Death guard has a complete set of new sculpts, so wouldnt it make sense for GW to make them over-powered to get people to invest in an ENTIRE new army? or who knows, maybe we just need something to take the spotlight off of marines?
GW has always taken the position that they are in the business of selling miniatures, not rules. It therefore stands to reason that they write rules to sell models. We can see evidence of this in the cyclical nature of codex releases and associated power creep with reset switches in editions and (more recently) with chapter approved and FAQ releases.
This old canard. GW doesn't overpower models to sell them. If they did, they would be better at overpowering new models. We have vast amounts of evidence that this is not the case.
When a new model is released and it is OP, it is used frequently and is highly noticeable for being both new and OP.
When an existing unit is buffed to become OP, it is not as noticeable because people have still seen the model around before.
When a new model is released and it sucks, it is rarely seen because it is an expensive way of putting something worse on the table than what players already have.
It's analogous to an optical illusion; the new OP units are most frequently noticed and remembered even if they do not occupy a majority. Actually laying out releases to look at what is strong, weak, in between, and how they change reveals a strong pattern of complete chaos with some effort made to reign in outlying elements. Power creep is a still thing of course; buffing weak units to match strong ones is received better by players than nerfing strong units to match weak ones. But the idea that new kits are intentionally made OP to sell better does not have actual basis in the evidence.
Eldarain wrote: Given the popularity of Elves yes they would.
So then why were the very recent elf kits - more recent than DG -very meh?
I don't know what you're asking here
Ninth's take on this is accurate. Far too many new kits (and sometimes factions) are terrible for there to be some sinister plot to constantly escalate power for sales.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".
for some armies it is.
Not sure, if DG are overpowered, but clearly some units that were never used in 8th, which probably means that people few people bought it, now have rules that entice people to buy them. GW seems to do stuff like that for some armies, and I think it would be better if they did it for everyone.
Alternative hypothesis: Death Guard are simply an example of what to expect from all 9th edition Codexes.
They seem OP because it's appreciably better than what has come before. We won't know if it's OP until we've seen the results of tournaments that aren't happening and release of other Codexes.
What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".
for some armies it is.
No, it isn't. We know what a 'complete set of new sculpts' looks like. See Sisters recently and Dark Eldar further back. Or Cosplay Elves in AoS.
GW called Voldus, or rather the triumvirate box to be specific, a "completly new set of models". That is one model who is actually GK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK 795756 11043228 wrote:
What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.
Because GW wanted to clear stores and warehouses out of classic marines stuff, before they do a reset? From what I have been told in 7th ed, GK strikes were game play wise and unit point wise inferior in every way to termintors. Then in 8th the opposite happened, and now in 9th termintors are again better then strikes. The DG drone thingy with the meat grinder was a model no one used, now it has a really good set of rules. Inceptors were rather bad units in 8th as were the primaris dreads with plasma, now both are top tier units. On the other hand units like eliminators are no where to be seen in marine armies.
These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DGOP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...
Sgt. Cortez wrote: These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DGOP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...
What part of GW's track record makes you think they know the game well enough to make something deliberately overpowered? Primaris were their new flagship army and were UTTERLY USELESS until right before ninth edition.
This. So much this. You only have to look at the new Necron stuff to realise the theory that GW makes new stuff OP is bullgak. The Reanimator is one of the worst things in the book and the Ophydian Destroyers are pretty much the worst of the Destroyer cult units. The new Monolith is hamstrung by being a LoW. The Necron terrain, like all army-specific terrain, is terrible.
Also, the DG got two new models, not a complete set of new sculpts so every part of the OP's theory is wrong.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DGOP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...
Yep, crazy amounts of confirmation bias.
Something in there has to be partially true, right? I mean, if you accuse GW of everything....
Sgt. Cortez wrote: These arguments always go in circles and people who want to see an evil GW Plan behind it find an explanation for everything.
Why were Berzerkers one of the strongest units in 8th Edition CSM after 20years of being a niché unit? Ah, to get rid of stock.
Why is the new terrain piece not that good? Because GW is stupid.
Why are Eradicators overpowered? Because GW want to sell you new units.
Why is the new Monolith underpowered? Because GW rather wants you to buy the silent King or Void Dragon.
But why is the old Nightbringer the best Ctan then? Because they want to get rid of stock.
Why are DGOP? Because they want to sell you a new army.
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...
Yep, crazy amounts of confirmation bias.
Something in there has to be partially true, right? I mean, if you accuse GW of everything....
harlokin wrote: On this ridiculous basis, I can't wait for the new Drukhari codex. It will have to be hugely 'overpowered' to shift that new Lelith Hesperax model.
Given the Dark Tech errata I'm suspecting a half baked cut and paste effort with the odd nerf, I'll be surprised if the points are right...
