pulp compared to their "literature", as it were. And Pulp wasn't known for it's literary brilliance, now was it? Yet people read a hell of a lot of it along the way, because it was entertaining and engrossing. And GW fiction is that (and certainly no worse in quality than Void, Vor, Warzone, and even Stargrunt II).

"There is so much tripe going on in this that an intelligent debate is very hard to get."

I can't resist— pot, meet kettle! Weren't YOU the one screaming about "crap", "BS", and about "wanting to puke" earlier? Now THAT'S intelligent debate!

But okay, what the heck, I'll bite. You said,

"Take for instance GWs rationale behind most of the 40K races. One in particular that I have looked at is the Tau. A supposedly VERY high technology is behind that race, yet they design combat armor that restricts their depth perception by the use of a monacle eyepiece in their helmets… That strikes me as particularily stupid for a race that has two eyes, and professes to a high degree of technology."

Nice you can judge ALL the GW races by looking at ONE. Yes, the Tau are a young race with a highly advanced technology, but what makes you think that that monocular device restricts their vision? It's not described as doing so in any of the fiction— in fact, they say they are quite efficient at "identifying, tracking, and killing" their enemies. That would certainly lead me to believe it does NOT cause them any visual problems. Deductive reasoning, son. I imagine that it is linked to their brain, or small computers help them pinpoint their enemies with a heads-up display in their helmet. But because the background story is in essence simply setting up a "feel" for the player to use in his gaming, describing every single aspect of their equipment (as you seem to be asking) would be impractical, at best.

"There should be a reasonable explanation for why the Tau are no good at close combat, "

It never says they are NO GOOD at CC. To quote the book— "The Tau regard close combat as primitive and always plan their attacks around the application of firepower." So that, and the fact that they have subsumed the Kroot, who ARE good at close combat, explains clearly and simply why the Tau DON'T engage in it. There is a dislike of it, and no need to practice it, as their entire philosophy is hit and run, and let the lesser Kroot bear the brunt of any choppy-choppy. Seems VERY reasonable to me! And I'll have to revert for a moment back to the hated "It's a GAME, dammit" argument— if you make the Tau as good stat-wise as a human or an Ork, what would make them a different army to play? Part of each race's background HAS to be that they PLAY differently, otherwise it's just the same old thing with different models. Sorry I have to use that point, but the fact that this is first and foremost a WAR GAME can't be denied or ignored as you seem to want. They are inextricably linked.

"Just making a rule to balance game play is so infantile that it makes me want to PUKE! "

So are you suggesting with this statement that you would prefer a game that does NOT make rules in order to balance play? Would an unbalanced game be more fun? Seems like you are arguing at cross purposes, as earlier you said (about GW "Fluff"),

"It is just a bunch of pretty pictures (Images, posturing, poseur comes to mind) without any real thought put into either its creation or its being."

Either they are THINKING about the creation of this stuff, and trying to balance play, or they aren't. Which is it? I believe there is a huge amount of design, thought, and play testing put into each game and/or army that GW releases. Sometimes they do create some questionable stuff, but heck, show me ANY company that has NEVER made any gaffs, especially if they are producing as much as GW does.

And finally, to all the gnashing of teeth about the apparent retro nature of the weaponry and vehicles in 40K— that is just the game itself. If one reads any of GW's novels, especially Dan Abnett's rather enjoyable Gaunt's Ghosts series, the guns, technology, and vehicles are presented in far more detail and seem much more advanced and believable. Operation on the tabletop is completely limited by the space one has on which to play the game. Same goes for vehicles. The only time I have EVER seen a modernistic game with somewhat believable ranges was in Micro Armor, and the distances were still abbreviated a LOT. Asking why the weapons in the 40K game haven't reached a far greater level of sophistication begs the answer (Sorry Judas), "Because that's the way they wrote it!" It'd be like criticizing the personal shields in Dune for allowing CC weapons through, or questioning how Hari Seldon could use psychohistory (!) to predict thousands of years of future human development. The author says so, and it just IS. And we accept it much of the time. And since 40K is more Science Fantasy (similar to Star Wars, but you probably hate THAT, too) rather than hard SF, they have a LOT more leeway to just make stuff up (which is all fiction writing is anyway, right?).

