Switch Theme:

[Impossible, But Still] If GW Listened To You  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

Here's a hypothetical situation.

Due to a change in leadership (Kirby dies and is replaced by whatever, or something), Games Workshop decides it is time to ramp up their popularity a bit.

The way this new leader will do this is to make an announcement. People can, for a limited time, send E-mails to GW with a list of improvements they'd like to see (rules, for example), and the most mentioned ones that are realistic to do will be done. So, no 'lower prices by 99%' or things like that.

Here is your opportunity. GW listens, for once. Now you can help turn things better.

What would your list look like?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 20:32:57


I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a  
   
Made in fr
Hallowed Canoness





- Make a proper Sisters of Battle new codex and new range
- Be open about the future of the game, and of each faction. Let us know which faction you want to update, and why; when you are working on a new edition of the game, and why. When releasing a new army, be very explicit about the amount of support we can expect for it in the future.

"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Schrott

I don't know how.

But make the rules simpler, quicker, easier.
no vague lines of text regarding X ability/movement/status effect etc, make it cut and dry and to the point.

Regiment: 91st Schrott Experimental Regiment
Regiment Planet: Schrott
Specialization: Salvaged, Heavily Modified, and/or Experimental Mechanized Units.
"SIR! Are you sure this will work!?"
"I HAVE NO IDEA, PULL THE TRIGGER!!!" 91st comms chatter.  
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Create a dedicated group of beta testers.

Consider their feedback.

Write the edition with all the codices at the same time so they're all balanced and work with the same mechanics.

Reduce prices.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Go the paizo route with a single free main rule book that is updated online properly, and "Sell" Campaign books and addition supplements that has more than 10 seconds of spell checking and proof reading.

Also bloody plastic sisters already.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




I've heard rumors that Plastic Sisters are coming soon, and may even be given a full-fledged codex, or at least being rolled into someone else's codex. (By 'Soon' I mean within the next year or so.) These have no direct backing, but my local GW manager is the one who told me of them, and he's been fairly accurate with his predictions and rumors so far. (He knew about new Orks, the rules update, and a couple other smaller things well before their official announcements.)

I really hope this is true!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blacksails wrote:
Create a dedicated group of beta testers.

Consider their feedback.

Write the edition with all the codices at the same time so they're all balanced and work with the same mechanics.

Reduce prices.


Posts like these make me sigh with annoyance...
GW HAS BETA TESTERS. They playtest their games. Contrary to popular belief, they do not make up random rules based off of guesses and random chance, and then throw them into their books. They have Beta Testers. What you're saying is you think they don't beta test *enough*, but honestly with all the problems that come from a game this vast and with this many different sets of rulebooks, it would be nearly impossible to balance things perfectly. Other than a few builds and one codex, the game is fairly balanced across the board. No, it's by no means perfect, but considering most of the ideas I see pitched in the 'Proposed Rules' section, nobody else would do a better job.

Releasing all the codices and rules at the same time would also be company suicide. It would take just as much work as they are already putting into codex and rules writing, but they'd get nowhere near the same amount of sales. You're asking for the company to kill themselves in order to (maybe) improve balance somewhat. In order to keep up a similar amount of sales, then, they'd have to start releasing supplements and campaign books at a higher rate than they already do, which would break as many things as releasing things simultaneously fixes.

Reducing prices is fair enough, and it wouldn't kill the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 21:21:34


 
   
Made in ca
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

Waaaghpower wrote:

Posts like these make me sigh with annoyance...


Posts that start like this make me sigh with annoyance.

GW HAS BETA TESTERS. They playtest their games. Contrary to popular belief, they do not make up random rules based off of guesses and random chance, and then throw them into their books. They have Beta Testers. What you're saying is you think they don't beta test *enough*, but honestly with all the problems that come from a game this vast and with this many different sets of rulebooks, it would be nearly impossible to balance things perfectly. Other than a few builds and one codex, the game is fairly balanced across the board. No, it's by no means perfect, but considering most of the ideas I see pitched in the 'Proposed Rules' section, nobody else would do a better job.


The only point you've managed to convince me on is that I should have specified *competent* play testers.

No one expects perfect balance, so don't throw it around like it means anything.

And no, the game isn't reasonably balanced. Taking a sampling of some of the proposed rules doesn't make any real point about the competence of a random group of people posting ideas for fun.