Sgt. Cortez 795756 11043248 wrote:
Why are they better than Necrons, which are actually much more recent than DG, which were in every Starter Box of 8th so very successful already? Because GW doesn't play their own game.
...
New rule sets for some armies do look as, if they were writen down without the author ever playing a game with the rule set.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Two new models is not a "complete new set of sculpts".
In 40k time, the whole army is really new, they basically got a whole new line-up when they released death guard in the start collecting box set
Those models came out...over 3. Years. Ago.
Exactly. So why didn't they make Death Guard "OP" back then? (And no, I'm not saying Death Guard are OP.)
I think maybe with the all the death guard start collecting box, there wud be so many on the second hand market, that it wasnt very smart to flush them out and make them all spicey and tastey and gak
harlokin wrote: On this ridiculous basis, I can't wait for the new Drukhari codex. It will have to be hugely 'overpowered' to shift that new Lelith Hesperax model.
Given the Dark Tech errata I'm suspecting a half baked cut and paste effort with the odd nerf, I'll be surprised if the points are right...
You're more pessemistic than I am, you need a pint
I actually expect a quite significant overhaul, based on what the playtesters have been hinting. But that in no way means that it will be any good at all. I'd be quite happy to see the back of the Dark Tech nonsense TBH.
I think there's maybe one known instance of GW purposefully making a new model overpowered, and that was back in 7th.
For the most part, though, I agree with those who say that GW just don't know their game well enough to consistently overpower new models, whatever their intention. I'm pretty sure we've already seen that the designers almost seem to be playing a different game to the rest of the world, so their opinions on whether a given unit is overpowered or not probably bear little resemblance to reality.
I can't think of any real evidence of GW making a unit overpowered to sell them. There is far too much randomness in how good units, both new and old, are to see anything like that. Personally, I think that they just don't have the level of understanding of the game and the competence to even pull off something like that.
GW called Voldus, or rather the triumvirate box to be specific, a "completly new set of models". That is one model who is actually GK.
karol ffs.... Guilliman, Voldus and Cypher in a single box were a "set" of models that didnt exist before, they were "new". So GW saying it was a "new set" of models was true. When someone says an army got a new set of models, they don't mean one box that had 3 factions in it.
bat702 wrote: Well I mean atleast you can sell Lelith on the second hand market when all you pplz buy whatever marines they are peddling with her
For once, no Marines are involved - it's a DE vs. SoB box.
For any De players that happen to still be aboot, what's this Dark Tech thing y'all are talking about?
It's a Strat that boosts all Plasma weapons in a unit to +1D. It's one of those dumb Strats that GW introduced that straight up offensive output with absolute zero thought.
bat702 wrote: Well I mean atleast you can sell Lelith on the second hand market when all you pplz buy whatever marines they are peddling with her
For once, no Marines are involved - it's a DE vs. SoB box.
For any De players that happen to still be aboot, what's this Dark Tech thing y'all are talking about?
It's a Strat that boosts all Plasma weapons in a unit to +1D. It's one of those dumb Strats that GW introduced that straight up offensive output with absolute zero thought.
DA also lost their Weapons of the Dark Age so it seems like +1D strats are on their way into the bin.
Weapons from the Dark Age was in the old book. It was 1 CP. Now it is 2. Dark Angels weren't winning then with it so I'm not sure how it will be better other than being useful versus DG.
bat702 wrote: Well I mean atleast you can sell Lelith on the second hand market when all you pplz buy whatever marines they are peddling with her
For once, no Marines are involved - it's a DE vs. SoB box.
For any De players that happen to still be aboot, what's this Dark Tech thing y'all are talking about?
It's a Strat that boosts all Plasma weapons in a unit to +1D. It's one of those dumb Strats that GW introduced that straight up offensive output with absolute zero thought.
DA also lost their Weapons of the Dark Age so it seems like +1D strats are on their way into the bin.
Thought I saw someone in the Rumor thread claim it was back. If it isn't though, I say good riddance.
For any De players that happen to still be aboot, what's this Dark Tech thing y'all are talking about?
With Dark Technomancers you can choose to enhance any ranged weapons, adding 1 to the wound roll and add 1 to the Damage characteristic of that weapon for that attack. If any unmodified wound rolls of 1 are made for attacks with an enhanced weapon, the firing model suffers 1 MW after shooting with that weapon.
It is really strong, but the 'problem' with it (from my point of view) is that it is a Coven ability that undermines the internal balance of the codex, making Coven both the most resilent subfaction, and the shootiest.
It wasn't in their pre-codex update, is it back in the Codex Supplement preview?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Thought I saw someone in the Rumor thread claim it was back. If it isn't though, I say good riddance.
As somebody with a DA army, I'd be fine with it getting cut. It wasn't in their mini-update or the normal SM Codex so I figured GW would have axed it for the full supplement.
