I've realized my problem with AoS...

[Al Shut]

They were rather toxic when I joined that forum [...] and only got worse from there.

Not adding anything to the discussion but I found this to be unintentionally hilarious.

[nsc]

Um, this might be slightly off topic, but it's kind of on topic, since this is about problems with AoS and "price" is a problem...

I love infinity, I've got 1000 points of combined army, I've got the Avatar, a bunch of space monkeys, witch soldiers, the drone with flamers and the palm tree lol, I've got 200 points of Yu-Jing.

Why do people complain about GW prices and in the same breath profess their undying love for infinity? GW models are much cheaper per model than the infinity models.

[Path Walker]

Um, this might be slightly off topic, but it's kind of on topic, since this is about problems with AoS and "price" is a problem...

I love infinity, I've got 1000 points of combined army, I've got the Avatar, a bunch of space monkeys, witch soldiers, the drone with flamers and the palm tree lol, I've got 200 points of Yu-Jing.

Why do people complain about GW prices and in the same breath profess their undying love for infinity? GW models are much cheaper per model than the infinity models.

Because hating on the big company makes you cool and non conformist.

[ColeVVatkins]

Because hating on the big company makes you cool and non conformist.

Emo?

[spiralingcadaver]

Because hating on the big company makes you cool and non conformist.

How about "Because Infinity has a way lower model count"?

Infinity is a skirmish system priced like a skirmish system. GW games are typically large combat games priced like skirmish systems. Despite being cheaper per model, (for example) a squad of 10 tactical marines makes up like 10% of your army if you stretch it, while a set of 6-ish skirmish guys (ex: infinity or malifaux starters) costs about the same (total) and can typically make up 30-50% of an army, while some (at least in the case of malifaux) can be an entire, tournament legal force right out of the box if you stretch it.

Or then there's 5 terminators, which have a lower model count than most equivalently priced skirmish boxes and make up a little more of your army than tac marines, and really aren't that much larger or more detailed.

[Charistoph]

And when they show up people point out where they are wrong and so on and so forth. thats the difference, the balance is there, and while certain units are "lackluster" on paper they are completely usable in the game and taken by many.

Not the one's I've seen. But instead of being toxic about it, they tend to just shrug their shoulders and move on or make attempts to make it work. When GW is encountered it suddenly must be vitriol that is produced instead of moving on.

And yes while the GW forums were toxic, the point I am making is that done RIGHT, balance and communication solves many of a game/communities issues and is worthy of the effort put into achieving it

GW didn't make them toxic, it was a bunch of people who dedicated themselves to destroying the community. It was worse than reading a Blizzard forum after a WoW patch/upgrade.

So I wonder how other developers maintain a rather healty community. Even games like LoL with way more players manage to have moderated forums without drowning in toxic waste. Just GW seems to be unable to interact. That is fun as a lot of people claim communication ist the key to a fun game and talk about "gamer autism" while the developers attitude seems to be exactly the opposite of what they expect from their players.

An interesting question. I honestly think that a majority in the GW house honestly do not understand how the internet works in both supporting and killing a community. In the boards for LoL or Blizzard, they have teams dedicated to removing toxic members, even though they keep coming back.

GW had the same thing. Ban the toxic members, who then reregistered under different IDs, and started all over again. GW got tired of it and left it to Nurgle instead of devoting the resources of a team to maintain it. It was a business decision based on their perceived needs and devotion of resources.

Amazing frequenzy? Are you serious? Ther was ONE faq with 7th editon. And this ONE Faq did not even cover any of the questions asked.
Burning questions at this time were: "How does spell familiar work under the new rules" "Does chaos focus count for the one power marked psykers must have"

Answer: Baleflamers now have a 45° Fire Arc

How limited your experience or knowledge must be. The FAQ for the Tau 6th Edition codex was released 3-4 times in one month. The same team also relegated the Hell Drake weapon to being on a turret which lasted till 7th's FAQ... So, speed of release does not always equal efficacy of response nor guarantee a reduction in vitriol.

[Charon]

How limited your experience or knowledge must be. The FAQ for the Tau 6th Edition codex was released 3-4 times in one month. The same team also relegated the Hell Drake weapon to being on a turret which lasted till 7th's FAQ... So, speed of release does not always equal efficacy of response nor guarantee a reduction in vitriol.

Which was the only one.
Heldrake FAQ came out shortly after the CSM codex hit. Which was the start of 6th edition. Next FAQ was in 7th turning the turret to a front mounted weapon. Just because there was ONE codex that got quite a few updates it does not mean EVERY codex got the same treatment.

[Charistoph]

Which was the only one.
Heldrake FAQ came out shortly after the CSM codex hit. Which was the start of 6th edition. Next FAQ was in 7th turning the turret to a front mounted weapon. Just because there was ONE codex that got quite a few updates it does not mean EVERY codex got the same treatment.

No, I do believe Chaos Marines did get a couple in 6th, but none changed the first Heldrake definition.

It still disproves your point about frequent FAQs providing less bite back. The paradigm has to change before effective FAQs can be written. The team that did the Heldrake definition for a turret didn't think it was wrong, so they didn't even look back at it until 7th Edition's review came up.

Part of it is proper community interaction, which is not likely to happen at this point due to a very vitriolic group out there. Another part is to actually start mapping out their rules and study their interactions before deploying them or give the responsibility to a group that will.

[daboarder]

No, I do believe Chaos Marines did get a couple in 6th, but none changed the first Heldrake definition.

It still disproves your point about frequent FAQs providing less bite back. The paradigm has to change before effective FAQs can be written. The team that did the Heldrake definition for a turret didn't think it was wrong, so they didn't even look back at it until 7th Edition's review came up.

Part of it is proper community interaction, which is not likely to happen at this point due to a very vitriolic group out there. Another part is to actually start mapping out their rules and study their interactions before deploying them or give the responsibility to a group that will.

There was a peroid during mid 6th where we were getting an FAQ about 3-4 months after each codex, I think it lasted about 4 FAQs? and they were not half bad either

[Sicarius182Uk]

You should learn all of those.

- - - Updated - - -

"Knowledge is power guard it well" =][=