Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 18:40:56


Post by: Tiberias


I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 18:48:05


Post by: Nevelon


Codex creep is real, and has been with the game from the start.

Sucks, but sometimes they can keep things playable with adjustments/FAQs/faction boosts.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 18:49:49


Post by: AnomanderRake


GW's able to grow their customer base largely because of network effects; it's hard to pitch someone on another game if they're convinced that people only ever play 40k and nobody will ever play anything else. They haven't had a cohesive plan for how the game should function since the damage creep started to get out of control in late 5th, because they know they don't need to. The game's going to keep rolling along under its own inertia so long as it can continue to monopolize advertising, tie-in products, and play spaces through sheer inertia independent of whether it works well, or at all.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 18:55:41


Post by: oni


GW intentionally causes game imbalance to drive model sales and to eventually (purposefully) destroy the edition.

Rebooting the system is like printing big $$$.

It's all planned, but not so detailed that they're masterminds pulling the puppet strings every step of the way.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 18:58:16


Post by: nou


You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment. There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance. In games that are static and balanced, like chess, players are quickly sorted by their skill and novices quickly learn, that they won't be able to invent any new strategies, only old masters have enough knowledge about the game system to do that. In living systems built around perfect imbalance there is always just a short window to find new optimal strategies, because every time you publish new elements, the whole system shifts. You don't really have to care about balance at all, because as long as you stir the pot often enough and hard enough, the community will be engaged in seeking new, momentary optimal plays, and moreover - the community will be excited about it. You only have to watch out for game breaking situations like Razorwing flock spam from early 8th, but other than that you actually benefit from the state of constant shifts of power and you can "go only upwards", because you can always level the field again with new indexed edition. It worked for 30 years and will work for another 30.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:07:31


Post by: jeff white


Codex creep is GW parasiting on hobbyists’ good will. Then they refresh and repeat.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:23:27


Post by: Grimtuff


Yup. GW changes horses mid race so often when doing codexes it's not funny.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:27:11


Post by: Tyel


I'm pretty sure GW write the books based on how they see the meta 9-12 months earlier.
This tends to result in a slightly disjointed outcome - because the meta can shift over that time as new content is rolled out. And you also get a random amount of whimsy which can be overpowered because they just threw it in there because it sounded cool.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:32:22


Post by: leerm02


nou wrote:
You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment. There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance. In games that are static and balanced, like chess, players are quickly sorted by their skill and novices quickly learn, that they won't be able to invent any new strategies, only old masters have enough knowledge about the game system to do that. In living systems built around perfect imbalance there is always just a short window to find new optimal strategies, because every time you publish new elements, the whole system shifts. You don't really have to care about balance at all, because as long as you stir the pot often enough and hard enough, the community will be engaged in seeking new, momentary optimal plays, and moreover - the community will be excited about it. You only have to watch out for game breaking situations like Razorwing flock spam from early 8th, but other than that you actually benefit from the state of constant shifts of power and you can "go only upwards", because you can always level the field again with new indexed edition. It worked for 30 years and will work for another 30.


Wow. Well said! Took the words out of my mouth and phrased it better than I would have! Take your exalt, good sir!


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:32:51


Post by: Voss


Batch writing (and testing) and then paradigm shifts.

There are places where, for example, you can see Space Marines and Necrons line up. There are differences (like the relative prevalence of Core, but that seems intentional at the time), but you can see a couple d3+3 weapons, a few S12, some other bits and bobs, but nothing like DE or Ad Mech.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:41:25


Post by: tneva82


Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

.


They are done well in advance for logistical reasons. But not all at once so design style will change constantly.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 19:54:29


Post by: auticus


You essentially get into 40k knowing the game and the balance are not good and you find a gaming group that fits in with what you want out of the game.

If you're in an ultra competitive area... that means doing the codex burn and churn with them to stay relevant and have good games.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 20:08:46


Post by: Ordana


Probably the single biggest factor in whether a codex will be good or not is who gets to write it.

Get a writer that loves the faction and you get a great codex with lots of flavourful options that might be to good. Get a writer that doesn't like the faction or playstyle and get a crap codex.

Secondly its indeed paradim shifts. The design team just starting doing something completely different after a few books and one of the other side of that change gets screwed over. Like when 4? edition started with very minimalist codexes that were completely barebones, an approach that was abandoned swiftly and left those effected with garbage, poor Dark Angels.

And lastly, GW's testing has always been terrible.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 20:36:15


Post by: Arschbombe


 Ordana wrote:
Like when 4? edition started with very minimalist codexes that were completely barebones, an approach that was abandoned swiftly and left those effected with garbage, poor Dark Angels.


Jervisication.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 20:52:35


Post by: nou


leerm02 wrote:
nou wrote:
Spoiler:
You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment. There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance. In games that are static and balanced, like chess, players are quickly sorted by their skill and novices quickly learn, that they won't be able to invent any new strategies, only old masters have enough knowledge about the game system to do that. In living systems built around perfect imbalance there is always just a short window to find new optimal strategies, because every time you publish new elements, the whole system shifts. You don't really have to care about balance at all, because as long as you stir the pot often enough and hard enough, the community will be engaged in seeking new, momentary optimal plays, and moreover - the community will be excited about it. You only have to watch out for game breaking situations like Razorwing flock spam from early 8th, but other than that you actually benefit from the state of constant shifts of power and you can "go only upwards", because you can always level the field again with new indexed edition. It worked for 30 years and will work for another 30.


Wow. Well said! Took the words out of my mouth and phrased it better than I would have! Take your exalt, good sir!


Thank you, good sir


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 21:00:55


Post by: Sim-Life


Ordana wrote:Probably the single biggest factor in whether a codex will be good or not is who gets to write it.

Get a writer that loves the faction and you get a great codex with lots of flavourful options that might be to good. Get a writer that doesn't like the faction or playstyle and get a crap codex.


Was it the 7th Ed Tyranids codex where they changed the author to "Games Workshop Design Team" so that Robin Cruddace would stop getting gak for his terrible books?

nou wrote:You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment. There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance. In games that are static and balanced, like chess, players are quickly sorted by their skill and novices quickly learn, that they won't be able to invent any new strategies, only old masters have enough knowledge about the game system to do that. In living systems built around perfect imbalance there is always just a short window to find new optimal strategies, because every time you publish new elements, the whole system shifts. You don't really have to care about balance at all, because as long as you stir the pot often enough and hard enough, the community will be engaged in seeking new, momentary optimal plays, and moreover - the community will be excited about it. You only have to watch out for game breaking situations like Razorwing flock spam from early 8th, but other than that you actually benefit from the state of constant shifts of power and you can "go only upwards", because you can always level the field again with new indexed edition. It worked for 30 years and will work for another 30.