"That is not a non-sequitor…

A non-sequitor is like saying

The dig has fleas there for it must be hot outside."

Beg to differ, guy, but a non sequitur ALSO means (according to Webster), "a remark that has no bearing on what has just been said." And that's what the museum reference was. Sorry I left out the space in my post, but there is NO hyphen in the word, either (since you are being anal about it, so will I). 8)=

I hope to god it doesn't become common practice to use Google to try and prove a point in an argument. It means NOTHING in this discussion about how people react to the word(s) war gaming. There is almost no way to accurately prove that people think one thing or another, as I kind of said earlier. Not without something like a Gallup Poll of a large number of repondents…

Sumation of the good things about GW (I'll be as fair as I can):

- Provide a complete package hobby— you don't have to go anywhere else for anything at all if you have the cash
- Provide places to play in accessable locations
- Constantly produce new models
- Constantly produce new rules/editions/codecies
- Published magazine that advertises new/upcoming releases and gives rules expansions, painting advice, etc.,.
- Well developed website including another hobby magazine (black gobbo) which is free
- Support old games somewhat through their specialsit games range
- Quality of models/sculpting is arguably good (even if I don't like them)
- Consistent cartoon styling through any given line (ie the minis look like they belong next to one another)
- Plastic kits often come with impressive amounts of options and are generally easy to work with and modify
- Quality rules can be found in their specialist games range
- "Army Building" is an easy to follow hobby process (buy a unit, paint it, play with it, re-evaluate your army, repeat)
- Helpful (some would say) staff
- Rules questions answered on a toll free phone number or email (even if you call twice and get two different answers)
- Glossy high production value rules and packaging
- "Edgy" gothic imagery will make you cool among your pre-teen friends
- They have a painting tutorial for almost every model they make (in the codex, on the website, a magazine article, somewhere)
- Expansive background fiction
- Populatiry makes it easy to find opponents
- Organized tournament play for those interested
- Raised the bar on painting standards in miniatures (well, perhaps Rackham did it moreso).
- Brings people into atleast some sort of miniature gaming (who else has stores in the big public malls?)

That's all I've got.

As for my opinion on the matter, I think a lot of the "good" points are actually bad points. But I covered the downsides enough.

I do want to echo the calls for the removal of this thread from message boards where it doesn't belong. Getting it off of Ancients & WW2 would be a good thing.

I must say though, it's impressive to see this thread grow and grow. I also think it serves the purpose of sucking in people who want to arguy about the merits (and lack thereof) of GW so all the detracter vs. fanboy battles can be contained in one place.

Another very bad thing: The new genestealers are beautiful, but they cut the number in each box by a third and jacked up the price nearly 25%. GW could have possibly (maybe, just maybe) gotten a purchase out of me if they would have sold them at the old price and put a full 12 instead of 8 in the box. I guess it's just an example of me not finding value in their product.

I think Nathaniel and Nazrat have summed up all I was going to say.

Judas and Nazrat I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate and have read some very cleverly put ideas. Im just an old Lawyer type so have spent a lifetime boiling down volumes of waffle into pure evidence. I shall boil this down…

Goth/rock type young lads buy GW. They are a minority in the gaming community, GW wouldhave us believe they are the MR BIG, when they only appeal to a minority group. Real wargaming appeals and satisfies a very wide section of society. GW are clever they have sold a sales line and some on here have bought it, many have not and will not. GW are having a few financial problems, they are making cuts all this will pan out in time, The GW empire has 'zenithed' it will slowly shrink because computer games will eat it all up, because it has no depth or substance, while real wargaming will roll on as it always has.

Everytime you pass a pure GW shop just peek in through the window and look whose in there, note their age group and the social types that frequent the shop and its wares. This will tell you about GW.

My findings after looking through GW windows. Its frequented by yound lad, most in Rock or Goth tee-shirts. No adults no long time wargaming hobby'ists, just kids.

