Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/02/2007 5:52 PM

For example: Armageddon codex gives Black Templars powerful rules → Black Templars become super popular → bean counters decree that Black Templars get their own codex → Graham McNeill writes Black Templars codex with more balanced rules → Graham McNeill gets canned.  So let's see: Chaos codex gives daemonbomb powerful rules → daemons become super popular → bean counters decree that daemons get their own codex → _____ writes daemon codex → _____ gets canned.

I hope Gav Thorpe writes the daemon codex.

You win today's funny award for the internet.

I laughed so hard I nearly cried.  Thanks, work's been hellish lately.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/02/2007 5:52 PM

It's pretty obvious the bean counters are deciding what gets models/rules and what doesn't.  Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the decision-makers and the rules-writers.  For example: Armageddon codex gives Black Templars powerful rules → Black Templars become super popular → bean counters decree that Black Templars get their own codex → Graham McNeill writes Black Templars codex with more balanced rules → Graham McNeill gets canned.  So let's see: Chaos codex gives daemonbomb powerful rules → daemons become super popular → bean counters decree that daemons get their own codex → _____ writes daemon codex → _____ gets canned.

I hope Gav Thorpe writes the daemon codex.

Alternatively, XXX (or gav thorpe in your scenario) realises his job is at stake, makes demons even more powerful, demons get even more popular, bean counters super happy, XXX gets to do next codex, realises he needs to make that at least as popular as demons, which means at least as powerful, but more powerful would be the safer option. Bean counters ecstatic, XXX gets to do a nother codex. ad infinitum

Posted By The Crawling Chaos on 10/02/2007 10:28 PM
I think if GW released non-legal armies the result would be even worse.  Why spend the hundreds of dollars to buy, and the hours it takes to build and paint an army if nobody will play with you?

Yeah, people blame players for the tournament mentality, but it's the portability of GW games that's been a major factor to their growth.  I can walk into stores worldwide and know I'll be almost completely on the same page as my opponents.   It's trickier with historicals, etc. where everyone is playing some kind of variant or under some sort of house rules.  Making something tournament-legal, it's GW's "balanced" stamp (yeah, I know, laugh if you must but you know what I mean), and most players like the idea of something being balanced.

Posted By jfrazell on 10/03/2007 4:21 AM
I know I'll never make a list with anything but a straight codex ever again, and even then only if its a popular codex.

Yeah, tell me about it.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 10/02/2007 5:52 PM

Ok Mr. Smartypants - if LatD are such a great idea then how come LatD models aren't flying off the shelves, hmm?  In fact total sales of the LatD product line over the past year have been... £0!!!

It's pretty obvious the bean counters are deciding what gets models/rules and what doesn't.  Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the decision-makers and the rules-writers.  For example: Armageddon codex gives Black Templars powerful rules → Black Templars become super popular → bean counters decree that Black Templars get their own codex → Graham McNeill writes Black Templars codex with more balanced rules → Graham McNeill gets canned.  So let's see: Chaos codex gives daemonbomb powerful rules → daemons become super popular → bean counters decree that daemons get their own codex → _____ writes daemon codex → _____ gets canned.

And this is what happens when game shops become multinational public companies. 

Posted By The Crawling Chaos on 10/02/2007 10:28 PM
Why spend the hundreds of dollars to buy, and the hours it takes to build and paint an army if nobody will play with you?

Sorry I noticed that part and had to chime in even if it's kinda unrelated.. You maybe should have said, if no stranger will play with you.

If I had the spare time and money I would gladly build an army based around a theme I enjoyed with a list that's totally optional or not legal for tournamets. Like Genestealer Cults for example. Not everyone plays in tournaments and/or against complete strangers in game stores. I know all of my gaming friends would be more than happy to play against whatever army I want to field as long as the list isn't completely broken and stupid, and the game we end up playing is fun. Not everyone is a tourney player. Some people out there are in the hobby for modeling more than anything else, so why not let them play with their toys?

that being said, if this new uber demon codex comes out and the lists are totally not for tourneys at all, but the models are uberly awesome enough for me to wanna make a new army out of them, I'll happily build an army even if it means never being able to play it in a tourney that I probably wouldn't be going to anyway

I think the concern is that most players want an assurance that they will be able to play their armies in future. Five years from now, one may be living in a different city, going to a different game store, playing with a diffierent group, etc. It's all very well to have $800 of custom-rule Genestealer Cultists or Squats if you're secure in your group, but not everyone is so lucky.

I wonder what the chances are that it won't be tournament legal because it won't be a completely functional list, but you can take chunks and add it to Chaos armies. In other words it won't work in tournaments because 2 units of troops cost like 900 points minimum, but you can add them to other lists. Sort of like how Demon Hunters only sort of make a functional list if they use only Grey Knights because you only have a few models, but you can add them to other lists to good effect.

Still though, I don't mind playing non-tourney armies. I mean, total conversion counts as armies are not tourney legal, but they are fun to play against. Not that I think making it non-tourney legal is a good idea per se, but I don't think it is the end of the world either, particularly if there are rules for using them as allies.