Have one of the few deliberate Exalts I give out.

GW absolutely make stuff up as they go but I don't think it's the design teams fault. Honestly it's as much the community as the corporate GW.
Now brace yourself because I'm about to drop a hot take:
Matt Ward was the best codex writers GW have had in a long time. His rules were original, fun, varied and thematic and his love of and enthusiasm for the setting as a whole shines through in the rules. However because he worked for GW they didn't really try to reign him in in any way and in turn that resulted in him getting a lot of gak from the community online and generally reviled. If GW had properly playtested his rules though? They would have been some of the best books GW had ever put out. He'd probably still be working at GW if the community hadn't been so hard on him.

Ward's books stood in a very stark contrast to Cruddace, who's books were bland, uninspired and perfunctory. Unfortunately Cruddace is the one still working at GW (as far as I'm aware), hence our current..."situation".


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 21:09:19


Post by: nou


 Sim-Life wrote:
Spoiler:
Ordana wrote:Probably the single biggest factor in whether a codex will be good or not is who gets to write it.

Get a writer that loves the faction and you get a great codex with lots of flavourful options that might be to good. Get a writer that doesn't like the faction or playstyle and get a crap codex.


Was it the 7th Ed Tyranids codex where they changed the author to "Games Workshop Design Team" so that Robin Cruddace would stop getting gak for his terrible books?

nou wrote:You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment. There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance. In games that are static and balanced, like chess, players are quickly sorted by their skill and novices quickly learn, that they won't be able to invent any new strategies, only old masters have enough knowledge about the game system to do that. In living systems built around perfect imbalance there is always just a short window to find new optimal strategies, because every time you publish new elements, the whole system shifts. You don't really have to care about balance at all, because as long as you stir the pot often enough and hard enough, the community will be engaged in seeking new, momentary optimal plays, and moreover - the community will be excited about it. You only have to watch out for game breaking situations like Razorwing flock spam from early 8th, but other than that you actually benefit from the state of constant shifts of power and you can "go only upwards", because you can always level the field again with new indexed edition. It worked for 30 years and will work for another 30.


Have one of the few deliberate Exalts I give out.


I'm sincerely honoured. Thank you!


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 21:10:37


Post by: Blndmage


Cruddace was bad, but I'll never forgive Ward for newcrons.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/13 23:16:49


Post by: kodos


Mad Ward for breaking warhammer with the demon army book....

but one thing to remember, GW does not write the books because of the rules

first there are new models designed, than comes the background for the models, and after that the Codex writer has to find rules that fit the model and the background
and for this it does not matter if there are already several similar units in the book while the army would need something else, it has ti be that because the models are already done


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 04:29:38


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I have a more simple explanation; they are just as bad at running things as all the other humans running things, and when the company is doing well they are not forced to improve.

When they turn in a direction of better balance, more skillfully managed rulesets, and lower margins of codex creep the game increases in popularity and sales follow. Sure an OP unit or codex may boost sales right then, but the game as a whole very clearly responds positively to improving the player experience.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 05:38:25


Post by: Jayden63


As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules. Because that's where they need to get their investment back. Even the older models (usually the one offs or the units with lower model count) get codex upgrades once their turn comes around again because why not try to move older models and get a great return on investment. Its been this way with every codex release that had new models added to it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 06:28:05


Post by: kodos


but this is not true, the new models do not always get the best rules

which either means GW is bad at their own game if the intend to give the better rules but end up with worse rules because they don't know what they are doing

or they just don't care about the rules and give them whatever they think is "cool" no matter how good or bad it is


for being a special sales strategy, the OP rules are way too random applied


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 06:40:39


Post by: vict0988


Why do Necron players keep forgetting their 3D3 Damage weapon? Multi-meltas doubled in number of shots despite core rules and missions favouring them more than ever.

The new Tau thing is the inferior of a FW Gauss Pylon, 2 Damage 12 shots vs 2D3
Damage D3+6 shots. The Stormsurge's other weapons probably puts it ahead, one Titanic unit having more Dakka than another is not a big deal.

Ignoring invulns is a big deal. railgun HH are bad at killing nothing, there is no profile or save that keeps you safe. The best defence is transhuman which is Primaris and Necrons only.

 Jayden63 wrote:
As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules. Because that's where they need to get their investment back. Even the older models (usually the one offs or the units with lower model count) get codex upgrades once their turn comes around again because why not try to move older models and get a great return on investment. Its been this way with every codex release that had new models added to it.

Except when GW buffs the same old unit for the third time in a row or fails to make a new unit worth it for the third time in a row. Your theory has little predictive power, you constantly get things wrong if this is how you predict changes. If your theory is incompetence on the other hand, you get things right almost all the time.

All you have to look at is weapon options, what is the economic incentive to make some weapon options awesome and others terrible? Why does GW fail in balancing weapon options every edition? New weapon options being OP like the Havoc chaingun in 8th and Devastator grav cannon in 7th supports your theory, but enmitic exterminators being inferior to gauss destructors proves the opposite since if you wanted to use the old models and not the updated ones, you would use the gauss destructor.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 08:10:39


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jayden63 wrote:
As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules.


Given the amount of books they've been throwing out I'm not sure thats true anymore. Also the "GW makes new models good" is demonstrably false, I don't know how people can still think that? Even just recently the two big releases from the Sisters second wave (Castigator tank and Paragon war suits) are both rubbish.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 08:24:24


Post by: The Deer Hunter


Power creep is what WAAC players want, no wonder GW gives it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 10:07:58


Post by: kodos


for GW intentional giving things in game, they would first need to know what they are doing and play their own game

but of course blaming other players is the better option than realizing that screwed you with random text not worth the paper


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 11:31:05


Post by: beast_gts


 Sim-Life wrote:
Was it the 7th Ed Tyranids codex where they changed the author to "Games Workshop Design Team" so that Robin Cruddace would stop getting gak for his terrible books?
Both Cruddace & Ward were getting death threats so they decided to anonymise it.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 12:47:19


Post by: dadx6


Yes, but also they clearly don't understand the right way to think about the game vis-a-vis competitive play.

The Hammerhead railgun with AP-6 ignore invulnerable saves would be better than the Pulse Blastcannon even if the Pulse Blastcannon had 3 shots at S20 per turn.