My Wargames club is held in the rooms above a very succesful wargames shop and well known figure manufacturer, the shop also sells GW kit. I visit the shop every week my buddy owns it. The above is a very accurate observation.

Judas, I beleive your logic is flawed.

"Any "Rational" being knows that it is better to kill at a distance than at close quarters. It is safer. Some racial types may prefer to get in close, but a stated preference to get in close does not automativally follow that they will be BAD at close combat, just like a stated preference for long-ranged combat makes for pitiful close range skills.

That is called a presumption."

Yes it is a presumtion. But in the case of the Tau it is also true.

Just because something is a presumption does not mean that that presumtion is not correct. A presumption is merely an attitude or belief dictated by probability.

In the case of Quigly Down Under, the villains presumption was incorrect (which led to disasterous consequences).

However, in the case of the Tau the presumption that they are poor at hand to hand combat because they are strong at ranged combat (there are other factors too) is correct.

"In the GW products they have this tendency to just Say "Such and Such race is bad at such and such", but in a culture of continued warfare… You are going to find that one race my be slightly less efficient or capable of certain types of warfare… They are ALL going to catch on to the fact that without a decent combined arms ability… You just get squashed really quickly, and those few forces that pick up on modern tactics and strategic operations are going to QUICKLY dominate ALL the others. That is the way that War works.

I'm sorry, but this is simply a load of dingo's kidneys.

In the real world there are many different cultures, and many different types of armed forces. Each nation has its own fighting style, preferences and specialties.

For example:

Americans became the undisputed masters of logistics. This arrouse because of the need to project American military strength into far flung regions of the world (Asia and Europe). To this day the American army is known for its ability to ship out rapidly and deploy to any part of the world.

China on the other hand has lousy logistics. They wouldn't be able to mount a large operation with significant forces very far beyond their own borders. China has historically been involved in internal disputes or conflicts very close to home. They have never needed to develop a sofisticated logistics structure.

Now this is a presumption about China. It also happens to be correct in this case.

Using your argument, China should be able to build up an logistics infastructure which rivals the U.S.'s because otherwise they "would be squashed".

It's just not that simple. There are many reasons why a nation can not or will not adopt another nations specialty or particular strength.

"You may have one or two winding up fighting continued insurgencies, but they will not have the logistical capabilities for fighting a prolonged war without being able to sufficiently protect a supply line, and that will again that a combined arms approach."

I'm sorry what exactly are you trying to say here?

"Well… I have provided SEVERAL specific points to support my position.

I suggest that those who disagree provide ome spcific points to support their positions, and I would prefer not to have GW product quoted to me. I have already made the case that their prodct has a flawed position. Provide a rational to show that it does not if you disagree…"

You rational points amount to some serious flawed logic and a load of mangled statements. You are not expressing yourself clearly (maybe I'm just slow). There have already been some good accounts on here of why the Tau backstory is the way it is and how its tied into their stats in the game.

Why is there a link between GW models and miniatures and the backstory supported to fit a particular range into the universe anyway?

If you hate the concept of the Tau and think the history and backstory for them is lousy, does that make the product (the actual miniatures and models) any worse?

Theres just alot of people who say stuff like "I hate GW because their 40k universe doen't make any sense. The universe in embroiled in constant warfare, yet there is no technological advancement. Whaaa Whaaa."

Who cares?!

The minis are great there are lots to choose from. Collect a force and game with it. Game with it any way you want. You don't even need to play a GW game!

Just do what I do when I go into a Games Workshop. Have a list of what you need. Get in, get your stuff and get out. Avoid eye contact as much as possible.

I never claimed my poll was scientific, just personal observation. And I also said it was just a pointless addition. Now who's being presumptuous?

And your right, that evidence does not reveal actual numbers. Another unscientific try on googlefight.com (which claims they are not affiliated with or sponsored by Google) GW comes out ahead on websearches.