So I guess none of you are going to play Apoc are you? No use for Forgeworld or Baneblades then...

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 10/03/2007 9:00 AM
I think the concern is that most players want an assurance that they will be able to play their armies in future. Five years from now, one may be living in a different city, going to a different game store, playing with a diffierent group, etc. It's all very well to have $800 of custom-rule Genestealer Cultists or Squats if you're secure in your group, but not everyone is so lucky.

  Then this list (if the rumors are true) is NOT FOR YOU.  Gav laid it on the line a few years back.  They could only handle a certain number of  tournament-appropriate lists.  The playtesting was simply too much with all of the tournament-legal sublists floating around.  So now we have tournament-legal lists, and "unofficial" lists (like zombie pirates, gnoblars, etc.).  If this Daemonic Legion army hasn't been perfectly balanced in playtesting, I'm not gonna cry.  40K is a beer and pretzels game as far as I'm concerned, and it's not like GW is able to "balance" their official codices ANYWAY. 

  Tournament and pick-up play is not the be-all and end-all of this hobby.  I know that's some sort of dakka-heresy, but it's true.  Other kinds of hobbiests (scenario players, campaign players, modelers, collectors, etc.) deserve support, too. 

Bravo PP! If I added up all the time I spend modeling, painting, and making terrain it is many, many magnitudes larger than the time I actually spend gaming. Hell, the amount of time I spend on Dakka talking about gaming is many magnitudes larger than my actual gaming time.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

PP, such hobbyists would be able to receive this support just as well with a codex that is tourney/pick-up compatible.

Posted By Pariah Press on 10/03/2007 1:13 PM

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 10/03/2007 9:00 AM
I think the concern is that most players want an assurance that they will be able to play their armies in future. Five years from now, one may be living in a different city, going to a different game store, playing with a diffierent group, etc. It's all very well to have $800 of custom-rule Genestealer Cultists or Squats if you're secure in your group, but not everyone is so lucky.

  Then this list (if the rumors are true) is NOT FOR YOU.  Gav laid it on the line a few years back.  They could only handle a certain number of  tournament-appropriate lists.  The playtesting was simply too much with all of the tournament-legal sublists floating around.  So now we have tournament-legal lists, and "unofficial" lists (like zombie pirates, gnoblars, etc.).  If this Daemonic Legion army hasn't been perfectly balanced in playtesting, I'm not gonna cry.  40K is a beer and pretzels game as far as I'm concerned, and it's not like GW is able to "balance" their official codices ANYWAY. 

  Tournament and pick-up play is not the be-all and end-all of this hobby.  I know that's some sort of dakka-heresy, but it's true.  Other kinds of hobbiests (scenario players, campaign players, modelers, collectors, etc.) deserve support, too. 

Funny I never took my LATD to a tournament, never had plans to. But now my list is illegal.

Do I care if its balanced? No, LATD/Kroot Mercs etc. were not balanced and usually underpowered.

Do I care if I can only play with a few select people who happen to permit the list? Yes. Groups evolve, stores evolve. I'm currently in hiatus between stores as my locale bought the farm. Assuming I can find another group, are they going to be as enthused to play LATD as the other guys? Maybe, maybe not.

I won't make that mistake again.

Perhaps GW should codify their lists more clearly? A three-tier system might clear this up...

1) Tournament Lists - extensive balancing and playtesting, usable in any environment and at any scale with no issues. Ex : Codex: SM.
2) Universal Lists - well playtested, but perhaps with some sub-par areas or specialties. Requires no consent to use these, but generally not tournament-legal. Ex.: Ork Klans
3) Beer and Pretzels - Anything goes lists - suggestions and ideas from the designers and simply ways to have fun. Should only be used by consent and mutual amusement. Ex.: Snotling Horde

Thoughts?

-Adso

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 10/03/2007 10:38 PM

Tournament and pick-up play is not the be-all and end-all of this hobby. I know that's some sort of dakka-heresy, but it's true. Other kinds of hobbiests (scenario players, campaign players, modelers, collectors, etc.) deserve support, too.

PP, such hobbyists would be able to receive this support just as well with a codex that is tourney/pick-up compatible.

  No they won't.  Because the list simply would not be released. 

I like this idea. Especially if I get more of #3. Beer and pretzel lists aren't even that hard to keep from screwing up the legitimate lists.  Just take the VDR approach: make everything a little more expensive than it ought to be.  Remember the Cursed Founding rules?  A neat variant, but  overpriced.  So no worries about them unbalancing a tournament, but still fun enough for casual games.

Posted By Pariah Press on 10/03/2007 1:13 PM

  Then this list (if the rumors are true) is NOT FOR YOU.  Gav laid it on the line a few years back.  They could only handle a certain number of  tournament-appropriate lists.  The playtesting was simply too much with all of the tournament-legal sublists floating around.  So now we have tournament-legal lists, and "unofficial" lists (like zombie pirates, gnoblars, etc.).  If this Daemonic Legion army hasn't been perfectly balanced in playtesting, I'm not gonna cry.  40K is a beer and pretzels game as far as I'm concerned, and it's not like GW is able to "balance" their official codices ANYWAY. 