GW seems incapable of processing that reducing the risk to two rolls of dice (Do I hit? Does it wound?) is better than reducing the risk of each individual roll failing (same roll to hit, but wound on a 2+ and limit opponents to invulnerable saves). Adding mortal wounds to the railgun just made the difference between it and the Pulse Blastcannon ... I don't want to be inflammatory and say 'insulting' but egregious may be the appropriate word.

Whoever thought
Heavy 2 S16 AP-4 D12 was better against knights than
Heavy 1 S12 AP-6 6+D3+3MW ignores invulnerable saves should be asked to design basic troops in the future and avoid heavy support units. Or maybe transition into writing the kids books for Black Library.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 12:56:41


Post by: hobojebus


It's simple you can't make people buy models over and over every two years.

But you can force them to buy new rule books, new codex, new supplements, new chapter approved with points updates.

The churn began when they released the 2nd knight codex 14 months after the first, before that a rule book might last you 5 years.

It doesn't cost much to print books in bulk, certainly nothing like the money they charge us.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 12:57:40


Post by: kodos


GW thinks in terms of "the bigger the potential damage, the bigger the cinematic effects of the centerpiece models, the more pople like our game"


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 13:14:55


Post by: chaos0xomega


Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.


Lol no, the lead time on books and printed materials is very short, production and distribution for them takes just a few weeks to a couple months under normal circumstances. Usually GW is writing, playtesting, and editing them until the very last minute before they go to print, so definitely not done a year or more in advance.

The fact that they are doing all this work such last minute leads me to believe that there is no plan and that they really are making it all up as they go along. The fact that you can noticeably see the changes in the design paradigms and "standards" that are employed change from one book to the next pretty much confirms it. A big difference-maker too is who the design lead on each book is. We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men operating in harmony and with a shared understanding and vision, but the reality is that they all have their individual philosophies and approaches, a few of them have big egos and very firmly held beliefs on what the right and wrong ways to do things are, etc. and the codecies are reflective of that. I am convinced that any codex that has a superdoctrine type ability that changes from one turn to the next (Necrons, AdMech, Custodes) were written by the same lead, clearly whoever that person is believes that its a good mechanical concept that should be repeated/re-used across all their work. I imagine to some extent theres also an element of "Anything you can do I can do better" going on at times, as it sometimes feels like theres a game of oneupmanship afoot and certain things are being designed with the mindset of "this is how you should have done it if you were actually good at your job". The codex creep in general is almost certainly the result of a semi-subconscious tendency towards "keeping up with the joneses"/"upping the ante" vis-a-vis the previous book that was released.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 13:32:45


Post by: Sim-Life


chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men


I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 13:39:38


Post by: kodos


chaos0xomega wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

Lol no, the lead time on books and printed materials is very short, production and distribution for them takes just a few weeks to a couple months under normal circumstances. Usually GW is writing, playtesting, and editing them until the very last minute before they go to print, so definitely not done a year or more in advance.

well, I would call months "long" as with rules changing every 6 months and changes done to the last minute, even a 4 month lead time would mean every book going to the printer after the season started will be outdated by the time it is released

chaos0xomega wrote:

The fact that they are doing all this work such last minute leads me to believe that there is no plan and that they really are making it all up as they go along. The fact that you can noticeably see the changes in the design paradigms and "standards" that are employed change from one book to the next pretty much confirms it.

no need to have one, people buy the books anyway and even pay for updates, and praise the game for who much fun it is, having resources dedicated for making a big plan or make sure that every designer follows the guidelines of the current edition is just a waste of money that reduces profits


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 14:17:21


Post by: Ordana


hobojebus wrote:
It's simple you can't make people buy models over and over every two years.
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 14:18:31


Post by: vict0988


 dadx6 wrote:
Yes, but also they clearly don't understand the right way to think about the game vis-a-vis competitive play.

The Hammerhead railgun with AP-6 ignore invulnerable saves would be better than the Pulse Blastcannon even if the Pulse Blastcannon had 3 shots at S20 per turn.

GW seems incapable of processing that reducing the risk to two rolls of dice (Do I hit? Does it wound?) is better than reducing the risk of each individual roll failing (same roll to hit, but wound on a 2+ and limit opponents to invulnerable saves). Adding mortal wounds to the railgun just made the difference between it and the Pulse Blastcannon ... I don't want to be inflammatory and say 'insulting' but egregious may be the appropriate word.

Whoever thought
Heavy 2 S16 AP-4 D12 was better against knights than
Heavy 1 S12 AP-6 6+D3+3MW ignores invulnerable saves should be asked to design basic troops in the future and avoid heavy support units. Or maybe transition into writing the kids books for Black Library.

It is better against Knights, unless it's got Rotate Ion Shields and uses a re-roll on a save. Railgun is S14.

2*1,25/1,5*12/11=1,8x damage.

Or with Rotate Ion Shields 2*1,25/2*12/11=1,36x damage.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 14:26:37


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Ordana wrote:
hobojebus wrote:
It's simple you can't make people buy models over and over every two years.
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.
Bit of a bad example, given Firstborn are still around and Primaris came like 20 years afterwards (the modern plastic Space Marine)? Oh noes, GW will force me to buy Primaris 2.0 in 18 years.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 15:46:13


Post by: dadx6


I disagree that it's better. Stormsurge has to be within charge range of a Knight, essentially, to shoot the Pulse Blastcannon at it. Hammerhead can fire from literally across the table. Probably from the next table over, frankly.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 16:14:59


Post by: vict0988


Dispersed shot is still more damage than a railgun, 48" range is plenty.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 16:25:21


Post by: Ventus


a_typical_hero wrote:
Bit of a bad example, given Firstborn are still around and Primaris came like 20 years afterwards (the modern plastic Space Marine)? Oh noes, GW will force me to buy Primaris 2.0 in 18 years.


Optimistic to assume Primaris Marines have an 18 year shelf life. Stormcasts have already been 2.0'd after only 6 years.