It wasn't in their pre-codex update, is it back in the Codex Supplement preview?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Thought I saw someone in the Rumor thread claim it was back. If it isn't though, I say good riddance.
As somebody with a DA army, I'd be fine with it getting cut. It wasn't in their mini-update or the normal SM Codex so I figured GW would have axed it for the full supplement.
It wasn't in their pre-codex update, is it back in the Codex Supplement preview?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Thought I saw someone in the Rumor thread claim it was back. If it isn't though, I say good riddance.
As somebody with a DA army, I'd be fine with it getting cut. It wasn't in their mini-update or the normal SM Codex so I figured GW would have axed it for the full supplement.
Yea, video reviews are up.
Ah, I'm behind on this one then. I'll probably catch up on the new rules today at work if it's as slow as it usually is.
harlokin wrote: On this ridiculous basis, I can't wait for the new Drukhari codex. It will have to be hugely 'overpowered' to shift that new Lelith Hesperax model.
Given the Dark Tech errata I'm suspecting a half baked cut and paste effort with the odd nerf, I'll be surprised if the points are right...
You're more pessemistic than I am, you need a pint
I actually expect a quite significant overhaul, based on what the playtesters have been hinting. But that in no way means that it will be any good at all. I'd be quite happy to see the back of the Dark Tech nonsense TBH.
It's more a pessimistic outlook based on the erratic consistency of rules writing, as for paytesters I'd never trust anything out of them given how the majority are shill mouthpieces who'll flat out lie to protect their 'relationship ' with gw and it's impact on YouTube income
bat702 wrote: Well I mean atleast you can sell Lelith on the second hand market when all you pplz buy whatever marines they are peddling with her
For once, no Marines are involved - it's a DE vs. SoB box.
For any De players that happen to still be aboot, what's this Dark Tech thing y'all are talking about?
I mean you're half right, sisters are definitely half/marines, kind of like half-lings but with dwarven technology capable of felling a man once a 2-man team reloads that awesome crossbow
You are simply describing power creep. GW makes each codex stronger, sells more models, nerfs them 12 months later then revisits the codex 12 months after to buff them with new rules.
GW has now fully realized they kicked the competitive hornets nest. Bunch of nerds freaking out buying new armies every time the meta shifts since they didn't magnetize their toys. I've never seen as many armies on ebay or facebook marketplace than I have in the past year. Of course this is for sure partly due to a larger player base, but remember when IH got a lil nerf and nerds couldn't sit in their deployment for 3 turns and press the win button? There were like dozens of clone IH armies for sale all the sudden, literally the same exact armies people copy pasted from the latest tournament with varying stages of three color minimum paint jobs.
Eradicators are extremely powerful compared to their points and thats all you see in peoples lists, every list has eradicators. When the "multi-part" kit comes out (if monopose models with weapon options count as that) its going to be sold out for weeks. Scalpers will be listing them on ebay for double price (just like they did with eliminators). And then suddenly, when GW has had their fill, they'll pull the carpet out and slightly nerf eradicators whilst simultaneously buffing.....Idfk servo turrets? And the cycle will repeat itself.
I feel the target audience are the ones who want to stay on top of the meta at all times.
Midnightdeathblade wrote: GW has now fully realized they kicked the competitive hornets nest. Bunch of nerds freaking out buying new armies every time the meta shifts since they didn't magnetize their toys. I've never seen as many armies on ebay or facebook marketplace than I have in the past year. Of course this is for sure partly due to a larger player base, but remember when IH got a lil nerf and nerds couldn't sit in their deployment for 3 turns and press the win button? There were like dozens of clone IH armies for sale all the sudden, literally the same exact armies people copy pasted from the latest tournament with varying stages of three color minimum paint jobs.
Eradicators are extremely powerful compared to their points and thats all you see in peoples lists, every list has eradicators. When the "multi-part" kit comes out (if monopose models with weapon options count as that) its going to be sold out for weeks. Scalpers will be listing them on ebay for double price (just like they did with eliminators). And then suddenly, when GW has had their fill, they'll pull the carpet out and slightly nerf eradicators whilst simultaneously buffing.....Idfk servo turrets? And the cycle will repeat itself.
I feel the target audience are the ones who want to stay on top of the meta at all times.
Not every list has eradicators. There are plenty of marine options equivalent to them. The LVO Salamanders list has only 3 of them, sooo...
Also, just checking, but is a point increase considered a nerf these days? Because Eradicators got bumped already.
a_typical_hero wrote: Haven't had the chance to play against them yet due to Covid restrictions.
My impression is that they are on even footing with other 9th edition armies. Stratagems are very strong.
Mortarion is a problem for me. Too game warping at the moment. I need to see how people will tackle him in the future.
This is my view as well. They stack up well against the other 9th edition dexes, and they are of course stronger than they were before. Are they going to do better than most every other 8th edition dex? Sure, but that's been the case for the other 9th dexes so far.
