So tell me, since you can't paint at your local store only game, how many hours do you spend playing the game? And how many hours do you spend painting models?
Maybe the power gamer was uncalled for, but tell me are you really interested in the actual hobby or just playing games?
So tell me whose GW more interested in having as a customer. The guy who buys whatever because he likes the look of it or the guy looking to enter a tournament whose only going to get eldar, space marine, tau or dark eldar?
I have mentioned this elsewhere, and probably on Heresy as well, but I have not played a game of 40k since 7th was dropped - nor have I painted anything since that time either. But before, when I was having FUN with the game? I probably spent 3-6 hours a week building and painting stuff as I was interested in the army, I only played once a week where I got maybe 1-3 games in that were 1,500 points and under - if I wanted to play a bigger game then I would likely only get one game in at the FLGS. Of the time at the FLGS (no GW store near me until last year, which is pathetically small) I would spend 4-6 hours.
The amount of armies that you or I own is not relevant, the amount of redundancy in the amount of models does, I do not need to own multiple tactical squads, or 300 ork boyz, if I wanted to collect and paint stuffs, we own so much stuff of GW is because we get together with our friends once or twice a week and play a game or two while BSing a bunch of stuff. If GW wants to be a MODEL company, let me know I will stop playing the game; stop spending money; Not care about them; Spend my money on other games that I will actually play; Care for those games; and maybe once a year I will set aside time and money to buy a unit from FW.
I want balance in the game so that there are a wider variety of armies that I can make from a single codex, and have a roughly equal amount of success against a random list. For example I do not want a list where a Mono-God Slaanesh demons army by default has a negative modifier on its winning percentage. I want the game the FORGING OF THE NARRATIVE
to dictate to me my winning chances, but by having army builds by default be worse than others in the book BEFORE I PUT THEM ON THE TABLE is inexcusable and will not be tolerated.
When GW effectively destroys the Dark Angel codex of their uniqueness when they released the Space Marines codex is again inexcusable and will not be tolerated.
These are just a couple of examples, there are more - but I will spare everyone (including myself) and stop here.
If GW cared about tournaments we'd have balance and an incentive for people to play something other than eldar tau or space marines.
If GW cared about it's customers they would care about tournaments.
They don't care about tournaments. Which results in poor game balance. Which disappoints players. Which leads to lost revenue. Especially since games like Warmahordes and X-Wing with very tight rulesets have been gaining traction for years now. Which is why it's so insane that they don't seem to care. It just doesn't make financial sense.
If they actually just went to the biggest 5 tournament events in the world, took aside the top 5 finishers for each one, said "We'll pay £20 for you to list the top 10 problems you have with game balance in this edition so we can address them next time" then they'd get enough feedback from people who know what they're talking about to fuel the design team for months.
However they seem to be so... scared... of their own customers opinions that they don't bother, and so disinterested in community engagement that they've given up any attempt to cater to or run events for the broad demographics (Painters, Gamers, Fluff fans). Although at least Painters have Golden Demon and Fluff fans have BL Open Days.
Ultimately, I think the only way they're ever going to achieve anything approaching balance is to completely reinvent the game from the core mechanics up, similar to the 2nd/3rd Ed transition. Maybe move to a 2D6 or D10 system. Either that, or realise that "because it's always been like that" is NOT A VALID REASON TO EVER DO ANYTHING AT ALL, EVER.
Why are people always linking game balance to tournaments? They have nothing to do with each other. Balance is equally as important to casual gamers as tourney goers. Reducing the number of rules arguments and fundamentally broken units is in the best interests of everyone, whether that's 10yr old Timmy playing with his mates on the floor or someone at a top table competition with 500 attendees.
I agree with a lot of what Sethis says here, In particular the first and last paragraphs.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't GW attempt to properly balance the game once? wasn't the overall opinion negative?
GW made their position clear they're a model company, that is something they're supporting, the whole gaming thing is getting low.
When did GW attempt to balance the game? Balance is something that needs to ALWAYS be worked on with the style of releases that GW does.
I own the game as far back as 4th edition; 5th edition is when I started playing the game, 6th edition is the most balanced of the game (until GW released, Imperial Knights, Stronghold Assault, and Escalation).
The ideal version of the game that I see would be something that would be mostly 6th edition with a lot of key elements from 5th edition (assault from reserves, assault from a stationary vehicle - those being the big ones that I can think of). My ideal version is not what EVERYONE wants to see, but if GW is willing to make an attempt at fixing the things that I am most disappointed with I would be happy.