*generates bile*

Ok. Here we go...

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:Jervis kindly delivered a seminar in Bugman's on Saturday night, and after running through the new releases for January (and February?) he was open to questions. With regard to most 'further out than the next two months' questions he stated that it was impossible to say what would come out when.

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:That said, he would not confirm that Phil Kelly is working on the Guard book.

Anyone remember that song that goes "You say it best when you say nothing at all?". I think that must be Jervis' theme song.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:He stated that the plan is to now work to a 4-6 year period of renewal for the codexes and army books. As in Canada a few months ago he reiterated that if they get ahead then new stuff can come in, but only if they are on course with the existing books. He sounded genuine in this to my mind.

So that sets an upper-limit on the new DE book at 16 years... we've had 10 so far right? So max of 6 more years guys. The US might have a new President by the time we get a new Archon. Hopefully we'll get it sooner though... the Archon that is, not the new President.

And by 'new stuff' I'm taking that to mean new armies and races. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, what other sci-fi-mixed-with-fantasy archetypes are left to mine for content? Other than an AdMech army, what's left? Hrud (Space Skaven) and Demiurg (which they won't do). I'd also rather than keep working on the existing races to bring them into line. On the other hand it would be really sweet to get an AdMech army.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

Fail. (/Stelek)

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I brought up the wargear/weapon discrepencies for identical wargear across different codexes. He may have misconstrued my question because he defended it by citing different points costings, but didn't offer any hope of resolution when I clarified my question as in essence they (GW) see it as too big an undertaking to create such consistency (I may be misquoting Jervis, and apologies if I am, but that felt like the gist of the response).

Assuming that is what Jervis said, or is the gist of what Jervis was saying, then I'm simply stunned. Too big an undertaking to have internal consistency between Codices? So it's too hard to ensure that a Storm Shield has the same rules in 4 different books, all of which are Marine armies?

I won't say any more on that particular comment both because it's not 100% accurate and we'd be here all day if I didn't stop...

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:Besides Griff Oberwald upcoming (SG I know, but bear with me) he indicated that there is no planned renewed support for Specialist Games at this time, which obviously has an impact on the 40K realted elements.

Just makes me laugh. No planned renewed support? Weren't they telling us not long ago that they'd continue to support it? So which is it? The same level of support or no support? Are are those two the same thing!

Actually, if this is true, then maybe getting Storm Shields to have the same rules across Codices is an impossible task for them. They can't get internal consistency within the company, so what chance do we have of getting it within their rules?

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:So a lot of what we know or believe we know, but the Inquisition bit of confirmation and allusion to direction shift interested me.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

BYE

Are you that surprised by all of this: Customers kept in the dark? Consistency between codecies? Specialist Games support? More "counts as" armies as opposed to fleshed out codecies?

Nothing new here.... unfortunately.

Not shocked at all, here. By the closed-mouth business model or HMBC's tightly clenched rage.

Ah well, hopefully we'll see SW codex and an IG codex this year. I care naught for anythign else.

I think they should like, make a new Inquisition codex already. Yes, one exactly the same as what they have now.

I care naught for their Codices, but I want to see the new Space Wolf models. Cannot wait to see the SW sprue.

BYE

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

Arse! I have no other word for it, save perhaps 'bunch' and 'of'.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I care naught for their Codices, but I want to see the new Space Wolf models. Cannot wait to see the SW sprue.

BYE

I'm pretty sure we've already seen the majority of it.

The re-cut sprue will be nice, but probably not mind-blowing.

And all the stuff about the apparent death of the Inquisition army as we know it?

Depressing.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

I had a friend, who I've unfortunately lost contact with, who used to work in the US sales team for GW in Baltimore. He had an interesting story as to why GW is so close lipped about release dates. I was on an extended break from the hobby at the time so I don't remember these events but apparently when the Falcon Grav Tank was originally being released GW had spent months hyping it up proclaiming the release date etc. There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

True? I have no idea... My friend was the consumate salesman (i.e. slimy) so he might have been feeding me a line. It's a nice story though and does make some kind of slowed GW sense.

As for Specialist Games, they really haven't supported them for many years. As much as I love them they're not profitable. I have heard Jervis say that 50% of ALL sales are Space Marines, they basically fuel the rest of the hobby. Specialist games were barely on the radar and losing sales at a steady rate. Then for a few years when Jervis was running Fanatic and they were getting a decent amount of support sales stopped dropping but they never increased. So all those resources that could be dedicated to space marines which are profitable could only make specialist game tread water. I'm not at all surprised at the current attitude towards Specialist Games.

Swoop!

Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

Obviously things were supergood for SG during the LotR bubble, but those days are long-gone. I'd like to see some more Chaos and Nids for Epic, and maybe a Tau infantry sprue, but I'm in no hurry.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.

Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

How are they going to flesh out all those army selections for grey knights when you basically have power armour, terminator armour, dreads and land raiders.

SOB I can see working as a fully fleshed out list but GKs? Nope. Not with what they have ATM.

Everything can go except the assassins. They rule.

Here's an idea... why doesn't GW sell off the rulebook section? They can concentrate of selling models whilst another company can sort the rules out. Who knows, if this company just does the rules then we can get a faster turnaround, which then means GW can produce more models. Job done, both companies are happy and we the gamer get better rules.

IMO, Grey Knight armies are ALREADY a bad idea! The few options they have are already too much. GK Termies? Well those are bad-a$$. GK Marines? Cool minis, would make sense fluff-wise if they needed more flexibilty. I always thought that Grey Knight Landraiders were one the worst ideas ever. Plus, in 9 out of 10 cases it looks dumb and(or horrible.

Sisters are a nice army, but they really should keep the Inquisitor stuff. I don't care much for the Death Cult Assassins, but the classic imperial assassins, the henchmen and Arco-Flagelants or whatever they're called are all really cool and fluffy units.

And were is my Ordo-Xenos list gork damnit

H.B.M.C. wrote:*generates bile*

H.B.M.C patent power ups!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

Now this would not be too bad an idea if handled correctly, which is technically possible but likely only if the studio monkeys accidentally lean on the wrong keys while typing.

I can see the value of seperate Inquisitor, Grey Knight, Sisters of Battle and Deathwatch army lists. the question is how many codex will be needed for this. One? - Very packed and therefore unlikely. Four? - One of each army, possible but not likely especially with the combined Chaos codex.

I would like to see the Sisters of Battle - which is a fighting arm of the clergy, not the Inquisition, get their own book. The Daemonhunters codex should be Grey Knights with the possible inclusion of an Inquisitor, maybe maybe not.
A third Codex Inquisition including all the standard Inquisitor units, and seperate benefits for Ordo Malleus Zenos and Hereticus Inquisitors. Deathwatch are independent units, not armies so they can fit in with a Xenos Inquisitor.

Handled correctly it would work, but GW oversimplifying things as usual will blur the lines in their moronic quest to standardised. Just as you get Blood Dragon Necrachs of Von Carstein and Sorcerer daemon princes of Khorne you will all too likely get generic =I= with Xenos, Malleus & Hereticus multi-membership cards, with non-radical daemonhosts, and Deathwatch bodyguard as standard builds. Just watch it happen.

Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

lol that cracked me up...



The story about the falcons is true- there is about a 3 month period of time that staff are allowed to talk about- this is to avoid issues arising from weird sitatuons that make things change- like the falcons in the sea problem. Its no good telling everyone now that the guard codex is coming out in xyz, if it ends up delayed because the new plastic kit is delayed 5 months due to someone dropping the mold.


Following that knowledge that GW has the 3 month period their allowed to talk about- getting annoyed at the lack of support for specialist games in that short time or an idea for inquisition troops seems abit silly and abit of a knee jerk reaction.

There is nothing planned for SG in the next 3 months- does that mean they are forgotten- nope- are they still supported- yep- and may get new stuff if it fits into the release scheduel
Who knows what shape the inquisiton will take? Are some people going to be unhappy with the direction it takes- maybe- but i'm sure there will be people who are happy with whatever direction they go for.

They could put all the Inquisition/SoB armies into one big codex the size of the new SM codex.

It is not acceptable to work to a 4-6 TAT for codexes when that is the TAT for rules as well.

Some armies have been unupgraded for years. Others (e.g. Tau) get a codex that is only good for 2 years out of the rule cycle.

This could of course be fixed by proper FAQ publication.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Overall, not exactly a great deal of information in the quoted thread.

Thats not very fair, besides who is it aimed at?

The whole thread is not a 'news article' but a review of a 'news article'. Opinioned commentary is therefore acceptable, in fact normal. If it involves the latest studio platitudes and half statements H.B.M.C. is going to put his slant on it, I would like to see you try stop him. And if he doesn't comment I usually very shortly do, and am not afraid to put my views forward either.

This is the downside of handing a bunch of "standalone" codexes, with non-existent FAQ support. it really is shocking that they can't keep it together. Do these people not have Word/Excel? Keep the items and key terms on an excel sheet/database. Insert as needed. If there is a change for tactical reasons then FAQ it and make the change in future printings of the impacted codexes. They make some good minis but they really suck at everything else.

I know it wouldn't make economic sense for GW, but wouldn't it be nice if they just developed all of the codices, got them right and then said "There you go, there's the rules for the armies. Now go have fun"? The rules for Monopoly have stayed the same since the game was invented, why can't 40k or whfb? I know it's a way of generating more cash blah blah blah, but it would be nice.....

Just out of interest is there anybody out there on the board who has experience of writing GW rulebooks and codexes? Do they really need to take that long to write? Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but surely 4 people working a normal working week can sort out a codex in a month or two (this is me being really generous here time wise). These 4 people get the rules sorted out, pass them onto the design team, who add all the nice pretty stuff. Whilst this is happening the same group moves on to the next set of rules. Surely modifiying pre-existing rules can't be that hard?

Ooops, sorry just realised I'm being too sensible here, forgot that the usual GW approach is to have just 1 person do the rules and only allow them 2 hours per week to work on them. Stupid, silly gamer you're old enough to know that the equation, logic + GW is an unworkable formula!

They need to write new codices so that they can force line churn.

100% true Frazz.

But to answer Wolfstan's question - if you're just looking at the rules side of it (ignoring fluff and graphical layout/design), then no, it doesn't take to get through the physical act of writing a Codex. Usually takes me a weekend.

But actually sitting down and writing it is not the hard part. It's everything that goes with it - conceptualising things, crunching numbers, running scenarios and hypthetical lists, actual playtesting once things are done. GW does two of the things I just said, and one of them quite badly. Guess which two they are? Here's a hint - none of the ones in the middle.

Writing a Codex is easy. Getting it right is the hard part. GW's track record with the second part is quite telling and, if Jervis' comment on keeping records of things is true, it is something they are incapable of doing.

Grotsnik - The Tireless Threadstarter wrote:Ah, reporting to us with your own opinion stated as fact. How very Fox News!

Ah, starting a post with an ad hominem attack that neither rebuts anything I said nor adds anything to the conversation. How very JohnHwangDD of you.

Listen Grotsnik, how many times did I say 'If this is true' or 'If this is to believed' or words to that effect? How many times did I said "I guess" or "I believe" or "I think". All of these statements amount to two things:

1. I don't regard the information I posted as 100% accurate (as the person who originally posted it didn't think it was 100% accurate) so I am quite willing to be proven wrong.
2. I'm stating opinion as opinion.

The only two things I've stated as fact so far are:

A). I'm looking forward to the Space Wolf sprue.
B). My comments and opinions of JWDD, although if I continue to call a spade a spade in that area I'll get banned again, so I'll leave that one alone. For now.

Swoop wrote: There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

So because something out of their control happened, and a bunch of people whined, they've shut everyone out?

Nope.

Sorry.

Don't buy that.

If the reason Jervis says they can't speak about the release schedule beyond 3 months is because they honestly haven't got it set in stone yet, then that's fine. I don't mind if they really haven't got a 100% concrete release schedule done beyond three months, but at least say that you don't rather than sticking us behind the Bland Curtain.

Plus they don't have to give release dates, simply give us an idea of what they're doing. It's not a case of "The plastic Valkyrie will be released on the X-Day of Y-Month". It's simply a case of saying "Yes, there is a plastic Valkyrie".

How close to the release date of the Ork 2nd Wave did we get before we had actual confirmation of what was in it? I think keeping us in the dark about release dates is fine - chances are they're something you can't know well in advance because of all the outside factors that go into getting a product onto shelves - but to not even tell us what's in it? What benefit is there?

There's a massive difference between:

"We're planning on doing this, and we're going to have a [new unit X] and a [new unit Y] and [re-do unit Z]. And [member of studio] will be writing the book."

... and ...

"[Member of studio] is writing [new product] that will be released on the X-Day of Y-Month. On the same day [new unit X] and [new unit Y] will also be released. Two weeks later, on the Z-Day of Y-Month, the [re-do unit Z] will be released."

Whereas right now it's a case of:

"We aim to cycle things through every 4 to 6 years but we won't ever tell you what's coming until it's just about to hit shelves."

BYE

Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't the three month window also be a defense against them changing their mind? I mean, sure, perhaps RIGHT NOW the plastic valkyrie is on. Then they work production molds, crunch he $ numbers, and it's way too much. So they can it. If they start showing us pre-production models and telling us it's coming out, then pull it, we'd be pissed. Better to say "Surprise!" when it does come out than say "Sorry" when it doesn't.

I suppose that's a corralary of the "easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission" assertion.

Regardless, it's part of their business model now, and it doesn't seem to adversely effect the amount of speculation, substantiated news, or ranting on the interwebs, so I can't see any incentive on their part to change it.

They work on plastic models for over a year before we even see them (or, they did - don't know how the rapid prototyping machine changes that - anyone who knows please correct me), so it's not like they would can a model a few months before the Codex is due out.

And even if we go with what you say Scotty - which is perfectly resonable - it isn't much to say "If it proves technical viable, we are planning a Valkyrie for the next Guard revisions, whenever that revision may be". It's a simple way of saying what they're doing without having to commit to a time-frame (or commit to anything really - just giving us a statement of intent rather than a blank wall).

BYE

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

Because announcing it to you means announcing it to stores, suppliers, and other business related interests. If a release date that they announce early is cancelled or pushed back it can have further ramifications then just annoyed gamers. Expectations come into play in business, and you want to control those expectations.

Assuming that is what Jervis said, or is the gist of what Jervis was saying, then I'm simply stunned. Too big an undertaking to have internal consistency between Codices? So it's too hard to ensure that a Storm Shield has the same rules in 4 different books, all of which are Marine armies?

When those books are often times spaced several years and editions apart yeah, its too big an undertaking. They could either have wargear equivalent and stagnant in all books, leaving it either overpowered forever or underpowered forever. Or they could introduce change per codex then update the others when they get renewed. I don't like having to have lengthy FAQ documents for every codex altering vast swathes of rules, if I wanted that I would be playing WARMACHINE.

Just accept the fact that your storm shields have a 4+ instead of a 3+, move on.

I love my Daemonhunter/Witch Hunter army. I don't use GKs or SoBs. I use nothing but the crap Inquisitor units and they're great fun. I guess they'll soon be joining my LatD army unless DD can come up with another great 'counts as' example.

Considering the fact that the inquisition is not a militant organization and only takes command of armies when dire need arises I don't really mind the witch hunters and daemonhunters going back to what they should have been before. That being the militant branch of the ecclesiarchy and ordo malleus. Keep in mind, a shift in focus doesn't mean removal from the (clearly broken and dysfunctional) books. While you may dislike it I bet the SoB players are delighted by the shifted focus.

The Inquisition shift is insulting and demoralising. Say hello to Generic Henchmen in the next Codex - up to two may take one of the following weapons blah blah blah, may add a further 5 Henchmen for +X points and so on.

Say goodbye to the ridiculous and confusing inquisitor retinues and say hello to expanded and interesting possibilities within an ecclesiarchy based force! The inquisitor retinue was interesting and fluffy, but it didn't function well in the game and didn't make sense. Why does having a guy with a sword make your inquisitor better? And how is your opponent supposed to keep track of it all, especially if they have little experience with the unpopular and rare army that you're playing? The henchman squads were very poorly implemented and overcomplicated, as was the initial focus of that entire book.

Great OPED peice HMBC.

To the poster who said that GW should outsource their codex creation, BRAVO!. Most of us assume (I think) that GW only makes new codex to push modes, as they have frequently stated. Well since they cannot, or refuse, to do a good job at thatm why not outsource it and put stipulations on it, such as:
1. Unit x in new C:GOATFARMER must be better than unit z because we are releasing a new model.
2. Units a,b,c must remain almost entirely unchanged.

And then after the stipulation let the other comapny check for accuracy, layout usefullness, etc...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I brought up the wargear/weapon discrepencies for identical wargear across different codexes. He may have misconstrued my question because he defended it by citing different points costings, but didn't offer any hope of resolution when I clarified my question as in essence they (GW) see it as too big an undertaking to create such consistency (I may be misquoting Jervis, and apologies if I am, but that felt like the gist of the response).

I've said it many times before and I've pretty much given up on saying it. But for old time's sake (like twenty plus years of arguing this point with GW staff and gamers)...

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

Items that are identical should not cost different amounts in different Codexes. They certainly should not cost different amounts within the same Codex. And they should never have their cost changed because of which unit they are assigned to. And they should never, ever, ever be made cheaper for more powerful units and dearer for weaker units in the name of 'army balance'. That's not balance. That's stupidity.

But hey, no one's listening at GW, so why am I bothering?

i think im banning new GW products in my house until they get there gak together.

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.

I think he's implyign that the BS of the guardsmen, is bound into the GUARDSMEN'S cost, while the cost of the LC includes only the strength, and AP value, which are inherent in the item.

On the other hand, I still think he's wrong. The utility of a combination of unit stats and weapons stats should form the cost of the unit as a whole. Neither of those two portions of the equation is a static value.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.

Of course it makes sense. Because the Lascannons are exactly the same. If the Guardsman is crappier then the Space Marine, then he should cost a lot less. He, not the Lascannon. Yet in GW's twisted mind, IG get Lascannons at 25 points, while Marines get them at 20 points. WTF? And Marine Tac Squads pay less/more than Devs depending on the weapon. It's ridiculous.

As you say, the Guardsman will miss more often (16% more often, not twice as much). And with lower Toughness, lower (or more often no) Save, lower Leadership, and weaker meat shields, he will die more often. (Assuming he gets hit by a Boltgun shell, I think he has a 67% chance of dying, while a Marine would have only a 17% chance.)

So is the Lascannon less effective in the hands of the Imperial Guard? Of course. But it still performs exactly the same once it hits. It is the model firing it that is different lowers the chance of it hitting. Therefore the model firing it must be priced differently based on the combination's effectiveness and not the weapon.

This can, of course, be carried to extremes. Remember, a Space Marine is 18 times more effective than a Guardsman in close combat and at shooting. Therefore, technically, he should cost 18 times as much.

Followed me into yet another thread and... *checks*... yep, being contrary to everything I say.

I will give you one thing Shummy, you are gloriously consistent.

BYE

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

This depresses me more than anything, especially since I have something like a dozen Inquisitors.

the =I= is basically the only codex that allows us to create fairly different human heroes. IG officers are usually best off hiding in the back but an Inquisitor can go toe-to-toe with most foes.

No, not very well, but at least he can.

And now he's going away.



Who'll oppress the peasants now?

that and if powerfist cost the same the guard would get screwd on that to not as high of strength

ShumaGorath wrote:When those books are often times spaced several years and editions apart yeah, its too big an undertaking.

Absolute nonsense. Using Storm Shields as the example again, this is their first change since 3rd Ed came out. They've managed to keep it consistent for a decade, what's changed now? Oh... that's right... no one used Assault Terminators in 4th because Assault Cannons ruled. So we need something to get people buying Assault Terminators... I know! We'll make Storm Shields uber.

BYE

So is the Lascannon less effective in the hands of the Imperial Guard? Of course. But it still performs exactly the same once it hits. It is the model firing it that is different lowers the chance of it hitting. Therefore the model firing it must be priced differently based on the combination's effectiveness.

Unfortunately that doesn't actually work. that would mean three point guardsman. Congratulations, you can now have 633 guardsman at 2000 points. What about flamers? A guardsman can't miss with them so in theory he should be the same point value as a space marine to reflect so. So which will it be? Do we drop their points to practically nothing to make up for the fact that their lascanons cost the same, or do we keep them the same points because they are just as god with a flamer.


It doesn't work. You should know it doesn't work. Points values need to reflect the overall combat effectiveness of a model with all of its equipment. Not the model and equipment separately. Saying a space marines powerfist and a guardsmans powerfist should be the same is just stupid.

Followed me into yet another thread and... *checks*... yep, being contrary to everything I say.

I will give you one thing Shummy, you are gloriously consistent.

You created the thread. What? I'm not allowed to enter and voice my opinion? Stop being so consistently wrong and I'll stop consistently disagreeing with you.

Absolute nonsense. Using Storm Shields as the example again, this is their first change since 3rd Ed came out. They've managed to keep it consistent for a decade, what's changed now? Oh... that's right... no one used Assault Terminators in 4th because Assault Cannons ruled. So we need something to get people buying Assault Terminators... I know! We'll make Storm Shields uber.

No one used assault termies in fourth because assault termies were trash. Not because the assault canon made regular terminators ok. You never saw storm shields anywhere except terminators, because they were trash. No IC needed them because they already had the save and replacing your gun with +1 better INV for the same point value is just not worth it.

Sorry, but your a little confused on this point.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.

Wow. Congrats on drastically overestimating things that are ridiculously easy to figure out. SM hit on a 3, thus miss 1/3 of the time. Basic Guard hit on a 4, thus miss half the time. To miss twice as often... Guard would need BS5. At BS4 they miss half again as much. Not twice as often.

One third of the survivability... That's harder to equate because of the AP factors involved. But I'm not willing to concede that either really. Given the advent of cover saves, intervening models, and so forth, Guard survivability went WAY up, while marine survivability had a pretty negligible bump.

Should a Guard lascannon cost the same as a SM lascannon? Maybe, maybe not. If they did the balancing entirely based on the points per model for a guardsman, yeah, a lascannon should be a lascannon and a guardsman, tactical marine, and devastator marine should all pay the same points cost for it.

Wow. Congrats on drastically overestimating things that are ridiculously easy to figure out. SM hit on a 3, thus miss 1/3 of the time. Basic Guard hit on a 4, thus miss half the time. To miss twice as often... Guard would need BS5. At BS4 they miss half again as much. Not twice as often.

It was exaggeration. I also have no math to back up a third the survivability. Either way, the point came across pretty clearly. How expensive should a naked guardsman be compared to a naked space marine then? Giving him a lascanon that makes him seven times as expensive compared to giving one to a marine that makes him three so makes sense because the gun is the same cost but the total package is now very different. If a space marine with a lascanon is 30 points and a guardsman is 20, they are unequal because a space marine is more than twice the guardsmans overall effectiveness in the game. Its impossible to balance in this way. A three point guardsman and a 20 point marine would create balance post wargear, but then if you don't give them lascanons you now get almost 7 guard to each marine. Thats a little bit horrifyingly broken.

@Shuma

I have to agree with you on this. It should not cost the same amount for a lascannon on a guardsman as it does for a marine, as noted above. Also if that theory rolls over to vehicles it becomes even more erronius as their vehcles vary perhaps even more widely in use and survivability than do the individual units.

While the news regarding the Inq list is a bit worrisome, there's still plenty of time for things to change. It also sounded (to me) that it wasn't quite as dire a HBMC is interpreting it. Not that I'd ever put a lot of faith in hoping GW does the right thing, but this is far enough out that I wouldn't sweat it yet.

Regarding the odd sub-discussion on weapon costs that has popped up, you haven't even touched the issue of the same weapon having varying costs within the same list. Heavy/special weapons cost more in squads with multiple weapons (dev squads, IG HW squads, etc) to try and limit the number these weapons on the board. While I would love to spam these weapons as much as possible, seeing as they do the majority of killing, in terms of tabletop game balance, varying weapon costs make sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:Unfortunately that doesn't actually work. that would mean three point guardsman. Congratulations, you can now have 633 guardsman at 2000 points. What about flamers? A guardsman can't miss with them so in theory he should be the same point value as a space marine to reflect so. So which will it be? Do we drop their points to practically nothing to make up for the fact that their lascanons cost the same, or do we keep them the same points because they are just as god with a flamer.

It only doesn't work because over the last several editions, Games Workshop has changed its model point pricing in a way that has reduced the granularity of the entire point system. Here's what what I mean: GW has set up a system that sets the average game at 1500-2000 points. This is, of course, a completely subjective and created number. It sounds good, it feels good. But it has no inherent meaning in and of itself.

By scaling a space marine and its uber-stats at 15 points (the old time classic figure for years), that equates to 100 space marines at 1500. Or, more likely, 35-50 with other stuff thrown in. That feels like a 1500 point average size game for GW. But the problems come in when you try to scale other items/vehicles/non-space marines at that scale. There is little flexibility within that number range per infantry figure. The granularity is significantly reduced compared to a system where, lets say, the Space Marine was valued at 50 points. Suddenly there is a much wider variety to values to judge the relative merits of one model vs another model. The guardsmen can be 10 points and 5 equal a marine. The guardsmen can be 5 points and 10 equal a marine. Etc. That is harder to do with reduced granularity in the current GW point system.

And it all comes out of setting 1500 as a "magical" number to estimate what an average game should encompass. If GW think that the average game involves more or less models, it has still kind of stuck itself into a corner, by setting the overall limit.

How can this be solved? Well, in the game design process, army selections could be made solely on army composition or FOC. Certain types of armies could have more FOC slots than others to balance the unit to unit merits. Another obvious way would be to simply change prices in another edition. Say, for example, that the space marine is valued at 100 points per man. You have a TON of room to work with the relative values of other units. 1500 doesn't have to be dogma, since its a made up figure to begin with. Games could be based on 3000 points as an average game, a game that "feels" like the current 1500 point game. Now you have twice as much room to "wiggle" around with relative point values.

That method would provide additional room to value the weapons the same, yet adjust for the differences in the values of the models.

Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design. They can set an arbitrary value on different characteristics and abilities, then add them up. As long as every unit is calculated on that system, they would at least have internal consistency within the game system. Right now, a designer says "hey, I think Chosen are worth "X" points" IF that feels good, GW goes with it. Often, they end up realizing that said unit is overpowered or underpowered for its point level, everyone spams it or avoids it, and we all deal with it for 4-6 years until another different designer says, no Chosen are now worth "Y" points. But its still totally random. There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another. A toughness three three wound model is very different then a toughness four one. Not only because of one point of toughness but because it can now be killed instantly by far more weapons. Now throw the armor save in there, what is the metric for a t3 3 wound model with a 3+ save vs a t4 3 wound model with a 3+ save. Is it an independant character? Does it have a high weapon skill? Is the weapon skill reletive to its ability to close to the other side of the board? A high weapon skill is much more useful on a model with a high initiative, and a 2+ armor save is much more important if your initiative is low than it is if its high. But by the same token, a good armor save is the same when it comes to being shot, yet not the same when it comes to transport options, deployment options, and toughness. A carnifex can be one point value in the tyranid codex, but if the tau had something equivalent that would totally change the dynamic of the statline, not just because it would be in a more firepower centered force, but because it would solve the armies one attributable weakness. That being close combat.

Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design.

Then its one I've never seen a company use successfully. Ever. Wizkids stopped doing it early after the firelord fiasco of heroclix and the first few sets of MWA. It just doesn't work, there is too much to account for in a purely mathematical model.

As for the granularity, it doesn't really change much of anything. A 30 point lascanon is still only making a space marine 300% as expensive whereas it makes a six point guardsman 700% so. A 36 point guardsman with lascanon isn't woth only 9 points less than a 45 point marine with one. In the way you describe you would essentially be making the weapon bearer the wargear of the gun.

LittleLeadMen wrote:Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design. They can set an arbitrary value on different characteristics and abilities, then add them up. As long as every unit is calculated on that system, they would at least have internal consistency within the game system. Right now, a designer says "hey, I think Chosen are worth "X" points" IF that feels good, GW goes with it. Often, they end up realizing that said unit is overpowered or underpowered for its point level, everyone spams it or avoids it, and we all deal with it for 4-6 years until another different designer says, no Chosen are now worth "Y" points. But its still totally random. There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

This sounds like a good valid argument. Unfortunately it assumes that the studio actually cares about assigning point values to units and options according to their usefulness in such a way so as to achieve a balanced game. They don't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another.

No, actually it IS because they are lazy and/or don't really care. Jervis has been reported as openly admitting as much.

But this is all besides the point! Let's not sit around and argue about whose lascannon killed whom. That's exactly what Jervis wants us to do! We're missing the big picture here - and that is this: there's a huge sunken cache of plastic falcon treasure at the bottom of the Atlantic waiting for some enterprising soul to recover and possibly either sell on ebay or make the biggest Apocalypse Cloudstrike formation EVER!

I like your thinking. Capitalize on misfortune...

No, actually it IS because they are lazy and/or don't really care. Jervis has been reported as openly admitting as much.

Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

As for the falcon treasure, you'll probably be disappointed that when you find the promised pit of falcon some other enterprising soul has already picked it clean of all weapon mounts and flying bases for his looted ork armada.

But the key here is that it doesn't have to be mathematically balanced as a model. Instead, it merely has to be systemically uniform across all units/armies, thereby creating some balance of point values based on the unit's attributes.

And frankly, I'm not completely sure that your assertion that it is impossible to create a mathematical model for these things is accurate. Software developers have created extremely difficult simulations for a lot of the real problems and situations in our world. Creating a test engine for a game that relies on d6 probabilities for a handful of attributes, coupled with a second set of USRs (that can have a rough value assigned to them across the board at first) isn't a feat of the gods by any stretch of the imagination.

And frankly, I'm not completely sure that your assertion that it is impossible to create a mathematical model for these things is accurate. Software developers have created extremely difficult simulations for a lot of the real problems and situations in our world.

Yes, by utilizing simple and measurable inputs typically gathered over a number of years. Mathematical studies like those used in the census bureau have very specific uses and are limited in scope and capability. Things that can not be measured mathematically or that have their mathematical symmetries changed dynamically dependent on the input of other dynamic measurements are exceedingly difficult to quantify mathematically with any semblance of accuracy or usefulness. Its one of the reasons there's no mathematical algorithm to the stock market. Sure, GW could create some sort of vastly complex difference engine to calculate the effective points costs of different models but it wouldn't be accurate enough to replace going by "feel". GW caught a lot of flak for saying that they gauge points by the "feel" of the unit, but honestly it's what everyone in the industry does.

By the way, the reason he didn't confirm Phil Kelly is writing the Guard Codex is because he isn't.

They already stated in White Dwarf several months ago that Robin Cruddace is writing it, and I even managed to get to chat with him about it (although he was able to tell me very little) at Games Day UK.

Phil Kelly IS however, writing both the Space Wolves and Dark Eldar books at the moment (again, found out at Games Day when a friend I was with asked him)

Pariah Press wrote: Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

In what bizarro world do you live in that now, with no forum, magazines, support is better NOW then when the models were easily available, supported in a rotation and such?



anyway. I'm glad their supporting the militant chmbers of DH and WH.....THE inquisitor stuff is nice, but fairly useless on the table.

No SG support, great he just made the lass cry.

Swoop wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

I had a friend, who I've unfortunately lost contact with, who used to work in the US sales team for GW in Baltimore. He had an interesting story as to why GW is so close lipped about release dates. I was on an extended break from the hobby at the time so I don't remember these events but apparently when the Falcon Grav Tank was originally being released GW had spent months hyping it up proclaiming the release date etc. There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

True? I have no idea... My friend was the consumate salesman (i.e. slimy) so he might have been feeding me a line. It's a nice story though and does make some kind of slowed GW sense.

i remember that. the boat sank apparently and most of the falcons for the US and Canada went with it.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:How are they going to flesh out all those army selections for grey knights when you basically have power armour, terminator armour, dreads and land raiders.

And that is why Inquisition / Sisters / GK / Deathwatch / DH/WH/AH is on hold. As the GK clearly demonstrate, the concepts don't scale well or uniformly across all flavors of the Inquisition, if GW is to have any semblance of Fluff authenticity.
____

Wolfstan wrote:Here's an idea... why doesn't GW sell off the rulebook section?

Because nobody is going to write rules to sell somebody else's minis? And rules publishing is a zero-margin business.

____

Anung Un Rama wrote:IMO, Grey Knight armies are ALREADY a bad idea!

Sisters are a nice army, but they really should keep the Inquisitor stuff. I don't care much for the Death Cult Assassins, but the classic imperial assassins, the henchmen and Arco-Flagelants or whatever they're called are all really cool and fluffy units.

And were is my Ordo-Xenos list gork damnit

Sisters are the only Inquisition army that can stand alone and be fielded as such. GK and DW are much too small. And the overlap between WH and DH is too great. The forces are overly homogenized, so the focus is poor, which is why the armies don't sell. It's like WFB Undead with a half-assed split between VC / TK.

____

Orlanth wrote:I would like to see the Sisters of Battle - which is a fighting arm of the clergy, not the Inquisition, get their own book.

The Daemonhunters codex should be Grey Knights with the possible inclusion of an Inquisitor, maybe maybe not.
A third Codex Inquisition including all the standard Inquisitor units, and seperate benefits for Ordo Malleus Zenos and Hereticus Inquisitors. Deathwatch are independent units, not armies so they can fit in with a Xenos Inquisitor.

Totally agreed about the Sisters back as a full, standalone force representing the Ecclesiarchy. This is easy, as they have full model and bitz support, already. Sisters as an army have a good vision, when not muddled by an Inquisition focus. Remove the non-Sisterly things from the list (Inquisitor Lord, Assassins, Death Cult, Arco-Flagellants, Stormtroopers), but then restore the Frateris Militia and call out Arbites specifically as such. Add an Inducted Planetary Defense Force Guardsmen (non-FOC option if Inquisitor is taken) in lieu of the current borrowing from IG. And as it's Sisters, the notion of borrowing from SM goes away. So the Sisters book ends up being far cleaner and simpler for everyone, and stand clearly on its own.

The DH aren't enough to be a full force, so that thought should be abandoned. Fold them, along with DW into the Inquisition grab bag. Inquisition can be something of a 40k Imperial "Dogs of War" Allies force with deliberate intent to be shared across other Imperial forces. With the standalone Codices, it makes it easy to say which armies (by Codex) can take Allies. Inquisitor Lord HQ with cleaned-up options and Retinue; lots of disparate Elite choices for theme: Imperial Assassins (many flavors, including vanilla), Grey Knights (Termies, PA, Dread), Deathwach (Sternguard, really); non-FOC Death Cultists. Ordinary Troops for bulk: Storms, Inducted Guardsmen, Inducted Marines, Arco-Flagellants. Again, the book can be much cleaner and simpler, and the mixing is done entirely via Allies out of this one book, rather than everybody taking everything from everywhere and wondering what rules and options apply. Instead, the theme is that the Inquisition has lots of stuff and can be present everywhere.

____

Frazzled wrote:This is the downside of handing a bunch of "standalone" codexes, with non-existent FAQ support.

The question is whether we want 40k to be a static game with homogenous lists, or a dynamic game with things priced accoring to their value.
____

Wolfstan wrote:Just out of interest is there anybody out there on the board who has experience of writing GW rulebooks and codexes?

If Gav and Andy Chambers would de-lurk, they have the experience and a bunch of free time...
____

Stu-Rat wrote:Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

For example, let's say everybody on the forum is tasked with having a game table for standard GW gaming (4'x6' playing surface). You'll have guys buying the new tiles and slapping them on the kitchen table. Others will create table-toppers. Others are carpenters. One guy will buy the Sultan. The function of a 4'x6' is the same, but the time, cost and approach are vastly different.

And that's the same with an Imperial Lascannon. They're all R48" S9 AP2 Heavy 1, but the costs are very different depending on which FW makes them for which army. Forcing every Imperial model to pay the same 25-pts for a Lascannon probably doesn't work well for overall game balance. And it certainly doesn't work for theme.

Plus, there is this Fluff notion that not all armies are equally good at the same things. So making an army do what it's not supposed to do should be discouraged by deliberately higher points cost / inefficiency.

carmachu wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

In what bizarro world do you live in that now, with no forum, magazines, support is better NOW then when the models were easily available, supported in a rotation and such?

I dunno, why don't you read my post and tell me?

Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

Wargames Research Group implemented a points cost system in the mid-70s which is still going strong now in related or derivative products. (Interestingly their "standard" army sizes are 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 points.) It's a system that has proved workable for many hundreds of tournaments worldwide.

It's not perfect and it's based on a simpler game model, but it was worked out by one guy using his brain and some bits of paper. They didn't even have electronic calculators back then. Nowadays we have spreadsheets, stats packages and computer modelling.

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible. The tools are there if GW could be bothered to use them.

Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. It's not possible to account for every possible match-up of unit, terrain and circumstance. It could be done a lot better than it is.

Pariah Press wrote:
I dunno, why don't you read my post and tell me?

Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

And at the time the models were still avaialable. They dropped those two games totally, not just pushed 6 months and then dropped. Those are bad examples. Hell space hulk is no where to be found either.

Epic isnt available unless its through the taxed and overpriced shipping store. Same with BFG. But neither game is SUPPORTED. Support means rules, overview and otehr stuff.

BB, BFG, Epic and the rest arent supported at all.

GW should totally re-issue Space Hulk.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW should totally re-issue Space Hulk.

Absolutley!

It would be the perfect 'gateway drug' into 40K too.

If only...

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible.

Dawn of war is an RTS. RTSs are easy create using mathematical models. You give a unit a number of hitpoints, an ammount of damage reduction, and a DPS. That dps is measured against its targets hitpoints and damage reduction. End of story. And even then, the actual resource cost of the units was judged "by feel". So really... Well I have no summation, I can't even think of why you would use this as an example.

Pariah Press wrote:
Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

Gorkamorka is in a landfill from what I heard. they overproduced and undersold that product. Personally I think too many staff got the ork bug and tried to force this one out.. It fell flat on its face and never had a good target audience. I wish they'd have warehoused them and sold them later.. I know I'd have bought a few boxes.

oh and Gav Thorpe and Andy Chambers have no reason to delurk. They've distanced themselves from GW and cut all ties from what I understand. With good reason as far as I am concerned. If it were up to me, I'd get Andy Chambers involved, but I'd pass on Mr. Thorpe..

Speaking of raising the dead, hands up for Bommas!

carmachu wrote:Epic isnt available unless its through the taxed and overpriced shipping store. Same with BFG. But neither game is SUPPORTED. Support means rules, overview and otehr stuff.

BB, BFG, Epic and the rest arent supported at all.

Well, they just released a new edition of BB in the last year or so, and new models in the last month.

If a game works perfectly well, is there any need to keep messing with it? Do the Specialist Games need to be constantly evolving / expanding in order to be good? In the latest Epic rules update/FAQ, Jervis basically said that he was (as of that update) happy with how the rules were, and didn't anticipate making any further changes.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

That isn't entirely true. While it is difficult to model, it is not impossible. It is merely a complex system, and on that has relatively few variables at that. However, actually building the model would be damned near a thesis level project for a math PhD. It could be done, but I can understand why no one has really bothered.

I would also like to point out that greater granularity really would be a nice step, though perhaps in terms of stats instead of points (though points might not hurt either). It would alow for a space between Space Marine BS4 and Imp. Guardsmen BS3 for Sisters of Battle to live in, or between Marine St4 and IG Str3 for Orks to live in. Whether that means GW needs to go to a D10 system, and sell branded dice, I don't know. But it would be nice...

H.B.M.C. wrote:
So that sets an upper-limit on the new DE book at 16 years... we've had 10 so far right? So max of 6 more years guys. The US might have a new President by the time we get a new Archon. Hopefully we'll get it sooner though... the Archon that is, not the new President.

And by 'new stuff' I'm taking that to mean new armies and races. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, what other sci-fi-mixed-with-fantasy archetypes are left to mine for content? Other than an AdMech army, what's left? Hrud (Space Skaven) and Demiurg (which they won't do). I'd also rather than keep working on the existing races to bring them into line. On the other hand it would be really sweet to get an AdMech army.

I swear that GW has the weirdest business model. It's like some giant bureaucracy that is slow, full of red tape and hugely expensive and just makes sales to sustain itself. They probably have twice the employees that they really need and those employees do 1/4 of the work they should actually be doing.

As far as granularity goes, a lot of this is easily covered by the new block pricing. 10 models for 45 pts nicely splits the difference between 4ppm and 5ppm.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible.

Dawn of war is an RTS. RTSs are easy create using mathematical models. You give a unit a number of hitpoints, an ammount of damage reduction, and a DPS. That dps is measured against its targets hitpoints and damage reduction. End of story. And even then, the actual resource cost of the units was judged "by feel". So really... Well I have no summation, I can't even think of why you would use this as an example.

I am a videogame producer and actually have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

There is no major difference in terms of mathematical modelling between an RTS and a game like 40K, except for LoS which can be abstracted.

As for judging the value of units "by feel", the point of computer modelling is that you can run very quick reiterations of trial values for unit variables and modify them according to a look-up table containing the values you want to test. It is extremely easy and quick to try the effect of making a gun worth 1,2,3 up to 10 S for example.

The key difference is that RTS is virtual, so you can test, bulk test, and retest more easily.

I am a videogame producer and actually have some knowledge of what I am talking about.

I'm on my second new media degree with the eventual far off hope of making games for a living (as either a designer, modeler/texturer, writer, or possibly concept artist if my artistic attempts pan out). I've got a relative amount of experience with the design and production process and have written (unofficially) in a review and interview capacity relating to the industry. What kinds of games are you producing? Big shiney ones? Or lower level mod/digital release/freeware/random solitaire on iphone type games. If its in one of the latter cattegories I'd love to help in some way .

There is no major difference in terms of mathematical modelling between an RTS and a game like 40K, except for LoS which can be abstracted.

There is far less variation in the dynamics of RTS warfare. Typical RTS units have no statline beyond damage resistance (sometimes to specific weapon types), damage output (sometimes varying depending on target), and and hitpoints. There is also range and in some games like Dawn of war melee capability.

These are some of what go into the possible models to compute points values. A * denotes its ability to be measured mathematically with a degree of precision, therefore making it useful in the model.

Dawn of war has to take into consideration:
-weapon specific range*
-unit specific speed*
-hitpoints*
-dps of melee and range*
-damage type*
-hitpoints*
-varying damage resistance depending on weapon type*
-a single form of terrain that halves damage taken*

tabletop 40k has to take into account:
-line of sight
-type of intervening terrain
-damage output of specific metaweapons*
-toughness values that are dependent on weapon strength*
-armor values that are dependent on weapon penetration values*
-initiative values in combat
-weapon skill values in combat
-ballistic skill values*
-unit speed*
-unit speed as affected by transports
-morale*
-morale as affected by combat multipliers
-morale as affected by unit size
-morale as affected by independent characters or special abilities
-possible non destructive damage to vehicles*
-possible non destructive damage to variably upgraded vehicles

I really could keep going. How much does a predator cost? How much does its storm bolter cost? How much is the side effect of the storm bolter requiring an extra weapon destroyed result to destroy the predator through purely glancing hits worth? How much is the storm bolter worth with extra armor ensuring it's ability to shoot a small statistical amount more regularly? How much is it worth taken against necrons verses taken against orks?

There is an inherent variability that exists in material things that can be exceedingly difficult to quantify and measure digitally. Dawn of war is not a complex game. At all. By comparison warhammer 40k or even something like mechwarrior dark age is ludicrously complicated.

The key difference is that RTS is virtual, so you can test, bulk test, and retest more easily.

The key difference is that it is a digital RTS built on an effectively two dimensional plane with three dimensional graphics. It is built from the ground up to conform to digital programming, testing, and exists in a tightly controlled digital environment that is scaleable and batch testable. It is inherently easier to test then something that is not a digital program.

ShumaGorath wrote: Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another.

That isn't true at all. Most teams in the NBA employ statistical analysts to perform regression analysis of player statistics in order to come up with a synergistic rating which indicates his efficiency relative to other players on the floor. I personally know the guy who does this for the Cavaliers. Its been done in baseball for years as well.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/14 23:12:50

Post by: ShumaGorath

That isn't true at all. Most teams in the NBA employ statistical analysts to perform regression analysis of player statistics in order to come up with a synergistic rating which indicates his efficiency relative to other players on the floor. I personally know the guy who does this for the Cavaliers. Its been done in baseball for years as well.

There is a difference between tracking statistics to value players in specific cattegories like hit calculations and synergistic values with charge and defensive blocking and abstract and complex customizeable wargaming. All basketball games are played on the same size and dimension court with the same rules and the same time constraints. There is an inherent variability to something as personally variable to the degree that wargaming (or really actual war in general) that most sports do not possess. Sports segue very well into digital batch testing because they are almost entirely driven by simple statistical values in a constant non variable setting (like a players hit percentage when compared to sliders versus fastballs).

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/14 23:28:08

Post by: dogma

ShumaGorath wrote:
There is a difference between tracking statistics to value players in specific cattegories like hit calculations and synergistic values with charge and defensive blocking and abstract and complex customizeable wargaming.

I wasn't talking about specific categorical statistics. Synergistic statistics are numerical values that relate the output of a given player to that of his teammates; allowing for the valuation of any given theoretical combination of players. This process could very easily be applied to wargaming. Edit: Here is the wiki article.

ShumaGorath wrote:
All basketball games are played on the same size and dimension court with the same rules and the same time constraints.

Most competitive wargames are played in fairly standardized environments. This is especially true when the vast majority of noise made over general imbalance is made by tournament players who see consistently comparable tables at every event.

ShumaGorath wrote:
There is an inherent variability to something as personally variable to the degree that wargaming (or really actual war in general) that most sports do not possess. Sports segue very well into digital batch testing because they are almost entirely driven by simple statistical values in a constant non variable setting (like a players hit percentage when compared to sliders versus fastballs).

If you really think that sports statistics are that simple you haven't paid much attention to their analysis. There is a great deal of difference, statistically and aesthetically, between a Greg Maddux slider and the same pitch throw by Johan Santana.

The truth is that wargames are no more statistically variable than baseball, basketball, or any other game. Even the army is quite fond of statistical analysis as a means of predicting the outcome of battlefield actions. You could make a case for this type of treatment being too expesnive for GW, but to say that it is impossible is flat out wrong.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 00:37:22

Post by: ShumaGorath

Most competitive wargames are played in fairly standardized environments. This is especially true when the vast majority of noise made over general imbalance is made by tournament players who see consistently comparable tables at every event.

Unfortunately thats not really true. I for one have played in plenty of tournaments and the terrain and metagame are unique to every FLGS I'm in. This isn't true of modern sport fields which are generally built to a standard.

The truth is that wargames are no more statistically variable than baseball, basketball, or any other game. Even the army is quite fond of statistical analysis as a means of predicting the outcome of battlefield actions. You could make a case for this type of treatment being too expesnive for GW, but to say that it is impossible is flat out wrong.

I've never said that it was impossible to build statistical models. Only that it is impossible for those models to produce truly accurate point values, which in and of themselves serve to encompass the whole of a units statistical qualities, battlefield roles, and complimentary elements within a force.

Its one thing to find the synergistic values of basketball players given their history, demeanor, health, and game statistics. Its another entirely to then assign to him a single overall functioning point value with which a team can be constructed whole cloth by a lamen, and still have that team be competitive.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 00:53:45

Post by: dogma

ShumaGorath wrote:
Unfortunately thats not really true. I for one have played in plenty of tournaments and the terrain and metagame are unique to every FLGS I'm in. This isn't true of modern sport fields which are generally built to a standard.

Generally, but the most statistically driven sport in the world, baseball, varies a great deal in terms of field parameters. Moreover, the idea that the environment can never be accounted for in statistical modeling is fraudulent. There are very simple ways to introduce predictable variations into the nominal synergistic equation which can account for variances in the overall environment.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I've never said that it was impossible to build statistical models. Only that it is impossible for those models to produce truly accurate point values, which in and of themselves serve to encompass the whole of a units statistical qualities, battlefield roles, and complimentary elements within a force.

Obviously there is a margin for error. That is the consequence that comes of utilizing any form of modeled balance. Just because it isn't a perfect system does not mean that there is no way to make the assessment more accurate.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Its one thing to find the synergistic values of basketball players given their history, demeanor, health, and game statistics. Its another entirely to then assign to him a single overall functioning point value with which a team can be constructed whole cloth by a lamen, and still have that team be competitive.

Except that is exactly what many of these teams pay professional statisticians to do. Moreover, since when are wargamers considered laymen in the 'field' of wargaming? That's like proposing that baseball managers, who are not statisticians, are laymen when it comes to applying batting averages to field decisions.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 01:16:18

Post by: ShumaGorath

Except that is exactly what many of these teams pay professional statisticians to do. Moreover, since when are wargamers considered laymen in the 'field' of wargaming? That's like proposing that baseball managers, who are not statisticians, are laymen when it comes to applying batting averages to field decisions.

I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

Reply by: JohnHwangDD - click to view full reply 

5421

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 01:43:26

Post by: JohnHwangDD

I'm not at all certain that the proposed metrics are really equivalent to SABERmetrics in terms of what / how they measure.

IIRC, sports stats are based on results. So 40k unit metrics would be more like CC won/lost, CC models killed, avg VPs earned shooting, etc.

Reply by: deitpike - click to view full reply 

50

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 02:48:08

Post by: deitpike

blinky wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.

Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

as I'm de-railing now too, those are the Jokaero, are they not? (not the hrud, who are the space skaven)

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 03:43:49

Post by: ShumaGorath

This is a hrud. Pic straight out of xenology.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 03:51:07

Post by: dogma

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm not at all certain that the proposed metrics are really equivalent to SABERmetrics in terms of what / how they measure.

IIRC, sports stats are based on results. So 40k unit metrics would be more like CC won/lost, CC models killed, avg VPs earned shooting, etc.

The metric is based on probability which is derived from results. You could get the same measure for 40k units by finding the probability of causing a wound in every given situation, discarding outliers, and and taking the resultant average as a given value. Results are terribly critical when you have direct influence over the probability of any given event.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 03:52:08

Post by: dogma

ShumaGorath wrote:
I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

That's why you hire consultants, or *gasp* learn.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 04:20:48

Post by: ShumaGorath

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
I meant a laymen to the methods used in the creation of said points values. Not to the respective games themselves.

That's why you hire consultants, or *gasp* learn.

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 08:38:15

Post by: Kilkrazy

While an RTS may have fewer factors than another type of game, the key point about computer modelling is that the system can be programmed with a large number of variables, rapidly run automated simulations while changing one variable at a time, and record the results for analysis.

In some sense, having a larger number of variables may make it easier to achieve balance between units, since the effect of changing a single variable may not be great compared to the sum of the whole. It depends on the effect of the variable. For example, WS in 40K is less effective than BS, which is less effective than A.

Reply by: bejustorbedead - click to view full reply 

88

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 08:56:20

Post by: bejustorbedead

deitpike wrote:

blinky wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hrud (Space Skaven)

Not to derail the thread, but Hrud are a bit more like a cross between Chimpanzees and the creature from Alien.
Besides that, most of this info is good news, if it can be believed anyway.

as I'm de-railing now too, those are the Jokaero, are they not? (not the hrud, who are the space skaven)

The Jokaero were super-intelligent space orangutans. He's the one on the bottom right, obviously.

The Hrud were never actually space Skaven. There were like 4 sentences ever written about them, but due to 40k always having been a mirror of Fantasy Battle in the past- and GW being known for its recycling of ideas- people went and assumed that due to the fact that the incredibly sparse and vague things said about the Hrud could also easily be said about Skaven, that the Hrud must therefore be space Skaven, and the idea propagated itself throughout the nerdiverse as if it were fact. Then Xenology got published and eliminated once and for all the idea that they were any kind of sci-fi space rats. I quite like the inclusion of this tongue-in-cheek little bit: "The Hrud are a living enigma. Before even I came to have one in my possession- the result of a fortuitous incident aboard the Paternus Gloriem and the lucky placement of my mercantile associates- my quest for knowledge uncovered a single detail over and over again: nobody doubted that the Hrud existed, but nobody knew much about them."
Really, their entry in the book is quite interesting. In fact, Xenology is an all-around good time if you want obscure knowledge about obscure races that will never matter in the grand scheme of 40k. I know I do. Someone else already posted one of the two Hrud illustrations from the book. They look like a creepy amalgamation of humanoid insect and fungus. Not sure why anyone would associate them with chimpanzees.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 09:40:26

Post by: Kilkrazy

Thanks to the plot of Xenology, the entire contents are plausibly deniable if GW ever want to use or change them.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 11:58:20

Post by: dogma

ShumaGorath wrote:

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

He doesn't have to, only the design team does. Neither you, nor I have been discussing anything but game design. SABREmetrics only needs to be applied with regard to the creation of rules, not the following of them. Nice try with the re-direct though. It might have worked when I was 11. But hey, a good barrage of smilies can be an effective disguise for ignorance, right?

Reply by: GreyFox555 - click to view full reply 

8823

Didn't see this reported here (more from Lord Jervis)... @ 2008/11/15 12:04:05

Post by: GreyFox555

i remember that. the boat sank apparently and most of the falcons for the US and Canada went with it.

I just remember the picture in the 3rd edition 40K rulebook of the Xenos races
There was an ambull, a necron, an enslaver, some big furry guy with huge claws, and a space skaven, that I thought the book had listed as a Hrud.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

For some reason I don't think the average wargamer wants to take the time to learn the complex algorithms your describing.

He doesn't have to, only the design team does. Neither you, nor I have been discussing anything but game design. SABREmetrics only needs to be applied with regard to the creation of rules, not the following of them. Nice try with the re-direct though. It might have worked when I was 11. But hey, a good barrage of smilies can be an effective disguise for ignorance, right?

Facepalm.jpeg

Sounds like more of the same to me.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And that's the same with an Imperial Lascannon. They're all R48" S9 AP2 Heavy 1, but the costs are very different depending on which FW makes them for which army. Forcing every Imperial model to pay the same 25-pts for a Lascannon probably doesn't work well for overall game balance. And it certainly doesn't work for theme.

Plus, there is this Fluff notion that not all armies are equally good at the same things. So making an army do what it's not supposed to do should be discouraged by deliberately higher points cost / inefficiency.

Point value and in-setting cost should not be interlinked. Point value is a measure of the item's effectiveness in the game to be used as a balancing method. If anything, your statement is a more valid argument for Guard LasCannons to be different from SpaM Lascannons... They're presumably different patterns as they go from hand-held/shoulder reinforced units build to work with super soldiers in power armor to barely man-portable units on tripods with separate battery packs.

Ideally, the weapon cost should be slightly less for a Guardsman than a Marine as the Guardsman is less survivable and less accurate.

GW has often tried to raise point values to make something artificially rarer because they feel an army shouldn't have too many of them. isn't there one HW that actually costs the Guard more than SpaM for no other reasont han because it is felt it shouldn't be as common?

I think the real point here is that players just want consistency across codexes as far as effects, so they don't have to track the differences between a SpaM Assault Cannon and a Grey Knight Assault Cannon.

Balance wrote:I think the real point here is that players just want consistency across codexes as far as effects, so they don't have to track the differences between a SpaM Assault Cannon and a Grey Knight Assault Cannon.

Oh, I'm aware that that is what a lot of players want.

And as time shows, GW isn't willing to do this, because it forces stagnation upon the game. If the Assault Cannon is useless, then that's just as bad as if it's too good.

So GW accepts that there will be changes that trickle out from Ultramar to the outer Forgeworlds over time, and the Fandom should accept this as well. If you happen to live way out with a weak Forgeworld, that's too bad - upgrades and revisions say you're stuck. OTOH, if your FW is good, then the Inquisition will eventually come by an slap you down for non-Approved deviance from Imperial standards. And so it goes...

JohnHwangDD wrote:And as time shows, GW isn't willing to do this, because it forces stagnation upon the game.

So the same items and weapons having the same rules across a number of different armies forces 'stagnation'. Jesus DD... you'll believe anything GW spouts, won't you?

BYE

Did GW say that?

I had assumed they were just lazy.

No! Not lazy. They're avoiding stagnation! Keepin' the game fresh! Y'know!!



You're right, they didn't say that. But John thinks they did. And John's always right. Even when he's not.

BYE

You want to walk around with a large errata document for every codex and have to explain to your opponants what his wargear now does with every new release? God damn HBMC, I didn't know you were such a trooper.

If I wanted erratahammer I would play WARMACHINE. If not having to have a consistently updated massive errata document in normal play means a new codex gets new shiny things and the old ones have to wait for updates to get new stormshields then so be it. I don't care.

It's easy to win arguments isn't it Shummy, especially when you get to move straw-filled goal posts around. Who said it would be a 'large' document? And what has this got to do with erata ayway? 'Course, I never said anything about any of those - but you go on thinking that if it makes it easier for you to score 'points' in this argument.

What this is about is is getting it right first time around.

And personally I think it's far less confusing to say "A Storm Shield does X" rather than "This storm shield does X, this one does Y, this one does Y as well but costs +B more than the other one for no apparent reason..." and so on. Consistency between items in very similar Codices is not hard. Bitching about 'large' documents or... for God's sake... John's insultingly stupid 'stagnation' idea doesn't change the fact that GW is just lazy and doesn't give two sh!ts about their rules.

God, if Warrick of all people can make every IA book a Copypasta extravaganza, then it should be quite easy to keep a document where the rules for weapons are kept and they just copypaste from them.

Plus it just kinda flies in the face of what Jervis said a while back, where he saw that they had taken for granted that players knew what everything was, so when his son wasn't sure what weapon was what he decided that it would probably be a good idea to have a section in each Codex that explains what the weapons are, that way people will build up a knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and what their rules are. Now he seems to have reversed this point of view in another classic example of GW changing horses mid-race, and now we're in the opposite situation, where rather than having one set of rules for the same weapon in every book but new players not knowing what each thing is, we have pictures of everything, but different rules from book to book. And to then go on to say that keeping them the same goes in GW's 'too hard' basket? Come on.

How can this be considered a good thing, at all?

BYE

Perhaps it is a secret plan to help prevent players developing Alzheimer's disease.

Got it in one Killkrazy. They're doing us a vital medical service. Why didn't I see it!!!

BYE

It's easy to win arguments isn't it Shummy, especially when you get to move straw-filled goal posts around. Who said it would be a 'large' document? And what has this got to do with erata ayway? 'Course, I never said anything about any of those - but you go on thinking that if it makes it easier for you to score 'points' in this argument.

I'm just getting the straw from your mountainous barn sir.

What this is about is is getting it right first time around.

No, it really isn't. The precedent set by stormshields in third edition should not be maintained all the way into fifth. If they followed that logic every time they wanted to update a ruling, stat, or piece of wargear they would have to reprint every codex that it was initially in. Hellhounds don't force people to run away anymore, that change didn't get spread across all codexes evenly. It still hasn't. Yet the inferno canon is the inferno canon.

And personally I think it's far less confusing to say "A Storm Shield does X" rather than "This storm shield does X, this one does Y, this one does Y as well but costs +B more than the other one for no apparent reason..." and so on. Consistency between items in very similar Codices is not hard. Bitching about 'large' documents or... for God's sake... John's insultingly stupid 'stagnation' idea doesn't change the fact that GW is just lazy and doesn't give two sh!ts about their rules.

Stormshields were trash in 3rd through fourth. They still would be if they were still a 4+ save. Should they have kept it then? Why? Just so your dark angel force could feel like its keeping up with the joneses by continuing to never use them? That is stagnation. Thats like saying the assault canon should have never been made better because supplement codexes had a different version.

God, if Warrick of all people can make every IA book a Copypasta extravaganza, then it should be quite easy to keep a document where the rules for weapons are kept and they just copypaste from them.

Unfortunately IA caters to a totally different market then the core game. I've been playing this thing for years and I don't own a single foregworld model because my obsession doesn't run that deep. Most people in this game don't carry around faq booklets, ask any warmachine player how fun FAQing everything is and you will get an idea on why games workshop (the casual gaming company) doesn't do it.

Plus it just kinda flies in the face of what Jervis said a while back, where he saw that they had taken for granted that players knew what everything was, so when his son wasn't sure what weapon was what he decided that it would probably be a good idea to have a section in each Codex that explains what the weapons are, that way people will build up a knowledge of what things are, what they look like, and what their rules are. Now he seems to have reversed this point of view in another classic example of GW changing horses mid-race, and now we're in the opposite situation, where rather than having one set of rules for the same weapon in every book but new players not knowing what each thing is, we have pictures of everything, but different rules from book to book. And to then go on to say that keeping them the same goes in GW's 'too hard' basket? Come on.

Oh give it a god damn break. Storm shields are useful now. Would you rather they simply take them out of the book? Your argument is childish and selfish. You don't like having this one change because it probably makes one of your armies (I would guess witch/daemon hunters) a tiny bit weaker by comparison. Assault termies were trash in fourth. They were trash in third. They are still marginal at best. This change just buffed a single wargear item so that it could be useful on independant characters that already had a 4+ save and overpriced assault units. When the space wolf codex comes out it will get the updated ruling, whenever the next chaos book comes out (probably the legion books) they will get the new ruling.

AND THE WORLD WILL KEEP ON SPINNING

If they followed your little mantra we would still be using the craphat old assault canon, Stormshields would still be attached to sprues in trash bins everywhere, hellifire rounds for heavy bolters wouldn't exist, the land speeder storm would be an apoc only unit, and the hellhound would still be trying to force fearless units to run away and causing a rules mobious strip to envelop the earth in a black hole in doing so.

They don't update every single book when a new edition comes out. Trying to do so would bankrupt them and piss off the community. They also don't FAQ for balance and consistency reasons, only for rules questions. In doing so they accomplish what they set out to do, which is require a player only to have a codex rulebook and army to play a game. All things readily available on a shelf. Besides, why do you of all people even care? You don't USE the rules as written and you don't play in tournaments by your own admittence. So why the hell have you climbed on this soapbox to decry a lack of FAQing or consistency that you don't even bother with using?

ShumaGorath wrote: Your argument is childish and selfish. You don't like having this one change because it probably makes one of your armies (I would guess witch/daemon hunters) a tiny bit weaker by comparison.

Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

Funny thing is, how powerful his Storm Shields are is not affected in the least by any chance that GW makes to the rules, as he plays by the rules that his group developed instead of the GW ones.

skyth wrote:Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

I don't expect any more from him really. I mean, when your argument against "I want consistent rules" is "You're being selfish" you've lost already. The only thing you've got left is to attack the other side personally.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

skyth wrote:Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

I don't expect any more from him really. I mean, when your argument against "I want consistent rules" is "You're being selfish" you've lost already. The only thing you've got left is to attack the other side personally.

Yes, being called a troll by one of the boards most longstanding and notorious trolls. If I were a lesser man the irony could well kill me where I sit. As for your argument, you aren't arguing for consistent rules, and if you are you should probably find out who has been writing your posts. What you want is consistency at the cost of balance and stagnant ruling. You are arguing for consistently bad rules. Or you want FAQ documents. I can't really tell, you're having a hard time framing an argument between the anti GW rants. Since you you have refused to believe in the stagnation angle and apparently don't think that FAQing all the codexes would be needed I can only guess that you want everything to maintain the exact same ruling in every new release. In that case I would ask what you would propose happen to things like the overpriced and bad old stormshields?

Nice way of attacking HBMC instead of his argument.

Funny thing is, how powerful his Storm Shields are is not affected in the least by any chance that GW makes to the rules, as he plays by the rules that his group developed instead of the GW ones.

And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

ShumaGorath wrote:And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

Once your post devolves into the bullying 'You're a bad person if you don't agree with me' personal attacks that are ruined the game, then there isn't much point in reading farther.

Heh. Maybe the problem is all the SM support. Large fan base = more frequent updates, which eventually = high number of confusing changes here, but not there. Give these marines this, but don't give it to those marines... yet.
Since the dawn of 2nd edition I have yearned for a way to strip space marines of their fan base and distribute it evenly to more interesting armies, so GW will be forced to give equal attention and balance to all those armies. Instead, we have these slowed problems.

Seriously guys, quit playing SMs.
Polls show that SM players are 98.6% less physically attractive to women. These women don't even know the test subjects play 40K. Whereas IG, Tau, Ork and Eldar players are shown to be 89.6% more successful at acquiring all the women they want. Is loyalty to bell-bottom wearing, religious nut-cases really worth the sacrifice?

skyth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And if you had read my entire post you would have seen that the last two sentences were dedicated to that single thing. But you didn't.

Once your post devolves into the bullying 'You're a bad person if you don't agree with me' personal attacks that are ruined the game, then there isn't much point in reading farther.

You must miss a lot of posts by HBMC, johnhuang, stelek, polonious, myself and a couple of others then. Don't let tough words keep you from reading, sometimes people make good points after they call a spade a spade.

Not to mention when you miss something and comment on it like you did it makes you look just as bad as the people your railing against.

ShumaGorath wrote:[

You must miss a lot of posts by HBMC, johnhuang, stelek, polonious, myself and a couple of others then. Don't let tough words keep you from reading, sometimes people make good points after they call a spade a spade.

Not to mention when you miss something and comment on it like you did it makes you look just as bad as the people your railing against.

I'm not sure how comfortable I am being in that company (although I wish I could be as funny as HBMC consistently is). I make a conscious effort to be polite but honest in my writings and I certainly do everything to avoid personal insults. As far as I can tell, you're the first person to have any sort of problem with the way I post. If there are people that have problems with me, then I'd love to hear from them.

In all honesty, you seem like the kind of guy that likes to argue every point, every time, with every person. That's fine, and it's certainly not a bad quality, but it will tend to raise people's ire; particularly when combined with forum debating techniques that are more focused on "winning" than on proving a point. You can take this as a personal attack, or you can take it as a comment on why people respond negatively to you and threads you post in tend to get locked.

ShumaGorath wrote:
- quote=H.B.M.C.
- - quote=skyth

Yes, being called a troll by one of the boards most longstanding and notorious trolls.

*gets out popcorn*
____

@Polonius: You're a great guy, and I don't think that Shuma was hinting at anything personal there. I read it more that Shuma was saying that you're not afraid to state a position and and stand by it.

You stay out of this DD. You're worse than me and Shummy put together.

Anyway, this thread has devolved into Shummy's ego demanding he respond to everything that everyone says, so I'm going to be the one who cuts and runs away now because I'm tired of this sh!t. I apologise if I offended anyone - even you Shummy - except for John, that is, as everything I've ever said about him is 100% true.

I started this thread to post a few rumours and bits of news that someone got, and to bring attention to GW's unwillingness to write consistent rules, and . Some people defended their stance (mindboggling as that may be). Ok, be happy with your inconsistent, badly constructed and unbalanced rulesets. Fine with me.

Meanwhile I'm heading over to the official site of another game company where they just released new Campaign rules - the ones they use to design their campaigns - for free, along with a new small campaign supplement for only US$5. Let's see GW do that...

I'm done.

BYE

While this thread started out with some good, though even in the eyes of the main poster's perspective, maybe questionable information the rest of this thread can really be summed up by this post alone.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

....FAIL....

ShumaGorath wrote:
I did it for the same reason you just posted this paragraph. Whatever that reason may be were both using it to construct the more inflammatory of our comments.

Actually I was asking a simple question. You took it as an inflammatory remark because you aren't interested in debating a point. You're interested in being 'right'. Without any regard to whether or not that 'right' position has any actual merit.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Unfortunately storm shields are not really standardized across the imperium. They have also remained relatively the same for the last 10 thousand years. So just calling something mark II when you want to upgrade in a single book is pretty unfluffy. It also wouldn't solve much since these arguments don't exist because it's confusing. A five year old could understand that the same thing has two effects in two different books. It's not hard. These arguments stem from the fact that people do not like how the space marines got a seemingly better upgrade item then their chapter and witch/daemonhunter counterparts without reason. No one ever whined this much when the inferno canon changes because no one cared about the interbook consistency. The new Inferno Canon wasn't much better than the old one so no one "wanted it" bad enough to care.

Who said you had to call it 'mk II'? Come on dude, creativity is the life blood of a game like 40k, if GW really can't do any better they deserve to be doing as terribly, in a fiscal sense, as they are. Moreover, it isn't like GW hasn't changed the fluff before. If that's what standing in their way a creating an effective rule set then there is no hope for them.

It isn't a matter of the system being confusing. It also isn't a matter of the system being based on 'envy' as you put it. Its a matter of GW organizing their rules in such a way that is conducive to regular updates.

ShumaGorath wrote:
People like HBMC and abababababababbababababab just like to rant against games workshop no matter how or why. HBMC doesn't even have a consistent platform for his opinion on this issue other than "GW is wrong". He doesn't want FAQing, he doesn't want updated rulebooks, and he won't comment on whether or not he thinks upgrades between codexes for balance purposes are good or bad. He just knows GW writes bad rules because they don't care.

As opposed to ranting about HBMC, abby, and everyone else are wrong because all they want to do is talk about how 'GW wrong'? If that's the line of reasoning your going to take I suggest you develop a debate style which amounts to more than self-superior argumentative posturing.

@ John:

Look, i'm not advocating constant power creep. You say that having two kinds of storm sheilds makes for a difference between armies. It does, but it basically means there are armies that will take them and those that won't. The 4++ saves were a product of 4th edition, when a cover save wasn't what it is today. The world changed, and what was previously a mediocre unit is now even less essential.

I guess there are two ways of looking at it. One is that GW crafted DA, thinking every choice through and is comfortable with 4++ storm sheilds. The other is that they just kept the old rule despite everybody thinking they sucked 10 years ago. I think the latter is more likely.

Finally, I think the best way to end homogenization is to make more options palatable. But that's just me. Yes, people will always take what's best, but having more options that aren't auto-fail is a boon for casual gamers and even fluff tourney gamers looking for a challenge.

And yes, I think the crack about "wanting everything to be good and staying that way" coupled with a list of overpowered units was a crack at people that want to win.

However, if GW goes back down the Chapter Approved path, then that's bad. I'm not carrying a backpack full of WDs with rules changing articles and hand-printed FAQs just to play the game.

From a practical standpoint, having 1 rulebook and 1 Codex is ideal. It is simple and clear.

And far superior to massed Chapter Approved updates for the sake of updates.

Right here is an example of why discussing anything with you is infuriating. I specifically conjectured a few sheets of paper, and your response was that you won't want to carry a backpack full of White Dwarfs. You're saying that you don't want a D&D style library, and I agree, except that WASN'T WHAT I SUGGESTED!

Again, would a few sheets of paper, updated a few times a year, be that onerous? If so, explain how..

Actually I was asking a simple question. You took it as an inflammatory remark because you aren't interested in debating a point. You're interested in being 'right'. Without any regard to whether or not that 'right' position has any actual merit.

Actually it was a strong implication veiled in a rhetorical question. You didn't want an answer any more than I want one when I ask someone "have you stopped beating your wife?".

are of the system being confusing. It also isn't a matter of the system being based on 'envy' as you put it. Its a matter of GW organizing their rules in such a way that is conducive to regular updates.

If that was what this argument was about then I would have seen it the last couple of times they had done this. But it's not and this is all new. This is games workshops modus operandi. They update incrementally between books with long staggered releases and treat each of the books as self contained and self balanced documents. When you buff one you don't have to carry that to the others because it can easily become ubalancing. 30 stormshield wielding assault termies in 12 man land raiders wouldn't make the dark Angel book passable. It would make it stupid to play against. These buffs come in because they are within a document that balances them in a pretext. Normal marines can't mix termy squads, their independant characters automatically pay for the 4+ inv they have and their land raiders don't get the dark angels supersmoke launchers any more.

When the IG codex gets updated they aren't going to make the witchunters stormtroopers or chimeras any cheaper, will we see this "discussion" pop up again? And when they update the space wolf books to reflect these newer rulings will we hear the same outcry?

As opposed to ranting about HBMC, abby, and everyone else are wrong because all they want to do is talk about how 'GW wrong'? If that's the line of reasoning your going to take I suggest you develop a debate style which amounts to more than self-superior argumentative posturing.

Actually I can post content and self aggrandize at the same time. It's not even hard. I've done it in every post I've made and I've been fairly consistent with it. What you could try and do is dedicate at least half of your posts to actually debating the topic at hand rather than commenting on other peoples poor debating styles while ironically implying your own superiority in doing so.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And that's a good thing. The last thing we need is to carry 4 or 5 Rulebooks / updates just to have a complete current army list. Or a Focus / Rage mechanic with lots of little status cards for each model on the board.

Pah to all the book-carrying, that's why the rules for WM units are printed on those cards. So you only have to regularly those, plus any FAQs, clarifcations etc. that might apply. The latter are a bunch of sheets of paper, hardly backbreaking.

As for the Focus mechanic, I think the average gamer can handle the strain of pushing small glass beads around to signify something rules-related. If not, that's what notepads and pencils are for. It's hardly different from having to remember which sorcerer cast Warptime this turn, how many Faith points you have, and what Daemonhost rolled which power, etc.

Look, i'm not advocating constant power creep. You say that having two kinds of storm sheilds makes for a difference between armies. It does, but it basically means there are armies that will take them and those that won't. The 4++ saves were a product of 4th edition, when a cover save wasn't what it is today. The world changed, and what was previously a mediocre unit is now even less essential.