I think it's general consensus at this point that Morty is just too much. He's really the only thing I would expect nerfed. Everything else in the book seems incredibly balanced.
The new lord is probably the weakest lord out of the ones available, and despite its rather decent rules the fortification is just as unplayable as all others due to the 3" rule.
The DG release is pretty clear evidence that GW doesn't know their game well enough to make new stuff OP.
There also isn't really a point in messing with the rules to sell models when you are having troubles keeping your product stocked.
Jidmah wrote: The new lord is probably the weakest lord out of the ones available, and despite its rather decent rules the fortification is just as unplayable as all others due to the 3" rule.
The DG release is pretty clear evidence that GW doesn't know their game well enough to make new stuff OP.
There also isn't really a point in messing with the rules to sell models when you are having troubles keeping your product stocked.
It's also evidence they can't even write rules reflect fluff. Remember when we were excited to see what the LoV would do, and it turned out he had nothing to do with Daemon Engines (gotta love the CORE rule!) and benefited basically only a select few weapons for squads? That was pretty hilarious not gonna lie.
I was initially on the "Mortarion is too much" train - but I'm not so sure now. Even though he is like two knights stuck together, I think various armies can deal with him fairly reliably, in which case he can be a 490 point liability.
The issue is that Mortarion is a very hard skew against anyone with an army that can't deal with him. But then the same is arguably true of the Silent King. Or multiple Keepers of Secrets.
Certainly the mood is increasingly that Plague Marines - surely something of the poster boy for the faction - are quite mediocre if not bad. Mainly because they are either quite toothless - or you buy special weapons but they are now so expensive they cease to be tough.
I think GW are trying to make all the new codexes feel "good". Which is surely desirable. The issue is if the upgrades turn into explicit creep. I don't think DG is explicitly better than say Necrons, Marines - Sisters if you say they are really a 9th edition codex.
Jidmah wrote: The new lord is probably the weakest lord out of the ones available, and despite its rather decent rules the fortification is just as unplayable as all others due to the 3" rule.
The DG release is pretty clear evidence that GW doesn't know their game well enough to make new stuff OP.
There also isn't really a point in messing with the rules to sell models when you are having troubles keeping your product stocked.
It's also evidence they can't even write rules reflect fluff. Remember when we were excited to see what the LoV would do, and it turned out he had nothing to do with Daemon Engines (gotta love the CORE rule!) and benefited basically only a select few weapons for squads? That was pretty hilarious not gonna lie.
Haha, for once I actually agree with you. Yes, the LoV is a total dud and could have been so much more.
I'm not sure Death Guard as a faction are overpowered. They seem fun, strong and have a good matchup against Space Marines.
All (but Necrons) the rest of the 9th ed. Codexes are Space Marines. If they have a good game vs SM and the rest of the field is 8th edition Codexes, seems fair that they are top dogs right now.
Not sure how they play vs Necrosn, but on paper, Gauss seems good vs Plague Marines.
But of course, GW wants to sell miniatures, and poor rules makes people not guy plastic.
The issue always has been that they write things seemingly random. What a lot of us suspect is they divide books among their team and everybody goes off and does their own thing with little to no communication between each other. That's why you see such a disparity between books, because the person writing book A is working in isolation while the person writing book B is doing the same and both of them are trying to come up with rules that fit but approach the game differently. of course they never specifically say how they write rules but given their track record this seems like the most likely process they follow.
When you have five different people working on five different books almost at the same time, and each of those people play the game differently, you're going to get five different armies of varying power based on what the person writing it thinks works well in the game. there's also the fact that they are restricted to how the model is designed and from what we've gathered from their interviews don't have any or very little say in that to begin with. So if the model design team creates a Plague marine with two axes and a third arm holding a grenade then The guy writing the rules has to make the model have two axes and some sort of grenade and fit that in.
The problem with that, of course, is that there's no consistency which is why you have one book come out that seems ridiculously overpowered, then the next book is middle of the road, the book after that is overpowered again, and the one following that is weak. Different people working on them in isolation seemingly without communicating with the rest of the team about how things should work or what the interactions could be.
I don't think there's any ulterior motive because it's too random. It's just a really stupid way of writing rules to keep things churning out monthly. The only thing that does seem to be common is at some point they will shift the games design paradigm but because of how they operate never go back and bring codexes written before that paradigm shift up to the new style they will just let them rot while new books are written with the new design philosophy in mind.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Actually laying out releases to look at what is strong, weak, in between, and how they change reveals a strong pattern of complete chaos with some effort made to reign in outlying elements.
...
the idea that new kits are intentionally made OP to sell better does not have actual basis in the evidence.
Speaking from 20+years experience with GW games I have to say this is spot on. They have no clue.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Actually laying out releases to look at what is strong, weak, in between, and how they change reveals a strong pattern of complete chaos with some effort made to reign in outlying elements. ... the idea that new kits are intentionally made OP to sell better does not have actual basis in the evidence.