Releasing all the codices and rules at the same time would also be company suicide. It would take just as much work as they are already putting into codex and rules writing, but they'd get nowhere near the same amount of sales. You're asking for the company to kill themselves in order to (maybe) improve balance somewhat. In order to keep up a similar amount of sales, then, they'd have to start releasing supplements and campaign books at a higher rate than they already do, which would break as many things as releasing things simultaneously fixes.


Not company suicide. Consider many other companies have this model that works quite well, I'm going to go ahead and say you're wrong.

Making codices/rules isn't the only to make money, and you can't prove either way they'd lose money by somehow releasing all at the same time.

Releasing campaign books and expansions and other material in between is a good thing. A very good one.

Reducing prices is fair enough, and it wouldn't kill the game.


Indeed.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






My suggestions:

1) Delete all of the rules and start over from scratch. What we currently have is a bloated mess of special rules and exceptions to special rules and exceptions to the exceptions, all piled on top of the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game without any kind of overall "what do we want the game to be" design goals. So hire some competent game designers and make a new game in the 40k universe, with an emphasis on clear rules that make the YMDC forum disappear and a high level of balance.

2) Study WOTC's posts about player archetypes in MTG, and learn from them. Stop assuming that competitive players/older players/etc are not important customers. Stop making a game and declaring that anyone who doesn't like it is wrong, ask what the customers want and then provide it for them.

3) Study WOTC's posts about how to playtest a game, and learn from them. And no, screwing around with some "fun" games in your free time is not playtesting. There needs to be a formal structure where playtesting is treated as a full-time job and everyone involved understands that it is part of development and quality control, not just an excuse to take the day off.

4) Stop using "beer and pretzels" and "forge the narrative" as an excuse for bad design. 40k's flaws in a competitive context don't make it better as a casual or narrative game, they just make it a bad game. Anyone who argues that the game is ok for a "beer and pretzels" night with your best friend and therefore doesn't need to be improved should be fired.

5) No more day-1 DLC. It's ok to publish a high-quality supplement like the FW campaign books, but no more taking stuff out of the codex to sell it next week as a $5 download. And no more "supplements" consisting of some copy/pasted fluff and a couple pages of rules that the janitor wrote on their lunch break. These products are garbage and dilute the quality of the brand.

6) No more models that exist for the sole purpose of filling a release slot. Start with the fluff or rules and figure out what an army needs, don't just assume that each army gets a flyer, a new troops box, a MC, etc. For example, the Taurox shoudn't exist at all, especially when the designer put so little effort into making something that looks like it's worth the price tag.

7) Finecast is gone. And I don't just mean no more new finecast releases, I mean everything in finecast goes to metal or real resin, and all finecast products in stores are recalled (and reimburse independent stores). Finecast is garbage and has done way too much damage to the GW brand. Getting rid of it is worth the cost.

8) Find a way to cut new player startup costs. Yeah, cost per model is pretty high, but the real problem is that a new player has to invest $500-1000 to get an army. Even a starter set (which isn't a complete army) + codex + rulebook will cost hundreds of dollars, more than it costs to buy an entire army for a non-GW game. And that has to be crippling GW's future growth.

9) Tell the shareholders to STFU while all of this is happening. Yes, it will cost money, but the result will be a stronger company in the long run. If that means lower stock prices for a while, great, take the opportunity to buy back shares and gain more control over the company.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vallejo, CA

Ashiraya wrote:What would your list look like?

1.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.
2.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.
3.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.

That's my list. Even a cursory amount of time spent in the proposed rules forum shows just how clueless a vast majority of people are when it comes to game design.

40k deserves better than to be killed by a brief foray into mob rule.




Your one-stop website for batreps, articles, and assorted goodies about the men of Folera: Foleran First Imperial Archives. Read Dakka's favorite narrative battle report series The Hand of the King. Also, check out my commission work, and my terrain.

Abstract Principles of 40k: Why game imbalance and list tailoring is good, and why tournaments are an absurd farce.

Read "The Geomides Affair", now on sale! No bolter porn. Not another inquisitor story. A book written by a dakkanought for dakkanoughts!
 
   
Made in us
Impassive Inquisitorial Interrogator





Hooper

 Ailaros wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:What would your list look like?

1.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.
2.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.
3.) Please go back to ignoring your fans.