The squattings haven't happened yet but I doubt even GW can maintain an infinitely growing range of Marine units indefinitely.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:15:44


Post by: Irbis


nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong. First, that would require competence from GW. They blatantly lack it and just buff their pet armies (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough*). Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers? Why, instead of buffing primaris, shiny new range that needs to recoup money invested in it, some incompetent choose to ruin the whole edition by giving ugly gak squat models (that are available in literal mountains in secondhand market) W2, an absurdly dumb move if you wanted to shift the meta away from stuff most people have in abundance? Why huge necron revamp in 9th edition, with tons of money invested in it, was accompanied by gak rules that failed to excite people and left that faction as weakest in 9th? Despite a lot of new kinds of units no one yet had that could be made into new hotness?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Matt Ward was the best codex writers GW have had in a long time. His rules were original, fun, varied and thematic and his love of and enthusiasm for the setting as a whole shines through in the rules. However because he worked for GW they didn't really try to reign him in in any way and in turn that resulted in him getting a lot of gak from the community online and generally reviled. If GW had properly playtested his rules though? They would have been some of the best books GW had ever put out. He'd probably still be working at GW if the community hadn't been so hard on him.

Ward's books stood in a very stark contrast to Cruddace, who's books were bland, uninspired and perfunctory. Unfortunately Cruddace is the one still working at GW (as far as I'm aware), hence our current..."situation".

That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best - core rules offering deep, yet not unnecessarily convoluted experience, all codex books written by Ward on the same level, no matter if first (SM) or last (GK). That was literal golden age, I still love how you got massive amounts of conversions, counts as, and rule of cool written into the rules, with none of the OP gak infesting the rules from 6th edition onwards. Too bad being good writer in GW doesn't pay, as the example of Ward (or the guy who wrote Titanicus) shows - you're more likely to get a kick in the bum than a raise even when you vastly outperform expectations, alas.

And the saddest part is, he literally didn't wrote the fluff he was blamed for. He was rules writer. 4chan grade children were unable to even check who wrote what in his book and screeched him out of company based on cover alone.

 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:28:32


Post by: wuestenfux


 Arschbombe wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Like when 4? edition started with very minimalist codexes that were completely barebones, an approach that was abandoned swiftly and left those effected with garbage, poor Dark Angels.


Jervisication.

Yeah, the right word at that time.
(I had a date (2008) immediately after buying the DA codex in the GW store; browsed through it when heading home; was surprised how ''bad'' it was. )
But JJ is already out of business, isn't he?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:34:42


Post by: Siegfriedfr


I think it's half amateurism, and half "we need to make this codex outsell the last one to impress our employer".


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:36:32


Post by: Ordana


 Irbis wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...
I don't mean that as Primaris being given good rules to sell, because they clearly failed there. But it was as a reaction to the notion "they can't sell you new models every 2 years, so they sell you new books instead". Regardless of the quality of their rules, Primaris as a model range exists to sell marines to marine players that already have every kind of marine.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:40:46


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Irbis wrote:
nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong.


LOL. Perfect Imbalance is not a conspiracy theory, its literally a well-known aspect of game theory which is practiced regularly by both tabletop and digital game designers across the globe.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:47:31


Post by: Tyran


 Irbis wrote:

That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best - core rules offering deep, yet not unnecessarily convoluted experience, all codex books written by Ward on the same level, no matter if first (SM) or last (GK).


When it comes to core rules? sure, but the codex balance of 5th was a mess. Also really unconvinced by the claim that all Ward books were on the same level with how hard GK dominated the end of 5th (also the sheer stupidity of having an entire army with access to cheap Instant Death).


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 17:52:37


Post by: PenitentJake


 Sim-Life wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men


I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.


You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:00:28


Post by: Tyran


Making a good game, and making a successful game are very different, arguably mutually exclusive goals.
In fact, they involve different teams, a good game requires a good rule writing team. A successful game requires a good marketing team, a good logistic teams, a good manufacturing team, etc.

There are many games that have writing teams far superior to GW's writing team. And pretty much none of them know how to make a successful game, none of them know how to run a corporation.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:10:26


Post by: Ordana


And even if they had all that, Warhammers single greatest feature is its market penetration. a game like 40k, Bolt Action, Warmachine or X-wing lives or dies by your ability to find someone else to play it with.

Even if a better games comes along and 40k feels bad the fact that you can find a club or store to play with complete strangers in probably every major town in the US or Europe is what will make 40k the more attractive choice.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:10:28


Post by: Sim-Life


 Tyran wrote:
Making a good game, and making a successful game are very different, arguably mutually exclusive goals.
In fact, they involve different teams, a good game requires a good rule writing team. A successful game requires a good marketing team, a good logistic teams, a good manufacturing team, etc.

There are many games that have writing teams far superior to GW's writing team. And pretty much none of them know how to make a successful game, none of them know how to run a corporation.


The problem is GW likes to keep recruitment in house, unfortunately most GW managers aren't great rules writers.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:14:46


Post by: nou


 Irbis wrote:
nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong. First, that would require competence from GW. They blatantly lack it and just buff their pet armies (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough*). Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers? Why, instead of buffing primaris, shiny new range that needs to recoup money invested in it, some incompetent choose to ruin the whole edition by giving ugly gak squat models (that are available in literal mountains in secondhand market) W2, an absurdly dumb move if you wanted to shift the meta away from stuff most people have in abundance? Why huge necron revamp in 9th edition, with tons of money invested in it, was accompanied by gak rules that failed to excite people and left that faction as weakest in 9th? Despite a lot of new kinds of units no one yet had that could be made into new hotness?


You misunderstand - with "perfect imbalance" nothing has to be neither perfect nor balanced or doesn't even have to make sense as long as you stir the pot every month or two and correct the most glaring mistakes like Razorwing Flock soon enough to not bleed players. It really doesn't matter. For each spammed unit a counterstrategy will emerge, that will be invalidated as soon as you change something else. There is no conspiracy "to sell models" - models have a life way, way longer than their moment in the rules spotlight. "Perfect imbalance" provides one, and only one value - prevents stagnation and keeps the game alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men


I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.


You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.


Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons - it is well, moronic itself. GW is not bad at making the game, it is great at being a successful business built around hobbyists and people there are clearly experts at this.

There is also one other perspective many players seem to not understand - GW is first in model making business, the game is secondary. Garage hammer players couldn't care less how the meta is shaped, because they play with the same few friends and those same few armies they own. There is a thread about starting new armies, from which you can learn, that in extreme cases people plan their lists two or three years in advance. Or they collect in 500 pts increments every few months. Perspective of meta chasers, that somehow GW should focus on them, because they are the core of the market is pretty much wrong. Which competitive player collects and paints 10,000pts worth of Guard company or Tyranid Fleet? Or pays thousands of dollars for a great home table made entirely from official Necromunda terrain? Tournament circuit isn't there to generate the core of the income - it is there to provide publicity.