Speaking from 20+years experience with GW games I have to say this is spot on. They have no clue.
I would not even say "no clue" but it's clear and they have strongly indicated in interviews that:
A) They have a relatively small design team. I would be surprised if it was more than 5 people. Definitely nowhere near the size it should be for a massive tabletop game.
B) Each person works on a book on their own, with maybe collaboration meaning "Hey fancy a game at lunch?" if that. There's seemingly very little collaboration and communication about how rules work, even among upcoming codexes which is why we often see Army A have a rule and then Army B have a similar but different (more/less OP) rule; it seems like the designers didn't really work together to have consistent rules.
C) Models are designed first, presumably with little or no discussion with the rules team beforehand, and the rules team is handed a mockup or something of the final model and told to write rules for it to make it fit. This is all but confirmed for AOS in a White Dwarf interview with Jervis Johnson so likely applies to 40k as well.
D) When writing rules for a model they keep in mind how the model looks and try to incorporate that into the design. Which leads to the limited choices we usually see. This was also all but confirmed for AOS so probably holds true for 40k.
E) Because it's probably one person writing a book, they can't/won't be able to know all the potential interactions with other rules, so we often see broken combos that slip through the cracks because the person writing it didn't consider them.
F) When writing rules they focus on "does this fit the fluff/model" first and "is this balanced" second, if at all. I have to assume they give SOME consideration to balance but it's clearly a very minuscule amount if anything, again due to "E" above where it's entirely dependent on the skill/knowledge of the person writing the book to check against various combinations. Not that easy when you are on a tight deadline due to a monthly release schedule.
Wayniac there are some interesting observations in there. However I don't know how much that can be applied to the 9th ed books so far - there's a very clear design policy across the books in 9th.
Jidmah wrote: The new lord is probably the weakest lord out of the ones available, and despite its rather decent rules the fortification is just as unplayable as all others due to the 3" rule.
The DG release is pretty clear evidence that GW doesn't know their game well enough to make new stuff OP.
There also isn't really a point in messing with the rules to sell models when you are having troubles keeping your product stocked.
It's also evidence they can't even write rules reflect fluff. Remember when we were excited to see what the LoV would do, and it turned out he had nothing to do with Daemon Engines (gotta love the CORE rule!) and benefited basically only a select few weapons for squads? That was pretty hilarious not gonna lie.
Haha, for once I actually agree with you. Yes, the LoV is a total dud and could have been so much more.
Just read all the fluff snippets for him dotted throughout the DG book. It's clear he had an entirely different set of rules at one point.
Umbros wrote: Wayniac there are some interesting observations in there. However I don't know how much that can be applied to the 9th ed books so far - there's a very clear design policy across the books in 9th.
Is there though? I mean, inexplicably the Death Guard plague companies don't get special rules like say Necron dynasties, just WLT/Relic/Stratagem. So I suspect things are largely the same but may have (hopefully) improved somewhat. We will see as new books come out if they keep to a design policy or change direction midway through like history indicates happens.
Umbros wrote: Wayniac there are some interesting observations in there. However I don't know how much that can be applied to the 9th ed books so far - there's a very clear design policy across the books in 9th.
Is there though? I mean, inexplicably the Death Guard plague companies don't get special rules like say Necron dynasties, just WLT/Relic/Stratagem. So I suspect things are largely the same but may have (hopefully) improved somewhat. We will see as new books come out if they keep to a design policy or change direction midway through like history indicates happens.
In general GW has more direction in the books. I don't think everything has to be apples to apples, but there is consistency in the stratagems and more clarity in the rules ( some old strats were really bad ). There also seems to be a drive for really detailed fluffiness, which has the potential side-effect of going sideways.
G) designers get assigned to army books depending on who's enthusiastic or has ideas for the army. Which tends to lead to enthusiasm for power options.
It also leads to
H) sometimes no one has any enthusiasm or ideas, and the book just gets assigned. And we get stuff the Ward Orc and goblins army book, with no enthusiasm or real understanding of an army, just a chore the designer wants to finish and move on from.
And for the O &G example, Wardh actually said as much in WD article afterwards,
Voss wrote: To add on to Wayniacs list, let's not forget:
G) designers get assigned to army books depending on who's enthusiastic or has ideas for the army. Which tends to lead to enthusiasm for power options.
It also leads to
H) sometimes no one has any enthusiasm or ideas, and the book just gets assigned. And we get stuff the Ward Orc and goblins army book, with no enthusiasm or real understanding of an army, just a chore the designer wants to finish and move on from.
Or the 3.5 CSM codex, which- whilst being a work of art (fight me IRL) has power levels all over the place. Iron Warriors? Oh look, the author's own army, and were one of the more broken lists in that book. Thousand Sons? Well, an army with two wounds has a lot going for it, amirite?