That's my list. Even a cursory amount of time spent in the proposed rules forum shows just how clueless a vast majority of people are when it comes to game design.

40k deserves better than to be killed by a brief foray into mob rule.





100% this.

You are becoming my new favorite person on this site Ailaros. Not that it means much but...



This is silly! Buttons are not how one escapes dungeons! I would smash the button and rain beatings liberally down on the wizard for playing such a trick!


 
   
Made in us
Flashy Flashgitz





MD

A streamlining of the rules/mechanics would be godly! Also im with the above poster, day 1 DLC is garbage, im relatively new to 40k, and i have no problem dropping coin on overcosted models (close to 10k in my last 2 years or so), but dont gouge me.... I will cut off my nose to spite my face, so dropping this game for another would not break me, if i felt slighted/disrespected in any way. Other then that im good.

3k Points 
   
Made in us
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

I'm going to pass on my usual rant about the quality of the things gw is putting out these days and suggest something entirely positive.

A competition, plain and simple, for the fans to create a new unit that will get (a) model(s) and rules and be included in the setting from there on.

Fans could submit ideas in any artistic way, be it a sculpt they did themselves, a drawing, short stories, you name it.

From there the studio take anything that impressed them and post it to the GW website where, over the course of a month or two, it gets voted on and culled down to the top 100.

GW then have their artists, writers and sculptors refine the ideas and begin creating new works in alternate mediums for these ideas. Voting happens again and cuts another half, they are refined again. Repeat untill you have a top ten.

Each of the top ten have a short story for BL to sell, some lovely artwork done, CAD designs thrown up and maybe even a test model painted up. They are then voted on one more time and the winning entry becomes 40k cannon.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





That seems like an insane amount of time, money and effort for very little ROI. It would add little to the game and do nothing to help the existing issues.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




I would tell them to fire Jervis Johnson. Not only fire him but also denounce his entire game theory. I'd make the remaining devs repeat at the start of the day, before and after any break and before they go home, "You can play a well designed game casually but you can not play a poorly designed game competitively."

Also extensive play testing will be required before any release.
   
Made in us
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

Toofast wrote:
That seems like an insane amount of time, money and effort for very little ROI. It would add little to the game and do nothing to help the existing issues.

I didn't feel like giving the obvious answers, as needed as they are, and I think it would go a long way towards rebuilding GWs reputation in the public eye. It would act as advatisement for then in an indirect way and, most importantly, it would breath some life back into the community aspect of the hobby which they seem almost militantly opposed to.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





The game would be called Wahammer Ork. And space marines would be replaced with better fantasy equivalent scifi homages. So no vampire or werewolf space marines instead actual races that emulate these fantasy races.

And reboot the storyline. Set it 10,000 after another great cataclysm and start building the armies one by one again.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Waaaghpower wrote:
Releasing all the codices and rules at the same time would also be company suicide.

And yet GW did this very thing during the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed. And they're still here.

Releasing a rulebook that includes the rules for each army, or even better going the Privateer route and including the rules in the box with each unit and releasing faction books as an optional extra for those who actually want them would free up production time over the course of the edition for releasing campaign and scenario books rather than playing catch up.

How awesome would it be if we had 4-5 years worth of new material each edition, rather than just redone codexes?


And with the 'rules in the box' option, new units and options could be added to the range whenever they wanted, rather than being tied to a codex release. No more 'Space Marine Chapter X gets this wonderful piece of kit that every Chapter has (as of right now) been using for 7 and a half thousand years, but that no other Chapter has access to until GW gets around to updating their codex...'


So no, releasing the rules all at once would be far from 'suicide'. It would get everyone on a level playing field for the new edition, and then allow so much more scope for new releases than they have now.


 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 insaniak wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
Releasing all the codices and rules at the same time would also be company suicide.

And yet GW did this very thing during the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed. And they're still here.

Releasing a rulebook that includes the rules for each army, or even better going the Privateer route and including the rules in the box with each unit and releasing faction books as an optional extra for those who actually want them would free up production time over the course of the edition for releasing campaign and scenario books rather than playing catch up.

How awesome would it be if we had 4-5 years worth of new material each edition, rather than just redone codexes?


And with the 'rules in the box' option, new units and options could be added to the range whenever they wanted, rather than being tied to a codex release. No more 'Space Marine Chapter X gets this wonderful piece of kit that every Chapter has (as of right now) been using for 7 and a half thousand years, but that no other Chapter has access to until GW gets around to updating their codex...'