GW, whats one man's "federation" and another universe's "evil empire".
There are some great legacies that GW has left to our hobby, the price of single metal figures, the continual reworking of rules, the extra costs of codex (codices?).
However we should acknowledge that GW's target group have pimples, this group regenerates every 5 years, so those who are not in this target group should only take advantage of the spoils that may attract our attention, and leave the rest to that target group.

Alright… Lets do it again…

First, you are not bad at something because you are good at something else…

Again, that is a presumption, and in logical arguments a presumption is usually a false case (not always), but even if the statement:

The Tau are bad at close combat because they are good at ranged combat.

described a situation where the Tau were good at ranged combat, but bad at close.. the statement would still be false, because the Tau are not bad at close combat because they are good at ranged combat.

I will say it again… They are bad at close combat because they are bad at close combat.

Their ranged abilities have NOTHING to do with their ability to stand in close to a fight.

Did you read the point about the Tau being rational beings?

Did you get the point that just saying "The Tau are bad at close combat because they are good at Ranged Combat is also a non-sequitor… One does not necessarily follow the other.

Going back to the rational beings… a Rational being knows that if they have a deficiency, and they have the capability to correct that deficiency (The Tau are swimming in technology) that it is only rational to correct that deficiency.

There has also been cited the fact that the Tau have been first fighting races like the Orks and Tyranids, both races that have a "preference" for close-combat (and in the Tyranid's case have a kind of built in edge). In order to survive (You have heard of this guy named Darwin, right? He basically claimed that those who are not capable of competing will be suqished by natural selection).

First, the Tau being rational would apply their considerable technology to the problem and come up with a DOCTRINE that stresses ranged combat, and have the mechanisms to back that up, but they would in all likelyhood (because of their exposure to forces like the Tyranids) know that they are facing some formidable foes who PREFER close combat…

Therefore… They had better come up with something for the average Joe-Tau to use when he finds himself at odds with the doctrine and in a hand-hand fight with a Tyranid Termegant, Lictor, or some other biomechanical nightmare.\

Ever hear of a little thing called the machine pistol?

They are used by MOST militaries when they know they are going to be at close quarters against a better armed and capable opponent.

Then there are the MANY forms of hand-grenade.

I could go on, but I am really tired of having GW's pap quoted back to me, when I have made a pretty good case that they have this little bit of flawed logic in their development of their races. Of course, neither you or any other of the "Faithful" will think so. It is like arguing with a Christian about the age of the earth.

Holden, you are just spouting rules back at me, not providing a rational for why the Tau are bad at close combat.

A rational would be… They never needed to fight at close quarters so they never knew that they were bad at it.

But wait… They have fought against the Tyranids and Orks, both races that would expose those shortcomings through their own doctrine of getting in close…

Hmm… Now what is it that would make the Tau bad at close combat??? Hmm… hey are short… No… they have all of that Powered-armor, and other technology, technology trums the height issue…

To use your China analogy… China doesn't need a logistical capability to project itself across the world. They are a pretty insular society, but if they got caught up in a fight with another power that continued for many years… they would develope the ability to provide detailed logistical support… If not, they would be squashed by the power that WAS capable of logistical support of their forces.

See how that works… If you have a deficiency, it will kill you if you do not correct it.

You can only have a deficiency if it has JUST been exposed in a war, and then if it is not corrected PRONTO, you are history…

Oh, and Holden, I have found similar idiocies in all of the races. The Tau just happen to be the most recent race that I have taken a look at. The rest I gave up on trying to stomach a long time ago.

Yes… it does make me sick that they could do so much better, and they don't…

I should point out that whoever made the point is correct in that they do playtest their games, and put a lot of work into the fluff area (Making it visually appealing), but seem to have problems with the consistency and coherencies of the backstory to the play balance.

And, yes, I do think that a sustained period of warfare on a galactic scale with no advancement of technology, no teaching of the scientific method (or its re-discovery) by the masses, and hideously inadequate explanations just for the sake of play balance makes for a pathetic game.

