Blindhamster Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 They will acknowledge it so long as you have receipt and it isn't damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Honestly, the basis of the argument is "I don't like the words on this book. Therefore it is broken." Like people said, it was correct at time of print :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 See my point of putting all Astartes chapters together in one dex now? It would prevent these kind of things happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Honestly, the basis of the argument is "I don't like the words on this book. Therefore it is broken." Like people said, it was correct at time of print :/ Products are a value proposition; working at the time of purchase is not the producer's only commitment. Moreover, this is not just a book, it's a game accessory. It competes with GW's other accessories (i.e. codices). Releasing a codex and then six months later releasing a second, more powerful, more refined, more polished codex with a better value proposition for use with the exact same model line, under the same ruleset, is not the same thing as printing a book and washing your hands clean because it is correctly printed. The codex should certainly have a life cycle, and arguing that it should be shorter than that of even a single edition is absurd. And yes, game publishers have been sued for improperly short life spans. This is the first time I've bought a codex from GW since the 3rd edition BA codex, and it will be the last until they just gather all the PA armies into one codex and update them altogether. Until then, they can GFT. And this codex is going back as a return, however strongly I have to push. As a matter of fact, I will now write to them asking about the status of my refund request. I would recommend everyone to ask for a refund on their codices as well, if you actually want to get a message across. Emailing FAQ trolls will do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't want a refund though, I like the book. Honestly this discussion is getting a bit silly. I understand your frustrations and feel the same way, but I think it's best we stop the whole "I'm Gunna due GW" discussion, as well as nip the damned codex rolling in the bud (now that is pointless discussion :P) End of the day, we have some scouts that are marginally worse on the defence but pretty much the same on offence. Vanguard who don't charge as well but are better if they make it and some slightly weaker, but 1000x cooler dreads. The gladius isn't even all that, we don't need rerolls, we make the first roll count ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bukimimaru Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 This thread makes my faith in humanity hurt. >_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Products are a value proposition; working at the time of purchase is not the producer's only commitment. Moreover, this is not just a book phone, it's a game accessory. It competes with GW's apples other accessories (i.e. codices other iPhones). Releasing a book phone and then six months one year later releasing a second, more powerful, more refined, more polished book phone with a better value proposition for use with the exact same model line, under the same ruleset, is not the same thing as printing a book phone and washing your hands clean because it is correctly printed. The book phone should certainly have a life cycle, and arguing that it should be shorter than that of even a single edition is absurd. If this is the case, then why the hell hasn't Apple been sued to the hills and back? They do exactly the same, release the same product year after year with a slight tweak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bukimimaru Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If this is the case, then why the hell hasn't Apple been sued to the hills and back? They do exactly the same, release the same product year after year with a slight tweak. Same is true with computer games; Assassins Creed, or Fifa or ... well, any EA game really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Products are a value proposition; working at the time of purchase is not the producer's only commitment. Moreover, this is not just a book phone, it's a game accessory. It competes with GW's apples other accessories (i.e. codices other iPhones). Releasing a book phone and then six months one year later releasing a second, more powerful, more refined, more polished book phone with a better value proposition for use with the exact same model line, under the same ruleset, is not the same thing as printing a book phone and washing your hands clean because it is correctly printed. The book phone should certainly have a life cycle, and arguing that it should be shorter than that of even a single edition is absurd. If this is the case, then why the hell hasn't Apple been sued to the hills and back? They do exactly the same, release the same product year after year with a slight tweak. Are you being purposefully obtuse or is this a serious question? Suing apple for re-releasing improved iphones would be akin to suing GW for releasing a new rules edition. Suing GW for the BA codex would be like suing Apple for releasing paid softwareon the Apple store, only to have a better and improved version appear on the market within months which does the same thing but much better (i.e. they purposefully sold you the worse version and hanged onto a better version to recoup on repeat sales. The GW model.) Your demagoguery works both ways by the way. You bought a car today and neither the seller nor the manufacturer let you know that tomorrow they will sell a newer and better model of the same car for the same price. You walked into the shop tomorrow - what would you do? Why do you think GW pull renewed products from shleves beforehand? Why do you think Win 7 PCs at the end of Win 7's lifespan came with free Win 8 upgrades? Why do you think Apple continues to update its OS on years old hardware despite no longer selling it? Because people expect a life cycle out of it, ant would ensue. In GW's case though the customers are mostly corporate apologetic sheep who more often than not would rather get forked a little to paint toy soldiers. That includes me. But the BA codex thing was just way too :cussty to take, in my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theduke08 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 While i understand your frustration I still think the whole concept of suing GW over you not liking our codex