So no, releasing the rules all at once would be far from 'suicide'. It would get everyone on a level playing field for the new edition, and then allow so much more scope for new releases than they have now.


Yes, they may have done it back in the transition from second to third, but back then I believe only seven or eight armies existed to be transferred over, not seventeen.

They would still have to spend the same amount of time writing rules and making models, but they would only have a swell of income once every four or five years. In order to keep up a steady income of reasonable amounts, (That is, from releases and not just from occasional impulse buys of models,) they'd have to nearly double their book output, and the logistics of releasing 18 books (17 Codices plus the rules) simultaneously, with perfect balance and crossover-design, would be insane.
In order to set up for that, they'd either have to double their production team (Which would cost a ton of money) to keep up their current release rate (and their income) while they wrote eighteen books. (And all of their releases until they wrote all 18 books would be supplements. Nobody would get new codices, screwing over whoever has an old codex, an unbalanced codex, or anything else.) And, if they have any balance problems with their release, everyone will be stuck with it for five years, with no hope of any meta-shift whatsoever. (Unless their supplements are that drastically balance shifting, which I somehow doubt. And if the supplements were that drastically meta-shifting, then they would have as many if not more balance issues than they already have.

If they *did* transition into a rules-in-the-box style of releases, that might work, but that wasn't something originally on the table or anything I had a problem with.
   
Made in au
Oberstleutnant






Perth, West Australia

Writing / balancing / updating the codices isn't a monumental task especially with the funds that should be available. A lot of units fall into the GEQ MEQ, TEQ, transport, scout armour, heavy armour, dakka flyer, transport flyer archetypes. A bunch of spreadsheets with filterable selections, some rough costings of stats and special rules and you're well on your way to having a quick and easy way to iterate on the balance of models. Then you mathhammer a number of common engagements which should be automated with some software (I could do this in php easily) and you fix any obvious standout issues before sending them out for playtesting with a number of set conditions, and then let the players do their own thing to try and break it as much as possible. I happily beta test software products, many people would do the same for tabletop - I followed the development of... Dark Heresy? v2 which had substantial testing.

It's also more like 10 armies as 5 of them are minor variations of the basic SM codex and 2 consist of only a couple units (knights and stormtroopers).
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




No where did Blacksails say release the rules all at the same time. He said write and balance at the same time.

And to your point about being screwed over for having an old codex. That has happened all the time, so no real change.
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 Yonan wrote:
Writing / balancing / updating the codices isn't a monumental task especially with the funds that should be available. A lot of units fall into the GEQ MEQ, TEQ, transport, scout armour, heavy armour, dakka flyer, transport flyer archetypes. A bunch of spreadsheets with filterable selections, some rough costings of stats and special rules and you're well on your way to having a quick and easy way to iterate on the balance of models. Then you mathhammer a number of common engagements which should be automated with some software (I could do this in php easily) and you fix any obvious standout issues before sending them out for playtesting with a number of set conditions, and then let the players do their own thing to try and break it as much as possible. I happily beta test software products, many people would do the same for tabletop - I followed the development of... Dark Heresy? v2 which had substantial testing.

It's also more like 10 armies as 5 of them are minor variations of the basic SM codex and 2 consist of only a couple units (knights and stormtroopers).

Are you seriously comparing the development of Dark Heresy, a one-book roleplaying game, to that of Warhammer 40k? All Dark Heresy has to do is offer enough internal balance so that a GM can keep things running smoothly. Forces need not be equal, and since character classes have such broad uses and capabilities, all you really have to do is make sure that one class doesn't render all the other classes moot. (Like Psykers did in 1.0.)

And please, will people stop calling the different Marine books 'Minor variations?' The fact that one book can dominate the meta while another is a laughable side-note should prove that there's more than minor differences, and all you're really doing is trying to dismiss a legitimate argument because you don't like a couple armies. (I'll agree that the Storm Troopers and Knights don't necessarily count as full codices.)
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Waaaghpower wrote:
They would still have to spend the same amount of time writing rules and making models, but they would only have a swell of income once every four or five years.

Nonsense. Because in those intervening 4 or 5 years they would be releasing models, campaign material, expansions... And being free of the codex cycle, could be constantly releasing stuff for every army rather than having to focus on one at a time.