Voss wrote: To add on to Wayniacs list, let's not forget:
G) designers get assigned to army books depending on who's enthusiastic or has ideas for the army. Which tends to lead to enthusiasm for power options.
It also leads to
H) sometimes no one has any enthusiasm or ideas, and the book just gets assigned. And we get stuff the Ward Orc and goblins army book, with no enthusiasm or real understanding of an army, just a chore the designer wants to finish and move on from.
And for the O &G example, Wardh actually said as much in WD article afterwards,
We have an even more recent example with the 8th Ed Tau Codex, where the Lead Designer admitted he didn't even play the army.
Sledgehammer wrote: Anyone that is naive enough to believe that sales does not affect game design needs to really sit down and think about how the game works.
Look at why rick priestly left GW.
In a hobby where people buy miniatures that never see a table beyond that of the Golden Demon judging table and where there are just as many duds as there are heroes? No. Exciting rules sell more, but there's no invisible hand micromanaging all the rules. Sometimes the designers do a bang up job. Sometimes not.
Priestley left a decade ago under the old management.
BIFFORD: When did you leave Games Workshop, and why?
PRIESTLEY: Well I was made redundant so didn't have much choice in the matter! By that time I think the GW management team had changed a great deal and the business was run by people very disconnected from the hobby. The company had settled down into a very limited product range and a single-minded business model - so there was increasingly little for me to do. There were some aspects of the business that I felt were not being handled well and at that time 'other voices' were in the ascendant. I would point out that immediately after I left the whole 'finecast' project emerged - which is just the sort of thing I would normally have been involved with - but in fact I wasn't involved at all... which tells you something! GW endured seven years of poor results after I had left. They went through the whole saga of dumping WD as a monthly magazine, abandoning all social media, a very messy and controversial AoS/Warhammer relaunch, running stores as one-man affairs, withdrawing their fiction range from the book trade, and a lot of other rather misguided decisions (IMO) which resulted in poor company results, declining sales, and very poor shareholder returns. I have to say they do seem to have seen sense in the last year or so and maybe we can now look forward to 'seven plentiful years'
I'm fine with, even happy, that models get designed THEN rules written for them. I'd suspect that is how we end up with so much theme and 'pop' to the GW product line overall, and I wouldn't want an extremely artistic process to be interrupted by interfacing with rules design during the sculpting. I would want some back-and-forth in regards to roles an army needs filled and I think we have enough evidence to suggest that there is. But by being flexible with fluff and then with rules a given sculpt can be bent to fill all sorts of different niches. Take the LoV for example; obviously he is not a melee badass but beyond that? He could be a hybrid ranged/melee combat character, a debuffer, a buffer, even a psyker, or any combination of the above. If the fluff and rules aren't written yet there is a broad canvas of what a given sculpt could be.
This is also to say that being handed finished miniature designs and told to write rules for them is no excuse at all for poor quality of those rules. That process is not something that would negatively impact rules design.
This is also to say that being handed finished miniature designs and told to write rules for them is no excuse at all for poor quality of those rules. That process is not something that would negatively impact rules design.
It definitely does, and doesn't seem avoidable to me. Rules design has enough constraints already- setting, power level of the edition, specific book, etc. Chaining them even further that they _must_ go with whatever specific bits and bobs are on the model is an unnecessary limitation that produces bizarre results.
It isn't the only problem with GW rules writing, but it definitely contributes. Roles and capabilities should be decided first, not thrown in on a whim after seeing what a model turns up with.
Trying to push a faction is silly because you can't sell a pet tarantula to someone who just doesn't like spiders. The putrid theme of the Deathguard is not something every player wants to spend their hobby time looking at...
That said, I'm happy for those players who have enjoyed the Deathguard focus of 8th edition so far. Its a great buzz when its your faction asked to stand on the hotspot.
This is also to say that being handed finished miniature designs and told to write rules for them is no excuse at all for poor quality of those rules. That process is not something that would negatively impact rules design.
It definitely does, and doesn't seem avoidable to me. Rules design has enough constraints already- setting, power level of the edition, specific book, etc. Chaining them even further that they _must_ go with whatever specific bits and bobs are on the model is an unnecessary limitation that produces bizarre results.
It isn't the only problem with GW rules writing, but it definitely contributes. Roles and capabilities should be decided first, not thrown in on a whim after seeing what a model turns up with.
Ehhh... As someone who has written rules for units based off existing models it does not seem all that restrictive to me. If the fluff or battlefield role has already been decided then yes, definitely. But restriction needs to get (relatively) quite narrow before it limits the quality of rules. And given that we see rules quality being consistent across both pre-existing units getting re-written and new units I would say such restrictions are unlikely to be the factor making the difference.