As I said… They could do so much better, but that is not where they wish to expend their energy.

and Nazrat, you made one of my points excellently:

"As such, it really isn't required to be on the level of any of the fine SF writers you listed. It would be Pulp compared to their "literature""…

Pulp is essentially fluff…

Judas you are and think like a historcal wargamer, the need for 'a reason why', something is in the rules.

GW wont go down the history road because they would have to have 'a reason why'. Even WaB has its daft mega strength Conan type generals, standard bearers and characters, you cant treat them serious if you tried your hardest :-)

Hammer (keeps the thread going, but its getting to long to load now)

So you agree with ONE point I made, and ignore ALL the others. Sir, your debating skills are nonexistant, and your points are inane and badly expressed to boot. It's like "arguing with a Christian", to quote somebody's over-the-top position…

Take your medicine and go play a game to relax!

"Judas you are and think like a historcal wargamer, the need for 'a reason why', something is in the rules."

No, he thinks like a stuffy, elitist excuse for a war gamer. I'm a historical war gamer (have been for 15 years), and I am capable of seeing things from more than just ONE position. I also don't tend to get all frothy and spit out epithets and illogical rants about an imaginary universe that is simply a background for a science fantasy rules set.

Neither one of you sounds like you'd be much fun to play a game with, whatever the genre or era!

Nazrat…. Calm down …calm down…on the strength of your above replys…. I accept your unconditional surrender in this debate, you fought a good fight sir, but alas…. resorted to personal slur and lost. :op

I will let you into a secret, iv got hidden away in a cupboard an original mint unpunched GW game.. the micro SF one with the light grey foam buildings, Epic I think. They are like gold dust on Ebay.
I think that concluded the debate. 0-0 but some good points made none the less.

Hammer

Perfectly calm here, old man… I just got tired of Judas' same two assertions being repeated over and over, all while ignoring the reasoned discussion being put forth by anyone else (ME, for example). And then saying "I could go on, but I am really tired of having GW's pap quoted back to me…" which is really impossible NOT to do when you are discussing said "pap". So we're to discuss the writing of the Tau race WITHOUT mentioning the WRITING or anything in it?!! Spock would have an aneurism with this guy! LOL!

So in the end I came across testy. Sorry. I've been moving a friend into a new house all morning and I'm completely knackered.

"First, you are not bad at something because you are good at something else…

Again, that is a presumption, and in logical arguments a presumption is usually a false case (not always)"

Where did you get this from? A presumption is simply a presumption. How do you know if they are usually true or not? Presumptions are formed with the application of logic. Only if you have complete knowledge of everything can you make a statement that is absolutely true (ie: almost never). Othyerwise you muct make a presumption based on logic.

"Going back to the rational beings… a Rational being knows that if they have a deficiency, and they have the capability to correct that deficiency (The Tau are swimming in technology) that it is only rational to correct that deficiency."

Just because a race CAN use technology and training to overcome weaknesses doesn't mean that they WILL. It also doesn't mean that they will be exterminated in war eventually.

I have no doubt that the Tau could devise some form of high tech power field or close combat weapon system that would enable them to fight in hand to hand combat at a much higher level, but they have devised other means to get around this problem.

In the case of the Tau they decided to avoid hand to hand combat and concentrate on ranged combat (presumably in an effort to kill the enemy before close combat was joined). They also employed a race of slaves to fight for them (the Kroot). It is also against their social nature to fight up close and personal (they disdain hand to hand fighting).

Its like a cheeta who specialized in running extremely fast to catch its prey as opposed to the wolf who devised a clever system of teamwork. Both animals are catching other animals so they can eat, but both animals do it in different ways. Then you come along and say "I don't like the wolves. Why don't they learn to run faster? They have obviously encountered prey who can run faster than them and they have the potential to evolve down that route (after all look at the cheeta). So I thin wolves suck and make no sense!"

By the way, I've never actually seen you provide a reason as to why the official company line on the Tau development is flawed. You just ranted on about "the Tau have the technology to get better at melee combat and they have foguht the likes of Ork and Tyranids before so they should get better!".