... and the logistics of releasing 18 books (17 Codices plus the rules) simultaneously, with perfect balance and crossover-design, would be insane.

I wasn't talking about releasing 18 books. I was talking about releasing one book: The rulebook.

Faction books could come later, as they wouldn't actually be required to play the game.

The logistics of writing the rules for every army siultaneously shouldn't be any different to the way they do it now, because every army should be considered equally when writing the new edition's rules. They already have to errata each codex to fit the new edition... they could simply do that in the rulebook, or on each unit's in-the-box unit card.

An edition change doesn't have to mean a huge change to each codex. It doesn't have to mean a huge change to the core rules. It shouldn't mean either of those things, unless there is something in there that is fundamentally broken. The purpose of a new edition should be to clean up the rules, not to create a completely new game.

 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 insaniak wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
They would still have to spend the same amount of time writing rules and making models, but they would only have a swell of income once every four or five years.

Nonsense. Because in those intervening 4 or 5 years they would be releasing models, campaign material, expansions... And being free of the codex cycle, could be constantly releasing stuff for every army rather than having to focus on one at a time.


... and the logistics of releasing 18 books (17 Codices plus the rules) simultaneously, with perfect balance and crossover-design, would be insane.

I wasn't talking about releasing 18 books. I was talking about releasing one book: The rulebook.

Faction books could come later, as they wouldn't actually be required to play the game.

The logistics of writing the rules for every army siultaneously shouldn't be any different to the way they do it now, because every army should be considered equally when writing the new edition's rules. They already have to errata each codex to fit the new edition... they could simply do that in the rulebook, or on each unit's in-the-box unit card.

An edition change doesn't have to mean a huge change to each codex. It doesn't have to mean a huge change to the core rules. It shouldn't mean either of those things, unless there is something in there that is fundamentally broken. The purpose of a new edition should be to clean up the rules, not to create a completely new game.

First things first: Did you read my entire post? Right after I said the bit about only having a swell of income every four or five years, I said that the other option would be to double their book output. But thanks for cutting off half of what I said so you could more easily beat my argument. Props.

As for releasing all of the rules for all of the armies in one big rulebook... Haha, what? Would you like the book to weigh fifty pounds, or just leave out all but the most basic of rules with almost no fluff whatsoever? I don't fancy my rulebook being a hundred-dollar textbook that only has rules for HQs and troops and basic gear. Or you could include the many, many rules found in different codices (I believe there's something like two hundred unique units across the codices) in one book. Sure, yeah. Either your book is about six hundred pages long and impossible to conveniently use, or you still have to have codices.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Waaaghpower wrote:
Would you like the book to weigh fifty pounds, or just leave out all but the most basic of rules with almost no fluff whatsoever? I don't fancy my rulebook being a hundred-dollar textbook that only has rules for HQs and troops and basic gear. Or you could include the many, many rules found in different codices (I believe there's something like two hundred unique units across the codices) in one book. Sure, yeah. Either your book is about six hundred pages long and impossible to conveniently use, or you still have to have codices.


This is not even close to accurate. A codex is only as long as it is because it's full of fluff, pictures, empty space, etc. If you cut it down to the essential information and arrange it efficiently it wouldn't be that long, especially compared to how big the core rulebook already is. And of course you could make it even more efficient by dropping SW/DA/BA and replacing them with a "chapter tactics" entry in the space marine section.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Waaaghpower wrote:
First things first: Did you read my entire post? Right after I said the bit about only having a swell of income every four or five years, I said that the other option would be to double their book output. But thanks for cutting off half of what I said so you could more easily beat my argument. Props.

Yes, I read your entire post. You said more or less the same thing I did... except that you seem to think it's a bad thing for GW to release more new material instead of spacing out codex releases... whereas I would much rather get the basic rules out of the way at the start so that the focus can be on new hotness.


As for releasing all of the rules for all of the armies in one big rulebook... Haha, what? Would you like the book to weigh fifty pounds, or just leave out all but the most basic of rules with almost no fluff whatsoever?

What I would prefer is a rulebook that includes an outline of the game setting with a brief synopsis of each army, and then just focuses on the rules. The faction books released later would include more complete fluff for each army.


I believe there's something like two hundred unique units across the codices

...but doesn't actually need to be.