That the game they make doesn't suit some people expectations? Well, I know 8th and 9th ed doesn't suit me, I play 2nd ed with modern minis or a completely custom ruleset. But I collect models, I build armies around aesthetic themes, and I've provided around 12000 pts worth of income and a table worth of terrain kits. That's about 12 standard matched play armies worth in the last 6 years if I convert terrain purchases to unit purchases. I buy FW models that are crap or illegal on the battlefield, because they look great on my shelf and provide fun challenge to paint. I convert models from multiple entire kits, just to have a mini that looks exactly like I want it. I'm most certainly not alone in this, as there are numerous FB groups dedicated to people like me.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:38:51


Post by: Ordana


Yes, GW is so great at being a game company they ran WHFB into the ground so hard the best financial choice was to kill it completely and launch something else in its place.

Or how the community dropped during 6-7th to eventually be 'rescued' by 8th bringing a lot of people back.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:49:26


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men


I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.


You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.


Tyran and Ordana have already responded appropriately but I'll add that comparing GW to other miniature wargame manufacturers is a false equivalence. GW is an entity unto itself in terms of where it is as and within the hobby. It's like comparing a a local take away to McDonalds.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:49:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

"They make a lot of money" and "They are idiot game designers" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no relation to each other whatsoever.

Heck, as children, the message: "The rich/noble/fortunate can be donkey-caves whilst the poor are usually genuinely good people" is slammed into us so hard I think Aladdin is lodged somewhere in my spleen.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:55:12


Post by: hobojebus


 Ordana wrote:
 Irbis wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...
I don't mean that as Primaris being given good rules to sell, because they clearly failed there. But it was as a reaction to the notion "they can't sell you new models every 2 years, so they sell you new books instead". Regardless of the quality of their rules, Primaris as a model range exists to sell marines to marine players that already have every kind of marine.


But many people just don't buy primaris, I own a few but mostly still use stuff I bought in 2009.

For a wolf player primaris stuff is mostly inferior to our unique units.

And if they do squat older units I just won't play that edition and keep playing an edition where they have rules.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 18:57:38


Post by: Tyran


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.

The error here is assuming that goodness and success are related beyond basic correlation. One can help the other, but is not truly needed.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 20:40:04


Post by: kodos


nou wrote:

Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons

you still have to say that GW was often more lucky than competent of having the right product there at the right place without doing anything special, while during other times were able to turn around because they created enough goodwill without doing something for it

and this is also the reason why we see the same thing happening now as with 7th, they don't know that something went wrong because everything turned out to be fine


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 21:17:34


Post by: frogert_poj


 Irbis wrote:
Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers?


I personally think they push the power level of certain resin kits to insure the resin casters have a steady amount of work to do, So instead of waiting around for sales to come in, they will know that certain kits are going to sell so they can stockpile. Or at least to me that makes the most business sense.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 22:25:02


Post by: auticus


IMO GW's massive success financially isn't because they make an awesome *game*.

There are so many other reasons people are involved with and buy into 40k but do not really like the game all that much.

A massive built in global community that provides tens of thousands of players in both online discussion as well as an inexhaustible number of tournament opponents, and great models being the top 2 followed by the lore that people get into.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/14 22:31:10


Post by: jeff white


 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.

The error here is assuming that goodness and success are related beyond basic correlation. One can help the other, but is not truly needed.


Actually, this is a common misunderstanding promulgated by short sight neo classical neo liberal economists such as represented in the famous Friedman fallacy that being the belief that one’s only obligation as a business leader is to max profit for shareholders. Originally, Adam Smith’s invisible hand was motivated by individual drive to social virtue cf. his Theory of Moral Sentiments. This basis of capitalism in civic virtue was selectively ignored by finance oriented bizniz skewls e.g. Chicago mostly in service of big corp and global fin cap ultimately with US mil intel support in hybrid cold warfare. Now, as a result, we are left with the mess that a few generations have been taught that selfish short sighted greed is what makes the world go round with the corollary that money is success. Meanwhile, cue Aristotle, the successful on such a formula are the ‘worst of animals’.

So, yeah. Big cap is happy that people are so misinformed as to love their neo feudal servitude, but the current global political economy is more neo fascist latter day corporate capitalist than capitalism as originally intended, but then again if anyone has studied their Marx and Aristotle, well, no surprises as this is where capitalism (democratic free markets) end up, tyranny by way of demagoguery which is where we are, now.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 04:29:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Tyran wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.help the other, but is not truly needed.


Financial success, sure.

Success at good game design is not correlated with financial success any more than marital success or being a successful artist or inventor is correlated with financial success.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 05:04:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Whenever people like Irbis say things like "Then why did Primaris suck at the start?" I'm amazed that they never stop to think what the obvious answer is: Because GW are terrible at writing rules, so manage to fail even when trying to make things powerful.

 Irbis wrote:
People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong.
Conspiracy theory? I know game designers who have written about perfect imbalance. Designers I've worked with.

What's conspiratorial about it?

 Irbis wrote:
That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best...
Literally, hey? I presume you can name all these competent players?

And if you think that an edition that contained Ward's GK Codex is a 'golden age', then, gak, there ain't nuthin' any of us can do to help you.

nou wrote:
Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons - it is well, moronic itself.
You ain't never heard the term 'failing upwards'? You've never been in a situation, or simply witnessed a situation, in any business, where the wrong people get promoted? You think GW is immune to such things?

But as Unit1126PLL put it so succinctly on the last page: "They make a lot of money" and "They are idiot game designers" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no relation to each other whatsoever.

To put it another way, you cannot explain away terrible rules by going "Well look at their profits! It must be good!".




Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 06:50:04


Post by: Togusa


Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


It's not just that. The stormsurge gun isn't good. It will still spend at least a single turn getting into position, then a second turn anchoring meaning it might get a good stable shot on T3. I guarantee you that any Stormsurge on the field against a semi-competent player won't survive past turn 2. Woo 12 dmg that most likely will get to hit one thing one time. Just like with the Railgun, I think it's community overreaction due to perception of the rule, rather than testing. HH and SSurg can have D24 weapons, they're still going to get nuked by a squad of well placed (and well supported) obliterators, eradicators, firedragons, [insert infantry AA here]. Vehicles still blow, they still die to a stiff breeze.

The problem I see with rules in general is that they're all just thrown in a blender. Game was very lethal. So a lot of things got wound buffs. Then the lethality went up again, so things got -1 dmg. Now we're back to the mega lethal shots. Codexes from the first year feel very underwhelming, while newer books feel overpowered. When has moral tests ever mattered in now three editions?

For the health of the community and the game, we need 1 ruleset that is fixed as problems arise.