Voss wrote: To add on to Wayniacs list, let's not forget:
G) designers get assigned to army books depending on who's enthusiastic or has ideas for the army. Which tends to lead to enthusiasm for power options.
It also leads to
H) sometimes no one has any enthusiasm or ideas, and the book just gets assigned. And we get stuff the Ward Orc and goblins army book, with no enthusiasm or real understanding of an army, just a chore the designer wants to finish and move on from.
And for the O &G example, Wardh actually said as much in WD article afterwards,
Or pretty much most Phil Kelly dex's. Goodness knows he was a strong G option.
Voss wrote: To add on to Wayniacs list, let's not forget:
G) designers get assigned to army books depending on who's enthusiastic or has ideas for the army. Which tends to lead to enthusiasm for power options.
It also leads to
H) sometimes no one has any enthusiasm or ideas, and the book just gets assigned. And we get stuff the Ward Orc and goblins army book, with no enthusiasm or real understanding of an army, just a chore the designer wants to finish and move on from.
And for the O &G example, Wardh actually said as much in WD article afterwards,
Or pretty much most Phil Kelly dex's. Goodness knows he was a strong G option.
Phil Kelly is more offensive to balance than Matt Ward, and you're gonna have a lot of trouble convincing me otherwise.
Jidmah wrote: The new lord is probably the weakest lord out of the ones available, and despite its rather decent rules the fortification is just as unplayable as all others due to the 3" rule.
The DG release is pretty clear evidence that GW doesn't know their game well enough to make new stuff OP.
There also isn't really a point in messing with the rules to sell models when you are having troubles keeping your product stocked.
It's also evidence they can't even write rules reflect fluff. Remember when we were excited to see what the LoV would do, and it turned out he had nothing to do with Daemon Engines (gotta love the CORE rule!) and benefited basically only a select few weapons for squads? That was pretty hilarious not gonna lie.
Haha, for once I actually agree with you. Yes, the LoV is a total dud and could have been so much more.
At minimum he could've affected ALL Plague Weapons instead of just range ones for CORE units, it's so fething stupid.
GW has always taken the position that they are in the business of selling miniatures, not rules. It therefore stands to reason that they write rules to sell models. We can see evidence of this in the cyclical nature of codex releases and associated power creep with reset switches in editions and (more recently) with chapter approved and FAQ releases.
So, yes.
OF COURSE! That's why Primaris were almost universally TERRIBLE upon release right? Probably same explanation for why Reavers have been virtually useless for most of their life-span. That's also why the new DG character - one of two new models released with the book garbage level right? Also why, upon release, the Stormhawk sucked, and why Mutilators, Warp Talons, Dark Apostles, Maulerfiends, and Warpsmiths were darn near unusable upon release right? Because, if what you're saying is true ... then, that can't possibly have happened. But ... it did ...
Fact is, "GW has always taken the position that they are in the business of selling miniatures, not rules." has NOT "always been the case". You can track down ONE TIME this was said, and it was a very unique artifact of the late Kirby era (basically middle-7th up until his replacement by Rountree roughly 6-8 months later). I will grant that in 7th, this was pretty clearly true given the way that edition worked, but - yeah - you're gonna hav e a pretty hard time convincing me of it now. For every single thing you can say was "OP" upon release (which is actually fairly rare), I can show you one that was utterly terrible, and a bunch more examples that were somehere in between.
So ... I really don't get where this attitude comes from outside of "I'm jealous my army hasn't got the same treatment". What's really funny in relation to DG - this codex isn't really making most experienced DG players buy very many new models. Many (myself included) are going to have fewer Pox Walkers and more marines, but, the things that were good before are typically still good, and I'm not seeing too many DG players needing to buy a whole lot of new units because of this book ...
Or pretty much most Phil Kelly dex's. Goodness knows he was a strong G option.
This becomes especially obvious when you compare any of his Eldar work agains his work on the 6th ed CSM book. Man that CSM book was TERRIBLE. One of the worst we CSM players have seen. He's actually responsible for some of the units I mention above. He's good at having, maybe three ideas, and then providing a million ways to accomplish ... those three ideas. So you end up with books that people will claim have lots of "nuance", but, in the books where he biffs it - what you really end up with is a book where 2/3 of the units could be removed ... and it would still be just as capable as it was before, but way better because all the "trap" options are now gone ...
I strongly suspect he wrote the new 'Cron dex. Command Protocols and several other things like Skorpehks vs Ophyidans have his signature all over them imo.
Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.
For the record, I don't feel DG are OP.
That being said I don't think one Aussie tournament, especially the first one after release, would be substantial enough evidence to say one way or the other. Honestly, for the first out the gate tournament with the new book, 6th place is pretty good.
I'm not certain they're overpowered. GW mostly gave them a bunch of tools because "Hey this would be fun and fluffy!" then it just so happens they do or don't combine to make that magic sauce. DG players still seem to be somewhat unhappy regarding the change to their signature rule. And beyond a few durability buffs and mortarian by himself their damage output seems on the low end of things. But they have a few rules to make those boltguns and CCW hurt a little more.