Just taking Space Marines as an example, the only difference between a Tactical squad, a Devastator squad and an Assault squad is their equipment. Statwise and armourwise they are identical. So instead of having 3 separate unit entries, you just have one, with a bunch of weapon options and the option to take jump packs. Done.

Similarly, you don't actually need separate unit entries for all of the various flavours of Dreadnought. Or different types of Predator. Or different types of Landraider.

The current bloated army lists are a design choice, not the only way of doing it.


I've also mentioned in previous discussions that I would prefer to roll all of the Marine Chapters back into one entity with a Chapter Tactics system akin to 4th edition to allow for flavour between Chapters. This would significantly cut down the number of army lists required.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 05:51:46


 
   
Made in nz
Focused Fire Warrior



New Zealand

I'd request that the fanboys all swap armies and play themselves for a day. Then they might see how horribly unbalanced all their codices are and at least change the points cost of things a bit. I'd also ask for more non-space marine updates, ie csm legions, craftworlds, etc. Obviously i'd like a price decrease.

But at the very, very least, I'd like them to price models in nz/aus to reflect the bloody exchange rate! I had no probs buying from gw in the uk, it was reasonable. But times that by 3 or 4?!! CRIKEY!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/23 05:57:34


6000pts
3000pts
1500pts
1000pts
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

Fire sale the company to Hasbro, retire with my exchange of stock.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

pax_imperialis wrote:
But at the very, very least, I'd like them to price models in nz/aus to reflect the bloody exchange rate!

That's already happening, although they're doing it by raising everyone else's prices rather than dropping ours. From the last few releases, the price difference on everything except books has been much smaller.

 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






I'd suggest them to release reballancing material that changes stats, point values and how special rules work. I think that'd ballance things out eventually. The changes must be NOT major.

For example:
It's quite obvious that some units like blood angel bikes are overpriced while others like a riptide are underpriced. So why not release a spreadsheet of little fixes that make blood angel bikers cost -4 pts (making them 21 like all the other marines) and riptide's cost goes up by 15-20 pts (making it a bit more expensive on the whole remaining a great choice nonetheless).

This will eliminate the problem of "must wait another 3 years to get in line with others" and the problem of "lol why don't you take raptors instead of warp talons cause they do the same thing but better and cheaper". This will be like a constant work to maintain ballance without huge dramatical changes that can invalidate half your army like a new codex release.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/23 07:26:04


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Waaaghpower wrote:
I've heard rumors that Plastic Sisters are coming soon, and may even be given a full-fledged codex, or at least being rolled into someone else's codex. (By 'Soon' I mean within the next year or so.) These have no direct backing, but my local GW manager is the one who told me of them, and he's been fairly accurate with his predictions and rumors so far. (He knew about new Orks, the rules update, and a couple other smaller things well before their official announcements.)

I really hope this is true!


I’ve heard rumours of plastic Sisters for about ten years now. Make of that what you will…

Waaaghpower wrote:

Posts like these make me sigh with annoyance...
GW HAS BETA TESTERS. They playtest their games. Contrary to popular belief, they do not make up random rules based off of guesses and random chance, and then throw them into their books. They have Beta Testers. What you're saying is you think they don't beta test *enough*


Actually, they do. GW do test in house. And what they do amounts to very limited playtesting. I remember an account of them saying how the grey knights codex in fifth was tested “about two dozen times”. Not testing enough is part of the problem, and not testing properly, or listening to feedback is another.
I know a few of the external playtesters that used to playtest GWs games back in fourth edition, and fifth. GW canned it at the start of fifth (to do it in house, for various reasons – no leaks being top of the list) but I remember a lot of the stories. I remember them telling me how they used to report their findings to GW (what was good, what was bad, what was plain broken) and GW just ignoring their input. An example was the 4th edition SM codex and its assault cannon. The feedback was “either assault 3 rending, or assault 4. Not both”. What did GW do? Assault 4 rending, and that codex was soon defined as the “assasult cannon codex” – 6man las/plas and everything else fielded with assault cannons.
Or else they just don’t bother. Pete Haines, back in fourth ed wrote the hideously broken iron warriors rules that destroyed that edition of the game. 4 Heavy support choices, including basilisks, and 3x3 obliterator options, along with broken chaos lords etc. his defence was along the lines of “It was plainly ridiculous. I genuinely didn’t think people would actually field it”. The general attitude at the time was “never let Pete Haines write the codex for an army he likes!”. When he did, it was utterly broken. When he didn’t, it was severely underpowered. unprofessional, at best. It’s how they do things. that culture hasn’t changed. They just mask it with talk of “forging the narrative”.