D&D 5E has been around nearly a decade and is just now these last 2 years getting very major updates to it's core rules. Most of which is record keeping, or changes to lore that is perceived to be problematic due to current political and societal leanings. The actual core rules haven't really changed all that much. If WoTC can do it, why can't GW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ventus wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Bit of a bad example, given Firstborn are still around and Primaris came like 20 years afterwards (the modern plastic Space Marine)? Oh noes, GW will force me to buy Primaris 2.0 in 18 years.


Optimistic to assume Primaris Marines have an 18 year shelf life. Stormcasts have already been 2.0'd after only 6 years.

The squattings haven't happened yet but I doubt even GW can maintain an infinitely growing range of Marine units indefinitely.


A new unit type isn't primaris...


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 07:12:47


Post by: Nitro Zeus


nou wrote:
You miss the point entirely - GW is not in the business of making a good, balanced game. GW is in business of providing excitement to a specific audience through an ever evolving gaming environment.

I've never seen it said so perfectly.

This current model is NOT losing them business it's keeping people hooked lol. Would the game be better if all dexes were released at once, and then GW kept the meta fresh by adjusting problems? Almost definitely. But it's less exciting than a constant shake up every month or so lol


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 07:20:34


Post by: Sledgehammer


Without codex creep, imbalance, and an ever changing meta, there is less incentive for customers to continue to churn through miniatures.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 09:50:05


Post by: vict0988


 Togusa wrote:
D&D 5E has been around nearly a decade and is just now these last 2 years getting very major updates to it's core rules. Most of which is record keeping, or changes to lore that is perceived to be problematic due to current political and societal leanings. The actual core rules haven't really changed all that much. If WoTC can do it, why can't GW?

GW did do it and it was awful enough that tournaments had to invent their own rules to fix the game, which you have to do for D&D as well unless everyone agrees to keep it casual and focus on roleplaying. 40k is not a roleplaying game, it's a miniature wargame and if you tried to play D&D like a miniature wargame then you'll see how terrible it is at it.
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Without codex creep, imbalance, and an ever changing meta, there is less incentive for customers to continue to churn through miniatures.

If you could be sure your miniatures were worth using once you got done assembling and painting them then you'd buy, assemble and paint more.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 12:10:25


Post by: kodos


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
To put it another way, you cannot explain away terrible rules by going "Well look at their profits! It must be good!".

you misunderstood, it is "look at the high prices, if they still sell well it must be good"

this is were all those conclusions come from, GW is the best at everything because they are the most expensive ones, no one would pay 100€ for rules if it would not be a good game, or were better rules would be free
or the big plastic models must be the best on the market, because something that costs the same as a perfect grade Gundam for sure must be equal in quality



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 12:33:41


Post by: Tyel


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Without codex creep, imbalance, and an ever changing meta, there is less incentive for customers to continue to churn through miniatures.


Not totally sure it an immediate connection - although I think it would follow.

To my mind people engage with GW at a range of levels. You have people like posters here who follow every new release. Who follow the major tournaments. Who write about it on the internet. Who even play some games. They are quite vocal - and change keeps them vocal.

And I think this vocality does foster interest. Dakka can famously be kind of miserable - but if I go on any of the faction reddits, I can see a lot of people excited about their models, talking about the game etc. It makes me think I can be part of that. There's lots of places that encourage giving 40k a go - even if its just painting up your first 10 guys.

I feel the biggest concern for GW is if they released everything at once, the meta would "solved" in about 6 weeks (if not 6 days) - and that would essentially be that. The game would still run, people would still have fun throwing dice, but eventually it would get stale, as has happened any time one (or usually 2-3) factions rules the roost for such a long time. People would get bored and drift away.

And if people stopped talking about 40k, I think people would be motivated to buy fewer models. Because why be part of a shrinking community?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 13:09:38


Post by: nou


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Whenever people like Irbis say things like "Then why did Primaris suck at the start?" I'm amazed that they never stop to think what the obvious answer is: Because GW are terrible at writing rules, so manage to fail even when trying to make things powerful.

 Irbis wrote:
People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong.
Conspiracy theory? I know game designers who have written about perfect imbalance. Designers I've worked with.

What's conspiratorial about it?

 Irbis wrote:
That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best...
Literally, hey? I presume you can name all these competent players?

And if you think that an edition that contained Ward's GK Codex is a 'golden age', then, gak, there ain't nuthin' any of us can do to help you.

nou wrote:
Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons - it is well, moronic itself.
You ain't never heard the term 'failing upwards'? You've never been in a situation, or simply witnessed a situation, in any business, where the wrong people get promoted? You think GW is immune to such things?

But as Unit1126PLL put it so succinctly on the last page: "They make a lot of money" and "They are idiot game designers" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no relation to each other whatsoever.

To put it another way, you cannot explain away terrible rules by going "Well look at their profits! It must be good!".




Reread my post - I never wrote that GW are great game designers, I wrote that they are great businessmen. In business there is no other measure of success than profit, even the size is secondary. To the point where markets panic when the growth of profit stagnates, a first derivative of profit, not the profit itself. GW does a great job at convincing people, that their hobby will satisfy your need as a wargaming/modeling/painting hobbyist, and this is exactly what a successful business is required to do. And I write hobby because GW does not sell a simple game, but an encompassing and comprehensive pass time activity.

Also, to answer all those arguments about luck or periods of decline - as long as periods of growth outweight periods of decline and you react do periods of decline with constructive change, you are not lucky, you are good at making business in a changing environment. GW killed WHFB not because they broke it, but because the format got obsolete. It required 2000pts army to play and that meant a lot of models and time before the first game - no one except true geeks had a will to do that kind of initial investment. It was ok in times when wargaming and gaming culture as a whole was a narrow niche within a narrow geek culture. But between '80 - '90 and now, those niches went mainstream. Game mechanics had to follow. With WHFB GW killed the game, but ported all miniatures from that game to the new format. It is really not that different than transition from 2nd to 3rd, or 7th to 8th 40k. Both those times we got an entirely different games.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 14:20:59


Post by: Tyel


nou wrote:
Also, to answer all those arguments about luck or periods of decline - as long as periods of growth outweight periods of decline and you react do periods of decline with constructive change, you are not lucky, you are good at making business in a changing environment. GW killed WHFB not because they broke it, but because the format got obsolete. It required 2000pts army to play and that meant a lot of models and time before the first game - no one except true geeks had a will to do that kind of initial investment. It was ok in times when wargaming and gaming culture as a whole was a narrow niche within a narrow geek culture. But between '80 - '90 and now, those niches went mainstream. Game mechanics had to follow. With WHFB GW killed the game, but ported all miniatures from that game to the new format. It is really not that different than transition from 2nd to 3rd, or 7th to 8th 40k. Both those times we got an entirely different games.