is silly. Even if you take them to court I still dont think you have much to go off of. Best case scenario you take them to court and they are ordered to offer you a refund, which you could probably get already if you emailed GW customer service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 In GW's case though the customers are mostly corporate apologetic sheep who more often than not would rather get forked a little to paint toy soldiers. That includes me. But the BA codex thing was just way too :cussty to take, in my case. Don't see how this isn't relevant to apple. Anyway, I've said enough on the matter. I understand the hurt, and by all means, try and take them to court. I just don't think it will end well for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Angel Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Back on topic, how have the emailings gone? Remember, it's less important that they respond to our emails and more important that they see our response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorre Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I say sue the buggers, if you have the time and motivation to do so! Probably wont achieve anything but might draw a bit of extra attention! I doubt they would let it go to court anyway they would probably just settle as a codex refund has to be cheaper than a court case! Unless of course you sue for damages, mental anguish, lost time. Could be amusing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Eisenhorn Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Products are a value proposition; working at the time of purchase is not the producer's only commitment. Moreover, this is not just a book phone, it's a game accessory. It competes with GW's apples other accessories (i.e. codices other iPhones). Releasing a book phone and then six months one year later releasing a second, more powerful, more refined, more polished book phone with a better value proposition for use with the exact same model line, under the same ruleset, is not the same thing as printing a book phone and washing your hands clean because it is correctly printed. The book phone should certainly have a life cycle, and arguing that it should be shorter than that of even a single edition is absurd. If this is the case, then why the hell hasn't Apple been sued to the hills and back? They do exactly the same, release the same product year after year with a slight tweak. Planned obsolescence is practiced by many many companies, like Apple, however it is usually used in conjunction with steady and predictable releases, whether officially or not. M:TG follows that model, but on a strict schedule. What GW has been doing increasingly of late, is upending their regular release schedule with much less time between releases than they have historically followed, but without any warning to their consumer base. They want people buying books that are about to be replaced right up to the day the new one is announced, which is just a really terrible way to treat customers, legal or not. At least when a new Apple product is released, your old one isn't immediately invalidated, so keeping a lid on when exactly something drops isn't as big of a sin on their part (particularly since they keep their releases steady anyways). And to be honest, I dislike Apple's model as well--it's just that it's not as bad as GW's tactics. To those of you who are happy with your Blood Angels book, great. But for those of us who feel burned by how things have turned out with the book, have a bit of empathy with our frustration; if someone wants to write an email, or look into legal recourse, that's their prerogative. For my part, I sent an email as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Oh, yes, I am a little annoyed about it....but in the end, it's a game of toy soldiers. C:SM dreads get 4A....but who actually uses them apart from myself? My Omega Marine dread army has now doubled the total number of attacks...but on 6x AV12 bodies. Scouts. Yes, that is annoying. I would have liked for ours to be more. They are, after all, hand picked from the blood thirstiest. Detachments. Yes. Powerful in the marine codex...but we also got a lot of love with...3 different detachment options and innumerate formations around christmas. Still. Ill take the death company over the gladius demi company any day of the week. Anyway, enough off topic rambling. You'll see that I sent an email away early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Oh, yes, I am a little annoyed about it....but in the end, it's a game of toy soldiers. /Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Oh, yes, I am a little annoyed about it....but in the end, it's a game of toy soldiers. /Thread Not quite, unless these toy soldiers are handed out for free somewhere that I do not know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Antodeniel Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I think that this topic quite loosing the objective, and i think that, maybe, it isn't the right way, by writring angrily and threatening mail. Instead, maybe, we should propose a FAQ, written by members of the community, and that could be approved by GW as an realistic uptades. (Maybe, i'm far too optimistic on that ;s, sanguinary priest side....a quest for a cure...). So instead of complaining all along, why don't we try to study on a FAQ of our own, one that could be right with the fluff, the rules, and the very game balance. Maybe, it isn't the best topic for this kind of "FAQ blood angels community programms", but since, i'm new on the place, i wil let the seniors do it if they thinks it could be a right thing. So, do you have some ideas for a "Realistic BA FAQ Updates" ? (Maybe it would be better than waiting to be feed like birdie...i think it's worth the try...) I go first^^, here are my ideas for a FAQ : - Sanguinary priest, access to artificer armour upgrade...same cost as the captain (the idea seems correct by the models style and the blood angels fluff) - Sanginary guard , +1 WS, and maybe +1 wounds (They are supposed to be hero amongst hero, so +1WS seems quite correct, while i'm not sure for the +1 wound) - Dreadnought attacks stats in accordance with the C:SM (So 4 basic attacks) - Scouts stats up in accordance with the C:SM (So 4ws and 4bs) - BA scout access to the land speeder storm (Could bring some new ideas and strategies on the board, while respecting the blood angels fluff) - BA access to the Stormtalon (The blood angels always need hold the sky, and it is wrote in the codex...so...realistic idea.) - Vehicles squadron