What is your problem with them being socially abhorant to personal combat (much as samurai of fuedal Japan looked on fire-arms with disdain)?

Whats your problem with them using the Kroot as meat shields (Just as the Romans used other nations as auxiliary missle troops or calvary. Things that they were weak at)?

Whats wrong with them wanting to concentrate on firepower to win fights over muscle power (sort of like the English with their long bows – Agincourt anyone)?

And BTW I've got a non sequitor fot you:

Games Workshop backstories for their races suck, therefore Games Workshop products suck!"

Sorry about my spelling in that last post everyone. It is particularly horrible. I was a little too hasty with the submit button there.

I'm gonna go in the corner now and feel shame…

OK… My definition of Presumption was weak… But the ppoint that it supports, which you continually IGNORE, is NOT.

Just because you are good at one thing does not make you BAD at another (or its opposite)

Also…to quote you:
Just because a race CAN use technology and training to overcome weaknesses doesn't mean that they WILL. It also doesn't mean that they will be exterminated in war eventually.

THAT is the very definition of IRRATIONAL…

OH! I have a weakness that could potentially cause the extintion of my race… I think that I will ignore doing anything about it while this biomechanical hoard eats my planet…

The goal of the Tyranids is to absorb all of the genetic material that is in their path is it not?. The Tyranids are experts at close combat. The weakness in the Tau is in this specific area. To IGNORE IT IS IRRATIONAL

A cheeta is NOT a rational being… It runs on instinct and its genetic and physiological capabilitites… It is the mark of a sapient to overcome these deficiencies.

I keep saying OVER AND OVER again.. Just because the Tau have a doctrine that says they prefer to develop and concentrate on the long ranged arena does not mean that they would ignore a deficiency that they know is important.

If you are not god at climbing mountains, but have found yourself suddenly in the middle of a bunch of mountains with no raods out… Do you think that you MIGHT get a little better at climbing mountains? You either will, or you will die in the attempt (Now, go to the "I might just get injured and make it out alive but maimed… Guess what.. That is the same thing. You have learned that you are going to have to do one of two things… AVOID ALL MOUNTAINS, or learn to get better.

If the mountains keep getting up and surrounding you (The same as years of warfare against groups that excell in closer combat) you are going to either discover that you have an insurmountable obstacle, and you will be removed from the gene pool, or you will get better at Close combat… Along with your other doctrine of avoiding mountains (ie close combat)

And look what happened to the Japanese as a result of their disdain of Firearms… the social class who had that disdain was outlawed and eventually made useless by those same firearms…

BTW… That last bit is a non-sequitor… If a game is based upon a premise that SUCKS (Doesn't hold together, has weak rationalizations, etc) then the products resulting from that weakness will suck as well…

Non-Sequitur: A conclusion, Inference, or presumption that does not follow from the evidence that preceeded it.

Games workshop products suck because their backstories suck..

Games workshops backstories suck therefore Games Workshop products suck.

See how it works in both directions… Now.. The inference that ALL of their products suck because their backstories suck is an absolute… Those are rarely true, because not all GW products SUCK…

For that matter… I have never claimed that GW products Suck. I have maintained that they are poorly concieved and put togehter… Now to get to that point on a case by case basis…

Hammer: "iv got hidden away in a cupboard an original mint unpunched GW game.."

Would that make you a closet GW-gamist? ;-)

Griefbringer

First… I have show PLENTY of evidence that their backstory for the Tau is put together on specious and inconsistent premises…

Now… I will go through them one at a time to see if you get it…

To begin (From the web-page for the Tau from GW):

"…They are the Tau, a surprisingly advanced race that has organized itself around a single guiding principle known as "The Greater Good"…

*** This establishes that the Tau are an advanced and technological society.

This unhindered progress has given the Tau confidence that there is no obstacle that their society and their science cannot overcome.

*** This establishes that when they see something that does not work… They put their "Surprisingly Advanced" society to correcting a problem.