I don't think this is true - and certainly nothing GW couldn't have moved to have fix.

WHFB was essentially near abandoned for half a decade - with no regard for how the game was played. They very slowly rolled out army books with all the creep issues discussed in every game they ever do.
In an act of high Kirbyism (i.e. people want models because they look nice, screw the rules) AOS 1.0 was barely a game on release. It was only wall to wall ridicule (and declarations of undying hatred) that would see them come up with points in the General's Handbook a year later - and the evolution towards a game which is rather more similar to 40k in Fantasy than anything related to WHFB.

It could be correct (within reason) that the interest in "Fantasy Battles" - fought by units standing in rank and file - has lessened over the decades. But I'm not convinced on that. I think the evidence is that the End Times campaign fostered more interest in WHFB than had been seen for years. Lots of people were dusting off ancient armies, starting new ones, generally reconnecting. If they had done something similar to 7th->8th in 40k I think WHFB would have seen a new lease of life.

The fact these hopes were built up only to be entirely dashed is a further reason why the reaction to AoS was so hostile.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 14:32:41


Post by: nou


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Whenever people like Irbis say things like "Then why did Primaris suck at the start?" I'm amazed that they never stop to think what the obvious answer is: Because GW are terrible at writing rules, so manage to fail even when trying to make things powerful.

 Irbis wrote:
People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong.
Conspiracy theory? I know game designers who have written about perfect imbalance. Designers I've worked with.

What's conspiratorial about it?

 Irbis wrote:
That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best...
Literally, hey? I presume you can name all these competent players?

And if you think that an edition that contained Ward's GK Codex is a 'golden age', then, gak, there ain't nuthin' any of us can do to help you.

nou wrote:
Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons - it is well, moronic itself.
You ain't never heard the term 'failing upwards'? You've never been in a situation, or simply witnessed a situation, in any business, where the wrong people get promoted? You think GW is immune to such things?

But as Unit1126PLL put it so succinctly on the last page: "They make a lot of money" and "They are idiot game designers" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no relation to each other whatsoever.

To put it another way, you cannot explain away terrible rules by going "Well look at their profits! It must be good!".




And re work promotions. Apart from professional skills you deem deserving a trully justified promotion, there are two other: self promoting skill, that is convincing other people that you are a competent specialist, regardless whether you are or you aren’t one; and social skill, that is how easy going you are, how fun you are, and who you drink with and who wants to drink with you. This last one is the single most important skill in many industries in Poland. If you (general you) dismiss those other two sets as unimportant to your career, then it is indeed less likely, that you will have a career. That is how the world works, because it is emergent on human psychology.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
nou wrote:
Also, to answer all those arguments about luck or periods of decline - as long as periods of growth outweight periods of decline and you react do periods of decline with constructive change, you are not lucky, you are good at making business in a changing environment. GW killed WHFB not because they broke it, but because the format got obsolete. It required 2000pts army to play and that meant a lot of models and time before the first game - no one except true geeks had a will to do that kind of initial investment. It was ok in times when wargaming and gaming culture as a whole was a narrow niche within a narrow geek culture. But between '80 - '90 and now, those niches went mainstream. Game mechanics had to follow. With WHFB GW killed the game, but ported all miniatures from that game to the new format. It is really not that different than transition from 2nd to 3rd, or 7th to 8th 40k. Both those times we got an entirely different games.


I don't think this is true - and certainly nothing GW couldn't have moved to have fix.

WHFB was essentially near abandoned for half a decade - with no regard for how the game was played. They very slowly rolled out army books with all the creep issues discussed in every game they ever do.
In an act of high Kirbyism (i.e. people want models because they look nice, screw the rules) AOS 1.0 was barely a game on release. It was only wall to wall ridicule (and declarations of undying hatred) that would see them come up with points in the General's Handbook a year later - and the evolution towards a game which is rather more similar to 40k in Fantasy than anything related to WHFB.

It could be correct (within reason) that the interest in "Fantasy Battles" - fought by units standing in rank and file - has lessened over the decades. But I'm not convinced on that. I think the evidence is that the End Times campaign fostered more interest in WHFB than had been seen for years. Lots of people were dusting off ancient armies, starting new ones, generally reconnecting. If they had done something similar to 7th->8th in 40k I think WHFB would have seen a new lease of life.

The fact these hopes were built up only to be entirely dashed is a further reason why the reaction to AoS was so hostile.


You assume that neglect of WHFB came first and decline of sales came as the result. I don’t know the numbers, but I don’t suspect that is true. There was an overall turmoil in all areas of geek culture in the ’00, all sorts of old paradigm shifts everywhere, „the rise of casuals”. Just look at computer games and how genres changed and relative genre popularity shifted. When you compare WHFB to AOS you can see the same paradigm shift.

And regarding to Kirbyism - he was not really wrong about it. What he failed to see, was that those models need publicity, and publicity is provided by both marketing and people playing the game in public and expressing the excitement to their peers. For many, and IMHO the majority of GW consumers, rules are just an excuse to push their minis once every blue moon. Codices and Imperial Armour books do not exist solely to rely rules, but to build an immersive world through both lore sections and in-game parameters. That’s part of the reason why there is so much disconnect between the lore and how GW describes units and their rules, and how those rules actually work within the system. During my first period in the hobby, a year of 2nd ed, I have played just a couple of games, all of them in tandem, because I didn’t have enough minis to field an army on my own. But I was completely absorbed by the lore and the hobby, enough to branch into Necromunda when I got back couple years later (also just a few games of it), BFG (one game only) and contemplating Gorkamorka. In all those systems, the perceived awesomeness of the units and the lore behind it was more important than the actual in-game performance exactly because 99% of my time spent on the hobby was solitary. I was way more interested in rules during 7th, when I had ~200 games, but even then, the rules came second to the models and narratives I wanted to play out.