All and all they feel okay, nothing more, nothing less. Dark angels are more likely to cause a splash, and they don't have any new models to my knowledge. (or at least, nothing that was released in 8th or later.)
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.
For the record, I don't feel DG are OP.
That being said I don't think one Aussie tournament, especially the first one after release, would be substantial enough evidence to say one way or the other. Honestly, for the first out the gate tournament with the new book, 6th place is pretty good.
I'm not trying to make any finite assertions. It could just be that people haven't had time with them - a better pilot will get better results. #6 is good, but the others were 10, 20 ( the other Morty ), and 27.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.
Then again...a Kustom Stompa went 3-2...
That's also a lot of TFCs considering they've been "nerfed". And I agree with Sasori, Death Guard aren't OP. Good, yes, OP, no.
Any chance of a link with the full lists? Was that #6 finishing DG army with or without Mortarion?
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, but definitely more marines than previous Aussie games it seems. There shouldn't really be anything stopping DG from performing well ( if they're OP ) regardless of the meta though.
Then again...a Kustom Stompa went 3-2...
That's also a lot of TFCs considering they've been "nerfed". And I agree with Sasori, Death Guard aren't OP. Good, yes, OP, no.
Any chance of a link with the full lists? Was that #6 finishing DG army with or without Mortarion?
Sorry that should read TWC. Doh. Thunderwolves swinging high efficiency weapons and cranking out hits. Though I expect we'll see a comeback for Tremor Shells and WW Suppression fire to land more strike last and movement effects.
With Morty. 2x8 PM, 40 Pox in total (15/15/10 - maybe too small?), 5 BL, 3 Shrouds, PBC, and characters.
I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.
I suppose we'll have a pretty good indication once we see the DE book, given how pretty much everything so far has been marines of one variety or another, and modern GW loves itself that power armor. If the DE book raises the power level up another notch, it's going to become very hard to say we aren't in an era of deliberate codex creep.
Codex creep is a bit different than overpowering new models, though. They've been all over the place with those, and that's continued through the 9th releases. It seems like a "flip a coin, if heads, make it ridiculous, if tails, make it meh" more than a concerted plan to overpower new models to sell them.
I don't think GW does this, at least not in a consistent fashion. As some new stuff comes out awful, some stuff has sucked forever and some things drop middle of the road or worse. If GW tries to make stuff OP to sell they must be terrible game designers because they often fail.
So No, I don't think DG are OP they are just the new flavor and DA are shaping up pretty good as well.
Edit: I do think codex creep can be real but even this if they do it with a purpose sometimes they just fail at often.
Codex creep exists since forever in 40k but sometimes people overreact mostly because they hadn't figured out how to adapt to the new stuff. I remember when 8th Drukhari codex was released everyone freaked out and immediately elevated that faction at top tier 1. In fact that codex has never been OP, just good at most, players simply needed to adapt.
Sometimes when people scream OP!!! to something new they simply need to play more games, learn how to play better, and adapt to things they're not familiar with.
I've no idea about the real potential of the DG codex, I haven't played since early dec and probably won't play until summer. But looking at the rules, DG codex doesn't look OP compared to all the other 9th edition books.
yukishiro1 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.
Please elaborate on that.
Where do you see newer releases (overall) stronger than older ones? On a percentage level, how much stronger are Death Guard compared to Blood Angels and Necrons, for example?
yukishiro1 wrote: I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.
I don't think we have enough data points to draw that conclusion. So far, in terms of full Codices, we've had SM, Necrons and DG, with 3 (soon to be 4) SM Supplements. SM and Necrons released simultaneously and I don't think anyone is destroying the tournament scene with Deathwatch right now, for example. The consensus seems to be Necrons are pretty good, roughly equivalent to SM and we haven't seen enough of DG in action to know if they're OP or not.
Do you have any examples of this "significant and pronounced codex creep"?
yukishiro1 wrote:
I didn't read the whole thread, but the history of 9th so far shows a quite significant and pronounced codex creep. In the past, I would have said that GW was too incompetent to manage deliberately raising the power level on each new codex to whale the FOTM crowd, but this feels different, like a quite deliberate and measured upping of the stakes.
Does it? I think DG will be great as meta-spoilers, but I don't think they're going to be a top faction when it's all said and done. I have some issues with the way the 'Cron dex was done, but over-all, I think the three main codexes are well balanced (I don't know gak about most of the marine supplements so if there are issues there let me know). I think CORE is being mishandled, I think we're seeing the typical problems (typical since 8th ed anyway) of Marines playing a slightly different game than everyone else, but honestly, I don't think the books are that far off from one another. I would have agreed with you a few days ago, but the more I think about it, the less I agree.