"the Tau have invented some of the most lethal ranged weaponry in Warhammer 40,000. Their basic troop type, called Firewarriors, are armed with Pulse Rifles and Pulse Carbines that can punch through armor like a comet through a dust cloud"

*** Look… the Tau have some of the MOST advanced weapons around, with some HAND-HELD versions that can punch through armor like comet dust… there words here…

To continue:

"Yet, the Tau disdain up-close fighting and are unskilled in hand-to-hand combat."

If the Tau are said to see "No obstacle that their society and their science cannot overcome"… Why are they so poor at H-H?

There are other parts that I did not quote that discuss their Crisis and Broadside suits, and their gravitic technologies… both of those contain components that would have applications to make up for the lack of exertise in H-H… They may have a doctrine that stresses Keeping the enemy at a distance, but since they seem to have run into so many Orks and Tyranids… They would "Being Rational Beings" realize that they had better come up with something to overcome this shortcoming.

As for the Kroot…

They are used to help overcome this shortcoming, but using them for "Cannon-Fodder" does not fit in with a rational view that bringing "Goodness and light" to the far corners of the galaxy… A race that wants to keeps its image up for the rest o the universe is not going to ruthlessly exploit another species. That is not rational if you have the stated goal of bringing HARMONY to the other races…

"Oh, look…There's one of those Tau… They say they are all about peace and Harmony, but do you know what they did to their allies during a war with a Tyranid Hive that came though their space… they FED those poor Kroot to the Tyranids just so that they could keep themselves safe… That doesn't sound to me like they want Harmony for anyone but themselves… I don't think I will be buying that line when they come round to our planet"

Oh… Lets not forget that the Tau also have drone and shield technology. This implies a strength in Artificial Intelligence (although possibly NOT fully sentient) and in creating energy fields that can deflect incoming energies, projectiles, etc. Are those applied to Close combat for them?

The Tau aside… I just do not like the fact that the game looks more like a Napoleonic battle than a modern battlefield.

All of GWs products are about getting the attention of those who just want a "OH WOW!, That's SO KEWL!" experience.

I have had about all of the "Kewl" that I can stand in my life. I want things to have more substance now. The kids can play with the Space Orks and Tyranids.

I may use some of the miniatures for other games that I play, but I intend to put a little more thought into the applications of the technologies that I am exploring than to just rule that "It makes the game more balanced, so they can (or cannot ) only do this or that…

Holden88 makes EXCELLENT points, using historical armies and evidence in nature to back them up. Judas uses imaginary growing mountains to support his increasingly weak argument, all the while ignoring the simple fact that the Tau use the frikkin' KROOT to do their CC fighting, thereby leaving their hands clean.

Game, set, and match to OUR side. 8)=

And I love a guy that continually gives me a definition to a word we obviously all understand and are using properly, but he misspells it most of the time he uses it! LOL!

Holden88 makes EXCELLENT points, using historical armies and evidence in nature to back them up. Judas uses imaginary growing mountains to support his increasingly weak argument, all the while ignoring the simple fact that the Tau use the frikkin' KROOT to do their CC fighting, thereby leaving their hands clean.

Game, set, and match to OUR side. 8)=

And I love a guy that continually gives us a definition to a word we obviously all understand and are using properly, but he misspells it most of the time he uses it! LOL!

Sorry about the double post… I don't know what happened.

Wow! 500 posts. Maybe we should all just give this thread a rest?

Wow! I'm the first to post on page 11.
I'd like to thank all the GW haters out there, my lovely wife, my attack cat, my colleagues in school, my third grade teacher, and Ralph the Wonder Llama for giving me this opportunity to express something about Games Workshop.

For those of you who cannot handle the discomfort I am about to unlease, I suggest you scroll down to the next post or move three feet away from the monitor to prevent discomforting enlightenment.

*ahem*

Your prices, your rules modifications galore, your skullz, your dark and hopeless universe makes many want to run to historicals. Keep it up GW!

I thought it was on the shelve but GW hate's going on twelve!

"Wow! 500 posts. Maybe we should all just give this thread a rest?"

Now Seattle, don't be a wuss!

Damn the torpedoes, let's go for a thousand posts!!!!