rules (I don't think that the priority, but it would be in accordance with the C:SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I've already suggested the community FAQ buddy, so I of course echo the sentiment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helias_Tancred Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Its your game, at least when you are playing with your group of friends. Agree on some house rules? Of course there is no reason why BA scouts should be weaker, or the Furioso Dreadnought should have less attacks than a regular, etc etc. I would discuss this with my regular group of friendly players and see if they would simply house rule these common sense changes? Now if you play outside of your friendly group or in tournaments that is a different situation. I would have a tidy list of changes prepared and present it to them to see if they agree? You have nothing to lose and who is the clod who's gonna defend BA scouts being significantly weaker on the defense than any normal astartes scout? Pure silliness. And if they don't agree? F*** 'em and play your best and show them what an honorable Blood Angel does in the face of ridiculous absurdity- CHARGE, KILL, SLAY! I know if I were facing a blood angels player and he suggested those changes in our game I honestly wouldn't mind. Common sense > all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 There already is an FAQ thread somewhere, or as I liked to call it, the "Read the damn book first before posting" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronhour Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I think that this topic quite loosing the objective, and i think that, maybe, it isn't the right way, by writring angrily and threatening mail. Instead, maybe, we should propose a FAQ, written by members of the community, and that could be approved by GW as an realistic uptades. (Maybe, i'm far too optimistic on that ;s, sanguinary priest side....a quest for a cure...). So instead of complaining all along, why don't we try to study on a FAQ of our own, one that could be right with the fluff, the rules, and the very game balance. Maybe, it isn't the best topic for this kind of "FAQ blood angels community programms", but since, i'm new on the place, i wil let the seniors do it if they thinks it could be a right thing. So, do you have some ideas for a "Realistic BA FAQ Updates" ? (Maybe it would be better than waiting to be feed like birdie...i think it's worth the try...) I go first^^, here are my ideas for a FAQ : - Sanguinary priest, access to artificer armour upgrade...same cost as the captain (the idea seems correct by the models style and the blood angels fluff) - Sanginary guard , +1 WS, and maybe +1 wounds (They are supposed to be hero amongst hero, so +1WS seems quite correct, while i'm not sure for the +1 wound) - Dreadnought attacks stats in accordance with the C:SM (So 4 basic attacks) - Scouts stats up in accordance with the C:SM (So 4ws and 4bs) - BA scout access to the land speeder storm (Could bring some new ideas and strategies on the board, while respecting the blood angels fluff) - BA access to the Stormtalon (The blood angels always need hold the sky, and it is wrote in the codex...so...realistic idea.) - Vehicles squadron rules (I don't think that the priority, but it would be in accordance with the C:SM Scouts, dread attacks' reclusiarchs back. If DA can get the interrogator chappie with 3 wounds why did we lose our reclusiarchs? The rest is nice but I feel those three (and maybe van vet pw costs) are the only ones that feel like they're taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzerallan Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The car analogy doesn't work because releases like that and even software are advertised and flagged ahead of time as a standard convention... GW purposely keeps it release schedules etc under tighter wraps than some law enforcement agencies keep intelligence info, even from their own staff. It would be fairly easy to argue that this is for the specific reason that if Customer X had foreknowledge of the release of a new product, they may not purchase the old version. As is you could purchase a rulebook only to have it made obsolete a week later and GW has deliberately concealed that possibility from the consumer to increase sales. I don't think that's baseless at all... Not that I'm advocating anybody sue a multinational over a tabletop wargame. If you hate it that badly, switch game systems or manufacturers. Historicals never have these sort of issues, and the fluff never gets retconned :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodTzar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I have personally given up on GW turned from 40k casaul player into 40k collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinamotoKansuke Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I go first^^, here are my ideas for a FAQ : - Sanguinary priest, access to artificer armour upgrade...same cost as the captain (the idea seems correct by the models style and the blood angels fluff) - Sanginary guard , +1 WS, and maybe +1 wounds (They are supposed to be hero amongst hero, so +1WS seems quite correct, while i'm not sure for the +1 wound) - Dreadnought attacks stats in accordance with the C:SM (So 4 basic attacks) - Scouts stats up in accordance with the C:SM (So 4ws and 4bs) - BA scout access to the land speeder storm (Could bring some new ideas and strategies on the board, while respecting the blood angels fluff) - BA access to the Stormtalon (The blood angels always need hold the sky, and it is wrote in the codex...so...realistic idea.) - Vehicles squadron rules (I don't think that the priority, but it would be in accordance with the C:SM Guys, be careful not to stretch this too far. Asking for our codex to be updated so that it's in line with the new C:SM when it comes to identical units is one thing, asking for buffs or changes simply because we don't like our new codex (like changing Sanguinary Priests or Guard) is something different altogether. Why should our scouts or dreadnought be worse than the exact same thing over in C:SM? No reason, please fix this GW. By the way, I don't like unit X, Y and Z. Tough luck... What I mean is let's stick to the requests we have grounds for, instead we'll look like regular "buff me nerf my opponent" folk and be ignored. Or do you really want a new codex now, just 6 months after the current one got released? I sure don't after buying that expensive Limited Edition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.