  Tournament and pick-up play is not the be-all and end-all of this hobby.  I know that's some sort of dakka-heresy, but it's true.  Other kinds of hobbiests (scenario players, campaign players, modelers, collectors, etc.) deserve support, too. 

I call BS on this.  With the internet and the number of groups that are dedicated to making 40K a better game, hiding behind "they can not play test enough" is is a horrible excuse.  I normally do not complain about GW, but this is one area where the rules development group has dropped the ball over the years.  They could easily support a wide variety of armies (from a codex standpoint) and have them be balanced for tournament systems.  However, they have elected to not use these additional resources. 

Heck the perfect business example of embracing the public interest for product development is LEGO.   Hundreds of new pieces and products were developed because LEGO used the internet and the public's "free" input.  It doesn't take a MBA to figure this out.  Or maybe it does and GW should hire me. 

If they would follow LEGO's lead, then GW support for your side of the hobby would blossom even more. 

Posted By hubcap on 10/04/2007 7:09 AM

1) Tournament Lists - extensive balancing and playtesting, usable in any environment and at any scale with no issues. Ex : Codex: SM.
2) Universal Lists - well playtested, but perhaps with some sub-par areas or specialties. Requires no consent to use these, but generally not tournament-legal. Ex.: Ork Klans
3) Beer and Pretzels - Anything goes lists - suggestions and ideas from the designers and simply ways to have fun. Should only be used by consent and mutual amusement. Ex.: Snotling Horde

I like this idea. Especially if I get more of #3. Beer and pretzel lists aren't even that hard to keep from screwing up the legitimate lists.  Just take the VDR approach: make everything a little more expensive than it ought to be.  Remember the Cursed Founding rules?  A neat variant, but  overpriced.  So no worries about them unbalancing a tournament, but still fun enough for casual games.

I like it as well, especially Hub's point that make the variant stuff about 10% more expensive than first glance would tell you.  Let the gamers decide what works...don't dictate to them.  Except the tourney guys, you need to polish their stuff because it has greater visibility and applicability.

But let the rest of us play Kroot Mercs, or Speed Freeks, or Daemon Legions, or 13th Company, or blah, blah, blah...

Posted By Inquisitor_Malice on 10/04/2007 7:55 AM

Posted By Pariah Press on 10/03/2007 1:13 PM

  Then this list (if the rumors are true) is NOT FOR YOU.  Gav laid it on the line a few years back.  They could only handle a certain number of  tournament-appropriate lists.  The playtesting was simply too much with all of the tournament-legal sublists floating around.  So now we have tournament-legal lists, and "unofficial" lists (like zombie pirates, gnoblars, etc.).  If this Daemonic Legion army hasn't been perfectly balanced in playtesting, I'm not gonna cry.  40K is a beer and pretzels game as far as I'm concerned, and it's not like GW is able to "balance" their official codices ANYWAY. 

  Tournament and pick-up play is not the be-all and end-all of this hobby.  I know that's some sort of dakka-heresy, but it's true.  Other kinds of hobbiests (scenario players, campaign players, modelers, collectors, etc.) deserve support, too. 

I call BS on this.  With the internet and the number of groups that are dedicated to making 40K a better game, hiding behind "they can not play test enough" is is a horrible excuse.  I normally do not complain about GW, but this is one area where the rules development group has dropped the ball over the years.  They could easily support a wide variety of armies (from a codex standpoint) and have them be balanced for tournament systems.  However, they have elected to not use these additional resources. 

Heck the perfect business example of embracing the public interest for product development is LEGO.   Hundreds of new pieces and products were developed because LEGO used the internet and the public's "free" input.  It doesn't take a MBA to figure this out.  Or maybe it does and GW should hire me. 

If they would follow LEGO's lead, then GW support for your side of the hobby would blossom even more. 

  Right.  What I should have said is that they can't playtest these variant lists adequately with their current production pipeline.  I would love to see internet-based playtesting like we have with Epic. 

PP:

If you want to talk LatD or Kroot Mercs, fine. But Codex: Daemonworld (or whatever it's called)? If they can afford to roll out new Bloodletters, Juggernauts and no doubt lots of other things, and print a proper codex for it, they can damn well afford to playtest it to their customary standards of balance.

Those of you familiar with my posts know I'm not a GW hater. But it has to be said that as a fan base, we've come to expect and *accept* mediocrity. GW can playtest their lists better. They don't. I don't want to see GW games become Squad Leader (rule 12.1.6.7, etc.), but they still have more room for improvement than you'd expect from a company that's been designing games as long as they have.

I agree with Inq. Malice...saying they don't have the resources to do wider and deeper playtesting is nothing more than a copout, especially when they still use some outside testers.