Waaaghpower wrote:

but honestly with all the problems that come from a game this vast and with this many different sets of rulebooks, it would be nearly impossible to balance things perfectly.

Disagree. Other companies do a very good job. Look at Privateer press’ games for example. 2 rulebooks. 12 factions (2 of which are technically 7 sub-factions). One more incoming. And add the fact that this game has a huge amount of spells, feats, special rules, and unit types, and all the rules interact seamlessly. In terms of balance, you have a very good spread of big wins across all those factions, with very good internal, and external balance across the board. “chaff” is very limited. In any case “perfect” balance is an impossibility – “better” balance isn’t. Look also at Infinity, and the huge amount of depth and options that game presents, and they still manage to balance it (probably the best of the bunch).
The thing is, a lot of what GW has is variations on a single template. Something like half their factions boils down to Power Armour with different bling. A lot of the playtesting required here that is valid for one is valid for all.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Other than a few builds and one codex, the game is fairly balanced across the board. No, it's by no means perfect, but considering most of the ideas I see pitched in the 'Proposed Rules' section, nobody else would do a better job.


I disagree again.GW games are only really truly balanced with a lot of self restraint, self policing, and co-operative effort to find a common ground.In any case, all you need is that one OP codex and a few builds to screw a game. a handful of builds have always dominated at the expense of the rest of the game, and have managed to ruin whole editions for a lot of people. Iron warriors in fourth. Space wolves and grey knights in fifth. Taudar in sixth. I remember playing a game in fifth with a “tweaked” fully powered out tau list (“cheese”, or rather the tau equivelant of “cheese” in fifth! Which wasn’t. ), and it could barely hold its own against a mediocre, middle of the road elder list in terms of sheer power and options. That is still the case. Some codices simply cannot match the power levels of others.
Also, pointing to proposed rules is a bit of a red herring. These people aren’t professional game designers. A lot of them won’t have actual “hands on” experience. They’re amateurs. And a lot of those proposed rules are theory. I doubt anything more than a small percentage of those ideas ever hit the tabletop in the first place, let alone are properly pushed and playtested. Its not a fair analysis or comparison.
Thing is, GW have a very talented pool of writers. Let them off their leash, and they do great things. Unfortunately, the corporate philosophy has Sales leading the charge, and Design gets a memo, a design brief with no creative freedom, and a deadline. I disagree that no one could do a better job. Again, the game writers in other companies (privateer press, corvis belli, Spartan games etc) are a testament to this.
And even some of the amateurs out there have good ideas. Theyre the ones that actually have to deal with the fallout of design. They’re the ones that see and discover the issues first hand. If anything, the playerbase itself is a fantastic resource to utilise. Privateer Press did a free open beta playtest for warmachine and hordes mk2, and opened it to the public. Get involved, download the proposed rules, get games in, and come back with feedback. You are talking about thousands of players getting in tens of thousands of games. I remember a lot of bugs getting caught, and a lot of issues coming up that were reported back, and resolved. Overall, it produced a far better game. Now, do you listen to every single persons ideas? No, because everyone says something different. But listen to feedback on a macro level, rather than micro level, and you will see broad consensus, and general trends being displayed. You can act on those trends.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Releasing all the codices and rules at the same time would also be company suicide. It would take just as much work as they are already putting into codex and rules writing, but they'd get nowhere near the same amount of sales. You're asking for the company to kill themselves in order to (maybe) improve balance somewhat. In order to keep up a similar amount of sales, then, they'd have to start releasing supplements and campaign books at a higher rate than they already do, which would break as many things as releasing things simultaneously fixes.

Reducing prices is fair enough, and it wouldn't kill the game.


I disagree. Privateer Press updated their whole game (2 rulebooks and 11 faction books) in the space of 14 months. This was on top of an exhaustive, and open playtesting phase that was open to the whole community. And this was on top of them releasing their new proprietary RPG, a few board games, and a few card games and continually releasing new models. And all with a staff count that is a lot less than what GW has. Funny thing was, PP did really well for themselves by doing it this way, and the popularity of the game did explode on top of their actions. It did generate a lot of good will and excitement amongst the playerbase, and that translated into raw sales. Its possible to do these things.


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: