It's silly to defend GW for these things though when you look at their gross margins, which are higher/comparable to Apple's. They don't *have* pay out large dividends, they choose to do that. And compare their margin to other players in their space; Hasbro, for instance.
I agree, it's complicated and not soulless, but GW 100% could take a small hit, especially if it benefited them going forward. I don't think they'll be able to sell expensive, short lived, erroneous books into perpetuity.
Margins are only that high if you're looking at pandemic sales though, which mostly went through the website - their highest margin outlet.
I do think change is possible though - Ordana's point seems most likely to happen.
I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.
Sim-Life wrote: I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.
GW were printing a lot of supplements in 7th right? What was different about 8th? Simpler core rules and more playtesting, Errata and FAQ.
Sim-Life wrote: I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.
GW were printing a lot of supplements in 7th right? What was different about 8th? Simpler core rules and more playtesting, Errata and FAQ.
Warhammer-Community happend
not "more" playtesting, Errata/FaQ but "at all" as there was no playtesting, no Errata and no FAQ until the end of 7th
and if there was a FAQ, there were random answers doing the very opposite and instead of solving problems created more
with 8th there was the turnaround of "we don't care about the game or the community" to "this time we try"
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.
Sim-Life wrote: I didn't realise COVID was around for all of 8th when GWs profits began to gather it's momentum and get higher than ever. The lockdowns may have given their profits a bump but it was during 8th and before COVID that GW recovered itself and reclaimed it's position as the supreme despot of wargaming and started raking in cash.
GW were printing a lot of supplements in 7th right? What was different about 8th? Simpler core rules and more playtesting, Errata and FAQ.
Warhammer-Community happend
not "more" playtesting, Errata/FaQ but "at all" as there was no playtesting, no Errata and no FAQ until the end of 7th
and if there was a FAQ, there were random answers doing the very opposite and instead of solving problems created more
with 8th there was the turnaround of "we don't care about the game or the community" to "this time we try"
It was really more "we'll try to try" then became "we'll say we're trying to try" to "we're not really trying anymore, buy this supplement, it has more stratagems that are sure to fix everything".
The 8th reboot just brought back a lot of people who'd left in 7th and the simplified rules brought back old players. That was all really. It speaks volumes about the Kirby era that ditching him and re-working the game increased GW profits to record levels.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.
While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.
While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.
But the idea that new models are broken is demonstrably false. Its really the opposite if anything.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
I feel like people need to stop using this as an example, seeing as a lot has changed since then and where we are now. We have no evidence that current GW still operates this way.
While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.
But the idea that new models are broken is demonstrably false. Its really the opposite if anything.
Space Marine Centurions and Primaris Reivers were both absolute garbage on release and the vast majority of releases are simply just ok, not broken.
Warp Talons, OK. Dinobots, good but not broken. Bunch of Primaris stuff, good but not broken.
stonehorse wrote: While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.
Models sell. No one is sweeping the tables with these guys, but they still sold out, because they're god damn amazing:
Enough people bought the Snagga box to sell that out and now those models are collecting dust.
There's a whole segment of hobbyists that buy models just to make them look amazing for painting competitions.
Gert wrote: Space Marine Centurions and Primaris Reivers were both absolute garbage on release and the vast majority of releases are simply just ok, not broken.
Warp Talons, OK. Dinobots, good but not broken. Bunch of Primaris stuff, good but not broken.
To add to this: for Stormcast most of the good stuff are models that already existed as well in AoS. One of the consistently best armies, Daughters of Khaine, is 90% models that came out in either WFB 8th or the End Times.
GW usually breaks the game with "this sounds cool and we think the playtesters are over reacting with how broken it can be" stuff over stuff like the Wraithknight (which is still paying for it's past sins).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: the_scotsman just gave a overview of the last dozen or so releases a page back.
You can continue the list with most Primaris releases for this edition.
It is demonstrably false
Very false for sure. But the fact that GW has that perception isn't a great thing though. I think it's a transitive property thing where people looks at power creep by books like Ad Mech and Drukhari and make the connection that newer = stronger. It doesn't help that GW has a habit of not going back to buff weak units (who are often old) and focusing on nerfing the strongest ones.
stonehorse wrote: While they may have toned down the level seen previously, that doesn't mean that GW are going to suddenly do a 180 degree flip. Sales come before anything else, hence the all too common bait & switch sales tactic.
Models sell. No one is sweeping the tables with these guys, but they still sold out, because they're god damn amazing:
Enough people bought the Snagga box to sell that out and now those models are collecting dust.
There's a whole segment of hobbyists that buy models just to make them look amazing for painting competitions.
Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.
None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.
Its a form of survivorship bias. The power GW gives to things is essentially determined by throwing a dart at the board - but people only care if that unit is high up the power curve. If its average it produces a shrug from the competitive scene, and if actively bad (which I think is rarer than before but still happens) we all laugh that GW doesn't understand their own game etc etc.
Usually however in a new codex or wave of models *something* will usually be up there and we can all talk about that. Until it inevitably gets nerfed or over time the whole curve moves up sufficiently that its no longer outstanding.
stonehorse wrote: Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.
None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.
I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.
stonehorse wrote: Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.
None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.
I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.
3rd edition Necron Codex Destroyers were the workhorse of the Codex. Used the movement and shooting rules for Eldar Jetbikes, fantastic stat line, and a ridiculously gun weapon. All backed up with a wonderful model.
Roll on to the next Necron Codex in 5th edition and Destroyers saw a huge reduction in power, while going up in points if I recall correctly. Meanwhile those new Tomb Blades with the new expensive plastic kit were as good as Destoyers were previously, and cheaper.
Then comes along the next Necron Codex, and guess what happened? Destroyers were back to being good, while Tomb Blades were middle of the road.
I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, in those decades I have seen countless examples of the above happen across various factions. GW have employed bait & switch tactics as their model to sell over priced plastic.
The Wraith Knight was referencing how play testing doesn't happen in isolation, the sales department will be applying pressure of what they want to sell... that doesn't mean that every new release is stellar, some come with rules that are D.O.A. however those are too far & few. Those ones I personally think are models that the playtesters/rule designers had little to no interference from the sales department, and indicate that the way GW play their games in house, is far removed from how people in the wider community play their games... Gav Thorpes views on Eldar Guardians from 3rd edition springs to mind as an example of that.
stonehorse wrote: Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.
None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.
I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.
3rd edition Necron Codex Destroyers were the workhorse of the Codex. Used the movement and shooting rules for Eldar Jetbikes, fantastic stat line, and a ridiculously gun weapon. All backed up with a wonderful model.
Roll on to the next Necron Codex in 5th edition and Destroyers saw a huge reduction in power, while going up in points if I recall correctly. Meanwhile those new Tomb Blades with the new expensive plastic kit were as good as Destoyers were previously, and cheaper.
Then comes along the next Necron Codex, and guess what happened? Destroyers were back to being good, while Tomb Blades were middle of the road.
I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, in those decades I have seen countless examples of the above happen across various factions. GW have employed bait & switch tactics as their model to sell over priced plastic.
The Wraith Knight was referencing how play testing doesn't happen in isolation, the sales department will be applying pressure of what they want to sell... that doesn't mean that every new release is stellar, some come with rules that are D.O.A. however those are too far & few. Those ones I personally think are models that the playtesters/rule designers had little to no interference from the sales department, and indicate that the way GW play their games in house, is far removed from how people in the wider community play their games... Gav Thorpes views on Eldar Guardians from 3rd edition springs to mind as an example of that.
This is still basically saying "new releases are OP". Even continuing to use the necron book as an example triarch praetorians, lychguard, flayed ones, monoliths, obilisks, that new terrain thing, maybe deathmarks (?) all got new models as well and they've all only ever been bad to mediocre. Maybe some were decent in 7th? I dunno. Same goes for the nid book. Most of their big monsters from 7th were terrible except for the tervigon on release and have remained so. The tyrannofex and exorcirne got some time to shine briefly but that quickly faded I think when 8th was released but you don't see people spamming maleceptors or hive crones.
GW did playtest prior to 8th, you can find articles, interviews or testimonials or something like that about some playtesters from back in the day.
Tomb Blades weren't good in 5th, it was fast vehicles that were king for Necrons in 5th. CCBs, ABs, Ghost Arks, then Night Scythes and Doom Scythes took over in 6th.
Every Necron unit was decent in 7th pretty much, the best units were Scarabs, Wraiths, Spyders and Destroyers. Warriors, Immortals and Tomb Blades were literally mandatory.
GW being bad at balance has immense explanatory power, it explains why they sometimes make tiny buffs that aren't nearly enough to make a terrible unit worth taking, it explains why they sometimes overshoot buffs on mediocre models and make them OP or buff the wrong unit, like that time they buffed Bullgryn instead of Ogryn.
The profit motive conspiracy theory explains 33% of what happens (when bad units become good and vice versa), but fails to explain the remaining stuff GW does in terms of balancing (making mediocre units better or worse, making good units better or bad units worse).
It's arguable that the Wraithknight thing was just laziness rather than profit-motivated, it was already an OP unit, it must have sold quite a lot already, although 7th edition's take whatever you want rules might have gotten people to buy another 2-4 Wraith Knights. Pushing units that were dead in 6th would have made more sense if GW were evil profit-men and not lazy fluff-boyos.
stonehorse wrote: Yes, and none of that dismisses that GW are guilty of bait & switch. Models sell for various reasons, no one is saying that they only sell due to their ability in 40k. Some models sell due to nostalgia, case in point the Gaunts Ghost's models. Some as you say for painting, and will never see a gaming table in their life.
None of that is about how GW market their models, those are about why some people buy models that has nothing to do with the 40k game.
I think an explanation of what you understand under "bait & switch" is necessary to have a proper discussion. In it's original form that would only be applicable to limited release boxes to a degree. When you originally gave the example of the Wraith Knight, people assumed you are talking about "releasing new stuff that is more OP than the previous things so people will buy the new models". The WK is not an example of bait & switch with the usual definition.
3rd edition Necron Codex Destroyers were the workhorse of the Codex. Used the movement and shooting rules for Eldar Jetbikes, fantastic stat line, and a ridiculously gun weapon. All backed up with a wonderful model.
Roll on to the next Necron Codex in 5th edition and Destroyers saw a huge reduction in power, while going up in points if I recall correctly. Meanwhile those new Tomb Blades with the new expensive plastic kit were as good as Destoyers were previously, and cheaper.
Then comes along the next Necron Codex, and guess what happened? Destroyers were back to being good, while Tomb Blades were middle of the road.
I've been playing 40k since 2nd edition, in those decades I have seen countless examples of the above happen across various factions. GW have employed bait & switch tactics as their model to sell over priced plastic.
The Wraith Knight was referencing how play testing doesn't happen in isolation, the sales department will be applying pressure of what they want to sell... that doesn't mean that every new release is stellar, some come with rules that are D.O.A. however those are too far & few. Those ones I personally think are models that the playtesters/rule designers had little to no interference from the sales department, and indicate that the way GW play their games in house, is far removed from how people in the wider community play their games... Gav Thorpes views on Eldar Guardians from 3rd edition springs to mind as an example of that.
What you saw in older editions was an unorganized flailing of competing ideas that had no quality control or care for the outcome.
GW is doing well because of inertia. There are other better games with better monetization schemes, but GW is close to "too big to fail" (at least within the minis gaming space). It isn't helped by the fact that the influx of consensus-minded people into the gaming space over the last ten years or so has dramatically increased the amount of "gamers" who see GW's ubiquity and gakky corporate attitude as plusses.
This is one of the best no-politics rule dodges I've seen in a while, good job! Also, bonus points for the implication that it's the side of the aisle that most famously loves corporations encouraging gw's attitude, that's extra funny.
I do love conversations about GW making things better and worse on purpose and the arguments that they don't do that at all because both sides tend to forget something key:
GW may very well be trying to make new units good and old units less appealing because people already own them, but are just so bad at writing rules, that they often get it wrong. I mean, we're know they're bad at rules, so what would suddenly make them hyper-skilled at writing rules for just the new stuff? If they're bad at one part, they're going to be bad at the others.
Daedalus81 wrote: What you saw in older editions was an unorganized flailing of competing ideas that had no quality control or care for the outcome.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
Not much changed. Playtesters weren't asked about board sizes and points were all done with no input asked or taken by the time playtesters got the rules.
To the OP, use your models in Grimdark Future. You'll have a blast and not be bogged down in a system that has geographical layers of rules, and free yourself from chasing a perpetual sales machine/cycle.
Not much changed. Playtesters weren't asked about board sizes and points were all done with no input asked or taken by the time playtesters got the rules.
For gw playtesters are more of typo spotters
Some playtesters tried out Drukhari with D6 damage dark lances and were never told before release that the dark lance was getting changed to D3+3 damage, that sounds a lot like "don't bother testing if the changing Wraithknight weapons from S10 to SD is going to make them broken". I do think maybe playtesters help move the meta along faster and discover broken combos so they can be fixed sooner rather than later, GW might not even have had the knowledge of what even needed fixing in 7th. I think that's part of the danger of the game being too complex, to bring it back on topic a bit, it's not possible to keep everything in check when there are this many Chapter Tactics and Stratagems and Combat Doctrines, the game becomes too hard to balance. How much is a dark lance Drukhari Raider worth in a meta with Salamanders Eradicators vs one with Thousand Sons mortal wound spam dominating and depending on whether it is taken in a Kabal, Wych Cult or Coven detachment and whether the Raider it is is carrying something from a different sub-faction than it itself has?
vict0988 wrote: Some playtesters tried out Drukhari with D6 damage dark lances and were never told before release that the dark lance was getting changed to D3+3 damage, that sounds a lot like "don't bother testing if the changing Wraithknight weapons from S10 to SD is going to make them broken".
To me, it sounds more like the classic 'we're not allocating discrete time for testing and incorporating the results of testing, so we're going to keep making changes on the backend and some of the feedback from testers might maybe make it in'. Happens a lot in institutions that don't actually value user testing.
vict0988 wrote: Some playtesters tried out Drukhari with D6 damage dark lances and were never told before release that the dark lance was getting changed to D3+3 damage, that sounds a lot like "don't bother testing if the changing Wraithknight weapons from S10 to SD is going to make them broken".
To me, it sounds more like the classic 'we're not allocating discrete time for testing and incorporating the results of testing, so we're going to keep making changes on the backend and some of the feedback from testers might maybe make it in'. Happens a lot in institutions that don't actually value user testing.
Well I assume that the turn around from when it gets sent to the playtesters and when it gets sent to printing is too tight, such as when James Hewitt was writing Necromunda:
James: ...But anyway, so we had to make a game that would fit into the November release slot. Now, the prices of getting a game manufactured, remember that this is all manufactured in China. Specialist Games stuff was all done, I don’t know if it still is now, but it was all done in China because there was no capacity in the factory at GW.
Lupe: So all the plastic sprues and stuff were done in China?
James: Yes, it was another company that was kind of seconded and they were really high quality and made really good stuff. They were the one company to do things to GW standard and they were given a contract to do [the specialist games releases]. So the price of doing that, getting on a boat back to the UK, getting it into our warehouses to be distributed across the world in time for release day means that you need a good solid six months between the game being released and the game being manufactured and done.
Basically, I was told in December “you’re starting [necromunda] at the end of December, and it needs to be done by April. It needs to go to the manufacturers in April.”
...
James: So initially there was a directive. This was another one of those things that was quite frustrating. We had about three or four directives which were all quite contradictory. One voice saying “This game needs to feel like old-school Rogue Trader. Bring back Rogue Trader characteristics and go for the old-school vibe and that sort of thing.” Which is why Necromunda characters have got Intelligence, Willpower, Cool, and Leadership, which are terrible stats because they’re all kind of the same thing. [Laughs] There’s no clear delineation between them. That was an edict, and had to be that.
Similarly, another voice was saying that the game needed to fit into a box and be sold as a box game because the trade sales team wanted to have a product they could sell on the shelves as a standalone box game. Okay, but that’s not really Necromunda though is it? Oh, but you also need to do separate rules for doing 3D combat. Okay that’s more like Necromunda, but that feels like a different version of the same thing.
So I initially wrote the rulebook, which treated the core box as a self-contained board game. There’s a set of line of sight rules that are abstractions, because you can’t use true line of sight on a 2D board, because walls get in the way. And you can’t expect players to just pretend the wall is there. In an ideal world the rules for 2D walls would say “just pretend the walls are there and use true line of sight” but that’s never quite gonna work, so instead there’s a set of rules about the way line of sight works.
Then I wrote the Gang War supplement, which was this big 128 page thing, which had the 3D rules, the campaign rules, and the 6 gangs. The “proper Necromunda experience”, if you will. The problem was that because of the tight deadlines, the book had already been ordered with the printers, and they’d used Death Zone or something as a guide, so basically they could only do a 60-odd page book. And so it got split into Gang War 1 and Gang War 2. The problem is that a lot of Gang War 1 is administrative stuff that should’ve been in the rule book anyway, i.e. the rules for 3D games and the full gang lists. So, Gang War 1 as it went onto the shelf, to my mind, is not a very good value book, because it’s all stuff that should’ve been in the core book anyway.
...
James: Yeah, Gang War 2 was all the fun stuff which we put in and there was hazardous terrain and things. That was all put in to make the Gang War supplement feel more exciting, because otherwise what you’re getting was just dull stuff. The core rulebook though, the core box game, that was written as it came out, because that the brief was for a standalone product.
So one thing I’ve seen people point out is that the points values, the credit costs of things are very wildly different between the core box and Gang War, and the justification we used at the time was that the ones in the standalone box game are there for standalone one-off games, the ones in Gang War are for campaigns. The possibly more honest answer is we had literally zero testing time for the ones in the core box – I only just managed to come up with the system and type up the document The costs in Gang War came later, and were the result of some testing after the core box had already been sent to print. Even then we had no real idea, because Gang War 1 was still part of that crazy, four month dash.
Lupe: So there’s almost no valuable testing time in that bit?
James: Yeah exactly. I mean, when you compare it to Titanicus, which we tested endlessly, we had regular weekly testing sessions… Necromunda was a game that we tested when we could. Like whenever a couple of us could get together we would do it. And we had none because I didn’t have time, I was writing the frigging thing!
James: ... The Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus [back in 7th] which should have one combined set of rules, they got two sets of special rules, because otherwise you don’t sell two books of special rules, you sell one.
Lupe: And interestingly they got combined back together in 8th.
James: And they should have been, they always should have been. The reason they were split was because of a logistics thing. It was when White Dwarf was weekly and they could only show one week’s releases at a time, and if you put out an army book in week one then you’ll show off the releases for the next one, and “secrecy is paramount” , you can’t show off the future releases. If you put it out in week two, it looks like the releases in week one were coming out without an army book, and that doesn’t make sense. And it was this whole ridiculous… the tail has often wagged the dog in Games Workshop in different ways, and this was a fantastic example of that.
Lupe: OK, sorry, can I just clarify: the reason that in 7th edition they were two separate armies was publishing requirements of White Dwarf?
James: There you go. It was like the Skitarii didn’t have any characters. I had to write that codex. There were no HQ choices, so how do we do it? We had to make up a new detachment for them. Similarly things like the Skitarii didn’t have any transport options.
Hope that helps shed some sight behind the curtain. Seriously, if you've got the time the AoS/40k article is a great read just for all the madness that the studio had going on at the time.
It kinda of has. They still have a long road ahead, but 9th has seen quite a diversity of placing armies and lists.
I agree. I just wish they'd quit it with those gak Metawatch articles though. The propaganda arm has never been so busy.
Today's was pretty bad.
Like the last one on first turn advantage article wasn't lying, but it was twisting data to fit the narrative and I don't enjoy that.
One would hope this tournament would further cement the ongoing issues, but there's so much variety that unless DE sweep the top tables ( they won't ) we won't see urgent action on them until the next CA.
It kinda of has. They still have a long road ahead, but 9th has seen quite a diversity of placing armies and lists.
I agree. I just wish they'd quit it with those gak Metawatch articles though. The propaganda arm has never been so busy.
Today's was pretty bad.
Like the last one on first turn advantage article wasn't lying, but it was twisting data to fit the narrative and I don't enjoy that.
One would hope this tournament would further cement the ongoing issues, but there's so much variety that unless DE sweep the top tables ( they won't ) we won't see urgent action on them until the next CA.
Getting certain vibes from those metawatch articles:
It kinda of has. They still have a long road ahead, but 9th has seen quite a diversity of placing armies and lists.
I agree. I just wish they'd quit it with those gak Metawatch articles though. The propaganda arm has never been so busy.
Today's was pretty bad.
Like the last one on first turn advantage article wasn't lying, but it was twisting data to fit the narrative and I don't enjoy that.
One would hope this tournament would further cement the ongoing issues, but there's so much variety that unless DE sweep the top tables ( they won't ) we won't see urgent action on them until the next CA.
Was that the one saying "old codexes are 100% A-OK! "? Or is there a new one peddling a different line of now?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Was that the one saying "old codexes are 100% A-OK! "? Or is there a new one peddling a different line of now?
I think so. The one where they were talking about terrain and first turn advantage, but noted that later rounds the first turn advantage was rather pronounced.
Now, there's lots of reasons why this could be - those players might be willing to deploy aggressively and game on it or they are more likely to play armies with higher mobility ( DE ). So it isn't simple, but the way they presented it was bleck.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think so. The one where they were talking about terrain and first turn advantage, but noted that later rounds the first turn advantage was rather pronounced.
Now, there's lots of reasons why this could be - those players might be willing to deploy aggressively and game on it or they are more likely to play armies with higher mobility ( DE ). So it isn't simple, but the way they presented it was bleck.
Yeah, I found it. Basically reads: "Our terrain fixes everything! ". Yeah, sure, okie dokie.
And agreed, DE won't be getting any nerfs until the next CA, because that's the only way to fix them: points. They just get too much stuff for too little.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think so. The one where they were talking about terrain and first turn advantage, but noted that later rounds the first turn advantage was rather pronounced.
Now, there's lots of reasons why this could be - those players might be willing to deploy aggressively and game on it or they are more likely to play armies with higher mobility ( DE ). So it isn't simple, but the way they presented it was bleck.
Yeah, I found it. Basically reads: "Our terrain fixes everything! ". Yeah, sure, okie dokie.
And agreed, DE won't be getting any nerfs until the next CA, because that's the only way to fix them: points. They just get too much stuff for too little.
Honestly, I think DE need a new Dex.
It won't happen anytime soon, but they're a terrible combination of really flipping powerful and really damn boring. They're good, for sure-but so much of their stuff is DULL. Blandly strong, not interestingly balanced.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
I would hate it less if they were more transparent about things and included some designer insight about what they're seeing and how they're looking to address it any of the negative play experience stuff they see rather than trying and claim the game is perfect and is better than ever.
It feels like someone with a degree in marketing is pushing the metawatch articles as a way to tell customers that the game isn't the problem, the way they're playing it is so if they just played it like GW intended then they'd be happier. Then again that could be the part of me that's cynical of GW the company speaking. I guess seeing the James Hewitt interviews helped me understand the faults of the company behind the scenes more (like how White Dwarf led to the company splitting the original Ad Mech into two codexes or Necromunda being launched untested and split into three books) especially when some of those same patterns keep cropping up (LRL and Sisters of Battle both seeing new books in less than a year just to add the rest of their army), and the company insisting that they need to monetize the rules, or sticking to IGOUGO because it's simplier, not because it makes the game better (I've heard mention that Andy Chambers has a designer's note that BFG plays better as an AA, and scuttlebutt that he wanted to bring AA into 40k back in 4th but if that's true some people in the studio are married to the idea of IGOUGO even if it makes the game worse).
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Not saying GW is the devil, that would be crazy, just saying they did their job well of selling new GW. They care about as much about the state of their game as they always have, they just say a lot more about it now and try and fluff away worries of concerns.
Hence they say " Well this is too strong, but it's because of this..so buy these ! " They know enough to know the issues but in the end don't really care to address them right away. As well with the release schedule even slowed down like it is now is moving way faster than many years prior.
Why really fix anything when they can just sell fixes in new supplement/dlc/books etc. Nerf the largest issues then keep the churn rolling, keep making new issues along the way but people are happy as they always have new hope and new stuff to buy.
It's a cynical view but it does feel like their community arm is way more about optics and less about actual substance, or caring.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
If the game was designed for tournaments you wouldn't need to write spin to make the game seem good for competitive, it would actually be good for competitive play. The reason the spin is needed is because it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced despite them having just been hammered out with no regard for competitive balance.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
If the game was designed for tournaments you wouldn't need to write spin to make the game seem good for competitive, it would actually be good for competitive play. The reason the spin is needed is because it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced despite them having just been hammered out with no regard for competitive balance.
The game is absolutely designed with the intention to appease tournament players, GW is just incompetent/cheap/lazy.. Why do you think the Meta Watch articles exist at all? WarCom is just an advertising site, do you expect them to put up articles admitting they can't write decent rules?
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
If the game was designed for tournaments you wouldn't need to write spin to make the game seem good for competitive, it would actually be good for competitive play. The reason the spin is needed is because it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced despite them having just been hammered out with no regard for competitive balance.
The game is absolutely designed with the intention to appease tournament players, GW is just incompetent/cheap/lazy.. Why do you think the Meta Watch articles exist at all? WarCom is just an advertising site, do you expect them to put up articles admitting they can't write decent rules?
it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced
If GW admitted it was a casual edition and that the books they produced weren't tested properly and ended up being unbalanced garbage because of it, competitive players might wake up and decide to take action by doing a boycott and playing without stupid releases like the AdMech/Wych Cult bonus campaign supplement, just like IH and IF should have been banned from competitive play when they were first released to make GW give a gak about balance. Casual players are getting what they want, they can represent their fluffy armies using a mountain of rules.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
If the game was designed for tournaments you wouldn't need to write spin to make the game seem good for competitive, it would actually be good for competitive play. The reason the spin is needed is because it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced despite them having just been hammered out with no regard for competitive balance.
The game is absolutely designed with the intention to appease tournament players, GW is just incompetent/cheap/lazy.. Why do you think the Meta Watch articles exist at all? WarCom is just an advertising site, do you expect them to put up articles admitting they can't write decent rules?
it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced
If GW admitted it was a casual edition and that the books they produced weren't tested properly and ended up being unbalanced garbage because of it, competitive players might wake up and decide to take action by doing a boycott and playing without stupid releases like the AdMech/Wych Cult bonus campaign supplement, just like IH and IF should have been banned from competitive play when they were first released to make GW give a gak about balance. Casual players are getting what they want, they can represent their fluffy armies using a mountain of rules.
Why do you think casual players don't want balance? Or that we want mountains of rules? Have you even thought through what you're saying? Also competitive GW players are the biggest GW drones around. GW could have 10th Ed be based on resolving everything via Rock, Paper,.Scissors and they'd still try and chase the meta.
I don't really mind the metawatch articles, I just never feel they are that perceptive.
I'd love GW to write articles to the tune of:
"1. What is happening in the competitive space.
2. Why is it happening in the competitive space?
3. As a result, what changes, if any, do we think could enter the game in the future."
Now I don't imagine we'd ever get it - GW aren't going to say "melt down your DE collections, we're nerfing them into the ground tomorrow" - but still. We could get a window into their thinking - and a conversation about the game, faction and unit balance, fun etc.
Writing things like "look, Dave won 2 out of 5 games with his GSC, every faction can compete" just feels wrong. You can I think legitimately argue its more diverse than 40k has ever managed in the past (and is therefore the most balanced its ever been). But it doesn't change the fact certain factions are clearly bad.
The latest article for instance just feels like it lacks focus. "Terrain matters". But why and how? "Orks and Sisters might be good I guess?" I mean okay, but that's really quite thin.
I think the article wants to say "We've set up terrain such its really hard to shoot your entire army at your opponents entire army, so things often find they can't shoot at all - or are shooting things they are inefficient against. This means people can survive long enough to win a board-control game even in matchups that faction and that approach wouldn't normally be favoured". But it never really sets that down in words of one syllable.
Sim-Life wrote: Why do you think casual players don't want balance? Or that we want mountains of rules? Have you even thought through what you're saying? Also competitive GW players are the biggest GW drones around. GW could have 10th Ed be based on resolving everything via Rock, Paper,.Scissors and they'd still try and chase the meta.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Not saying GW is the devil, that would be crazy, just saying they did their job well of selling new GW. They care about as much about the state of their game as they always have, they just say a lot more about it now and try and fluff away worries of concerns.
Hence they say " Well this is too strong, but it's because of this..so buy these ! " They know enough to know the issues but in the end don't really care to address them right away. As well with the release schedule even slowed down like it is now is moving way faster than many years prior.
Why really fix anything when they can just sell fixes in new supplement/dlc/books etc. Nerf the largest issues then keep the churn rolling, keep making new issues along the way but people are happy as they always have new hope and new stuff to buy.
It's a cynical view but it does feel like their community arm is way more about optics and less about actual substance, or caring.
I feel that this is a bit reductive of the studio and honest sounds like maliciousness while I prefer to assume ignorance being the issue. The studio team being insulated from the general public and not being aware of the real problems seems more likely since Cruddace was on record as being shocked by the amount of spam the tournament scene engaged with when he went to one of the major tournaments pre-COVID. That said marketing going to market and WHC is GW's marketing arm.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
From the Goonhammer interviews James Hewitt mentioned that in the post-Kirby era the studio is being led by Pete Foley who was their competitive guy in the studio, so it fits with the tournament focused mentality they've had, even if they haven't capitalized on it well.
drbored wrote: I'd normally try to spin something positive, but GW doing metawatch feels really ridiculous.
Oh well, anyone that truly cares about the meta gets their tourney info from other established sites.
Tournament edition 40k! This is what you get, the proverbial monkey's paw has curled and left us with this, no matter how many people try to deny it but the tournament crowd are the horse that GW has backed, so we're stuck with this and the continual ramming of that square peg into 40k's round hole for the foreseeable future.
If the game was designed for tournaments you wouldn't need to write spin to make the game seem good for competitive, it would actually be good for competitive play. The reason the spin is needed is because it's the casual edition but GW still wants people to pay for books as if they're balanced despite them having just been hammered out with no regard for competitive balance.
This is because GW still thinks rules should be a source of revenue when rules should be the only thing they don't monetize.
Sim-Life wrote: Why do you think casual yplayers don't want balance? Or that we want mountains of rules? Have you even thought through what you're saying? Also competitive GW players are the biggest GW drones around. GW could have 10th Ed be based on resolving everything via Rock, Paper,.Scissors and they'd still try and chase the meta.
Is that why GW sales were so high in 6th and 7th?
Did tournaments stop due to lack of attendance in 6th and 7th? Or was there a bunch of tournament players buying a Decurions-worth of Necrons?
Sim-Life wrote: Did tournaments stop due to lack of attendance in 6th and 7th? Or was there a bunch of tournament players buying a Decurions-worth of Necrons?
People will find ways to play with their miniatures. I'll never be one of the ones to buy gakloads of models to "make it work" and neither will the majority, which is why GW suffered.
"? Or is there a new one peddling a different line of 
now?