I guess there are two ways of looking at it. One is that GW crafted DA, thinking every choice through and is comfortable with 4++ storm sheilds. The other is that they just kept the old rule despite everybody thinking they sucked 10 years ago. I think the latter is more likely.

I think it was a mix of both. They were likely uncomfortable with making one supplement codex have superior equipment to the primary and all other supplements. I can guarantee you the player outcry would have been much louder and more angry then it is now. It could also simply be that at the time (back in fourth when land raiders and land speeders could score) they simply didn't think that they needed the buff, and that it simply wasn't worth the drama.

In the new ruleset, especially with consolidating into opposing squads removed assault termies really needed a buff. They couldn't become less expensive because the 40 point value of terminator armor is a consistent part of their design and players probably wouldn't like their elite superunit being "cheapened". They also couldn't be made better offensively, because that wouldn't help the problem and they are already quite destructive. So they simply decided to make them less vulnerable to plasma/melta/demolisher equivalent weapons and high initiative powerweapon squads like banshees. It was a change that I think needed to come in the base book so it could branch out to the supplements and it was most needed because of changes in fifth. The dark angels just got the short end of the stick by predating fifth but being the last codex before the revised primary.

To be fair Shuma, you really do tend to focus a lot on "winning" than simply on meaningful discussion. Yes, you can do both, but it pisses people off and makes people think less of you at the expense of your valid points. You know this, and you continue to post in "persona." By doing that, you are essentially saying that you'd rather have the persona than have your comments be as widely listened to as possible. If you really felt that communication was your priority, you would tone done the argument games in favor of more direct discussion. More people would listen and more people would agree. The fact that you don't is telling to me.

Polonius wrote:To be fair Shuma, you really do tend to focus a lot on "winning" than simply on meaningful discussion. Yes, you can do both, but it pisses people off and makes people think less of you at the expense of your valid points. You know this, and you continue to post in "persona." By doing that, you are essentially saying that you'd rather have the persona than have your comments be as widely listened to as possible. If you really felt that communication was your priority, you would tone done the argument games in favor of more direct discussion. More people would listen and more people would agree. The fact that you don't is telling to me.

Your last two sentences rhymed.


I can debate politely and without vociferous emotion. I do it rather often. I just can't do it when debating with other people that refuse to do the same because my reasoned opinions get lost in the shuffle. If I stoop to the level of HBMC, stelek, or abadabaononononfudsgidgj then I can debate with them. It simply changes the frame of the debate. If I don't then they trample all over my opinions and reinforce their own without what is in their mind meaningful disagreement to their points. I respond to your points specifically because I prefer reasoned and point driven debates. If you disagreed with HBMC I very much doubt you would receive the same deference that I or JohnHuang give (or at least that I give, john looks like he's getting mad).

As for being unable to frame my opinions reasonably, my last post, which was in its entirety a response to you was I think quite reasonable. Look at who I'm talking too, I usually mirror their debate style in my posts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm not calling everybody powergamers, nor bad people. But I think they are very misguided in understanding how Codices and balance actually works. If everything is "good" then nothing is good. And to do that, the variations must necessarily become smaller to the point of not having them. That is, I rail against these notions that drive everything towards bland homogenization.

I think the main issue that people have is the disparity between broken, good and bad units within the same Codex. Using the CSM Codex as an example, Lash Princes are considered broken. I would say the standard CSM is a fairly good unit. Dreads, possessed and spaw are utterly useless and thus are bad units. I think most people would agree that with some fairly minor tweaking that wouldn't take more than a day of play testing, all the units could be brought in line with the good. To your point, everything being good makes nothing special, but it allows you to play the army in different manners and thus have different lists and strategies for those lists.

To use Warmachine as an example. Most of the units are solid, however some work better with certian compositions than others. The list I take with one style of Warcaster is going to be different than the list I take with another Warcaster. Irusk is troop heavy, while Karchev is jack heavy. Either way, I have solid options at all slots and with some rare exceptions (Sorsha & Haley), I can take any army have a good shot at winning.

GW doesn't balance their armies for real world gameplay as far as I can tell. They play some crap fluff list or look at it on paper and think how great something is. They then look at what sold last edition, what they want to sell this edition and edit the rules to represent that. Khorne was a big seller in 4th, now they aren't nearly as powerful being replaced by Nurgle as the prefered god. I find it amazing the Possessed were bad last edition and are now worse this edition, even though they got new models.

All I want is solid, not broken, units. If they are in the Codex, they should be solid and make me ponder if I should take them. I should look at the unit, read the rules, laugh and move on because it sucks so bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I can debate politely and without vociferous emotion. I do it rather often. I just can't do it when debating with other people that refuse to do the same because my reasoned opinions get lost in the shuffle. If I stoop to the level of HBMC, stelek, or abadabaononononfudsgidgj then I can debate with them. It simply changes the frame of the debate. If I don't then they trample all over my opinions and reinforce their own without what is in their mind meaningful disagreement to their points. I respond to your points specifically because I prefer reasoned and point driven debates. If you disagreed with HBMC I very much doubt you would receive the same deference that I or JohnHuang give (or at least that I give, john looks like he's getting mad).

As for being unable to frame my opinions reasonably, my last post, which was in its entirety a response to you was I think quite reasonable. Look at who I'm talking too, I usually mirror their debate style in my posts.

Fair enough, and it's your decision how you post. I guess I'd just point out that internet discussions don't exist to change mind between the participants, they exist to sway third party readers. And third parties don't' always know to whom your responding. All they see is you posting like a jerk, and they assume you're a jerk. Do you really think you can change John's mind through any posting method? Of course not, the man has never once been wrong. Post like a professional, post like a jerk, post in swahili: he won't change his mind. Responding in kind doesn't accomplish anything. If somebody is being a jerk, you simply restate your views and support them and move on. Getting into a mud fight makes you dirty too.

To use Warmachine as an example. Most of the units are solid, however some work better with certian compositions than others. The list I take with one style of Warcaster is going to be different than the list I take with another Warcaster. Irusk is troop heavy, while Karchev is jack heavy. Either way, I have solid options at all slots and with some rare exceptions (Sorsha & Haley), I can take any army have a good shot at winning.

Watch out how you frame the warmachine balance thing. Most players who were around at the start remember the serious and obvious power creep every time a new edition came out. When I quit the game most of the units in the base book were totally useless because the latter books had stepped up the power level significantly and seemingly without reason. I have not played in years though so they may well have fixed these issues.

Fair enough, and it's your decision how you post. I guess I'd just point out that internet discussions don't exist to change mind between the participants, they exist to sway third party readers. And third parties don't' always know to whom your responding. All they see is you posting like a jerk, and they assume you're a jerk. Do you really think you can change John's mind through any posting method? Of course not, the man has never once been wrong. Post like a professional, post like a jerk, post in swahili: he won't change his mind. Responding in kind doesn't accomplish anything. If somebody is being a jerk, you simply restate your views and support them and move on. Getting into a mud fight makes you dirty too

I post to debate with the people I am debating with in a format that is easy to keep track of and has third party moderation. I don't post to sway the masses. Maybe you do, but I genuinly believe that a discussion between parties should involve those parties specifically and should be designed to sway opinions. Also has anyone actually tried posting in swahili?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it was a strong implication veiled in a rhetorical question. You didn't want an answer any more than I want one when I ask someone "have you stopped beating your wife?".

There is a difference between me not wanting an answer an you being unable to provide one because an over-aggrandized personal ego. Take the criticism that was intended and be better for it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If that was what this argument was about then I would have seen it the last couple of times they had done this. But it's not and this is all new. This is games workshops modus operandi. They update incrementally between books with long staggered releases and treat each of the books as self contained and self balanced documents.

Yea? And? I'm saying that is a poor approach to game design because it leads to a lot of internal inconsistency that ends up as bad balance. Moreover, this is what HBMC has been advocating for some time. Your constant need to argue, and be 'proven' right, has prevented you from actually reading what is being written on this website.

ShumaGorath wrote:
When you buff one you don't have to carry that to the others because it can easily become ubalancing. 30 stormshield wielding assault termies in 12 man land raiders wouldn't make the dark Angel book passable. It would make it stupid to play against. These buffs come in because they are within a document that balances them in a pretext. Normal marines can't mix termy squads, their independant characters automatically pay for the 4+ inv they have and their land raiders don't get the dark angels supersmoke launchers any more.

Which is why standardizing cross-codex items would make the game easier to balance. You would have a better defined playing field on which new armies could be tested. You aren't even making an argument against my point here, just describing the way GW currently does things. Do you think what they do now is good policy? Or are you just arguing because it makes you feel smart?

ShumaGorath wrote:
When the IG codex gets updated they aren't going to make the witchunters stormtroopers or chimeras any cheaper, will we see this "discussion" pop up again? And when they update the space wolf books to reflect these newer rulings will we hear the same outcry?

There is a difference between changing the cost of an item, and the effect of an item. You're arguing that they can't do anything else given their current approach. I'm arguing that their current approach if foolish. I'm not going to argue your point, because I believe its self-fulfilling prophecy: "GW is what GW is, so let GW be what GW is." You're welcome to argue mine, but I doubt you will because you don't seem to have the desire, or capacity to think in original ways.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually I can post content and self aggrandize at the same time. It's not even hard. I've done it in every post I've made and I've been fairly consistent with it. What you could try and do is dedicate at least half of your posts to actually debating the topic at hand rather than commenting on other peoples poor debating styles while ironically implying your own superiority in doing so.

Maybe you can, but your last post was pure aggrandizement. Here's a better idea though. Why don't you take other people's view into consideration when forming your own, and admit you have changed perspective when you do. That way other people may actually feel it is worth their time to discuss the merit of your ideas. As opposed to laughing at the fact that you frequently utilize strawman arguments, and fluctuating personal definitions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I post to debate with the people I am debating with in a format that is easy to keep track of and has third party moderation. I don't post to sway the masses. Maybe you do, but I genuinly believe that a discussion between parties should involve those parties specifically and should be designed to sway opinions. Also has anyone actually tried posting in swahili?

If that's your plan, then godspeed. I wonder why you wouldn't just PM the person at that point then. I also have to wonder how often you've seen a person say "yeah, I guess you're right" in an internet discussion. Even in minor matters, people tend to get pretty entrenched online. I envy you if you'd had productive discussions where people genuinely change their minds. I guess my parting question would be "how often are you the one that changes his mind?"

Mod mode:

Ok shutting down the thread. The personal attacks died off but are back and are not forwarding the point of the thread. If anyone wishes to re-open the thread please report or PM Yakface on the item.

Mod mode off.