If your (general you) perspective on GW is „GW tries to satisfy hardcore players but due to being a band of morons it fails miserably every time” then you have to come up with some sort of alternative, sometimes even malevolent theories about why it is so popular. But if you shift your perspective to „GW tries to sell a hobby, which also involves a ruleset on the side for an occasional game” then all falls into a coherent explanation of why GW is so prosperous.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 15:35:17


Post by: SemperMortis


 Jayden63 wrote:
As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules. Because that's where they need to get their investment back. Even the older models (usually the one offs or the units with lower model count) get codex upgrades once their turn comes around again because why not try to move older models and get a great return on investment. Its been this way with every codex release that had new models added to it.


not to beat up on you but this is patently false. I'll use orkz because...i'm me

7th Edition: Literally the worst edition for orkz....ever. We got the absolute worst codex, so bad in fact that the initial reaction from players on this very website was "Oh good, 7th is going to tone down the dmg output we saw in 6th" only for Space Marines, tau, Eldar and Necrons to crank it to 11. But what else happened for orkz in 7th? We got brand new Mek Gunz which were good, not broken, not OP but good and we got....ready for it? ORKANAUTS!!!!!!!!!! Those were so terribly broken it was ridiculous. I mean...remember when they used to solo knights which costed slightly more? Oh wait..no, they were the Ork version of Knights but they were crap in every which way possible. A knight could relatively easily take out 2 Orkanauts on its own so long as it got a few turns shooting in. Now lets skip forward to...

8th Edition: Not a bad edition for orkz and we also got out new and super OP Buggies! Oh wait, all of them were crap and the most competitive was the Scrapjet which only realy became competitive at the end of 8th with the Psychic Awakening campaign book which let it get 2 rounds of CC in. Something like 7 new models, only 1 of which was competitive.

9th Edition: Orkz are actually in a good place (supposedly until this CA comes out) we got decent rules, a good codex and a lot of cool new models. Lets go over the "new" models that are supposed to be broken or OP because new needs to sell.

1: New Boyz: Boyz are literally the worst unit in our codex right now.
2: Beastboyz: Like boyz but with polish on them, so they look shiny, but are still just crap.
3: Hunta Rig: I've actually never seen one...literally. I've been to dozens of tournaments since the codex came out and I have seen 0 Huntarigs or even Huntarig proxies.
4: Killrigs: These I have seen. They did cause a lot of commotion at first and that lasted right up until people realized they were too big of a model and not all that hard to remove.
5: Squighogs: Same price as Warbikes but less useful
6: KOMMANDOS!: This unit actually meets your criteria, they have a new model and the rules are pretty good. I don't consider them OP but they are competitive so I'll give you that. Here is the kicker though. They still haven't released the damn model for this unit yet except in the Killteam box set, and not many people are going to drop that much money for 10 models that they want. Supposedly the new models will be released soon but we also possibly saw a CA 2022 leak which says they are getting a 20% increase in points

Games Workshop is successful in spite of its marketing strategy, rather then because of its marketing strategy.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 20:36:29


Post by: Tyel


nou wrote:
You assume that neglect of WHFB came first and decline of sales came as the result. I don’t know the numbers, but I don’t suspect that is true. There was an overall turmoil in all areas of geek culture in the ’00, all sorts of old paradigm shifts everywhere, „the rise of casuals”. Just look at computer games and how genres changed and relative genre popularity shifted. When you compare WHFB to AOS you can see the same paradigm shift.

If your (general you) perspective on GW is „GW tries to satisfy hardcore players but due to being a band of morons it fails miserably every time” then you have to come up with some sort of alternative, sometimes even malevolent theories about why it is so popular. But if you shift your perspective to „GW tries to sell a hobby, which also involves a ruleset on the side for an occasional game” then all falls into a coherent explanation of why GW is so prosperous.


I doubt we hugely disagree. To my mind GW tries to sell a hobby - with miniatures, with fluff, with rules. Sometimes its good, sometimes its not.
There's no grand conspiracy - just people who care about different elements.

I think where I disagree is in the detail. I think there was a paradigm shift in gaming around 2010 (certainly after 2012).
But I don't think this was a rise in casuals or anything like that - it was that Games Workshop's flagship games grip on the playerbase came under assault from Warmahordes, and perhaps more importantly X-Wing.
And GW's old approach of "here's an army book - if it sucks, or is boring, that's unfortunate, we'll look again in half a decade's time" was no longer acceptable. Some people obviously carried on - but many more said "this sucks, what else can we play" - and found a lot of people willing to play an alternative. This neglect weighed on both 40k and Fantasy - and for a while at least competitors seemed more responsive. Ultimately both games ended up wrecked on the inevitable bloat that happens because they have to sell new stuff. By contrast 8th Ed 40k was seen as simple and easy to get in to (and fun) and AoS 2.0 was quite a good game if you accepted it was a game and not whatever fantasies you might have had for 9th edition WHFB.

Like one of the big issues I think of WHFB - which you highlight - is that new players turned up, wanted to play Empire and were immediately told "buy 40 Halberdiers". Which is greatly dispiriting and that potential player going "you know what, I'll leave it". But that's because GW made the rules that way. They could have changed the game to avoid that issue.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/15 20:42:54


Post by: kodos


nou wrote:

You assume that neglect of WHFB came first and decline of sales came as the result.

the neglect of WHFB came with the shift in how the company was run, and the main designers behind the game left the company
at the same time they started to move away from the community because of a panic reaction over fan fiction (that for fan fiction done outside the UK, IP laws of the country of origin apply and not UK law), removing community written articles and community supported online magazines, threatening forums to shut down if they allow direct quotes of rules or points and for whatever reason stopped doing FAQ/Erratas

because of 40k getting a new Edition, Fantasy saw the decline first as most people being upset moved from Fantasy to 40k, specially as with Black Reach starting was very cheap (and it was the better game), similar as now AoS is the better game and some 40k people move over

yet also 40k declined with 6th and 7th Edition, you could now say the decline in sales came before GW started doing strange things, but it happend to 40k as well after they did there the same

and the big turnaround came with the original AoS failed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Like one of the big issues I think of WHFB - which you highlight - is that new players turned up, wanted to play Empire and were immediately told "buy 40 Halberdiers". Which is greatly dispiriting and that potential player going "you know what, I'll leave it". But that's because GW made the rules that way. They could have changed the game to avoid that issue.

which was very different in the beginning, with the Army book having a 1000 point "how to start" list being:

Grandmaster
ASB
Wizard
5 Knights
16 Halbardiers
10 Crossbow
10 Muskets
Cannon

wich looks like a much easier to get into list than what we got in 8th, but than at the beginning of 8th they already knew that they would kill it, so changing the rules to get the most money out of those that still played


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/16 08:21:36


Post by: Blackie


One of the reasons why WHFB died was because 8th edition encouraged blobs of 40+ models, also for elite armies. 40 man squads of dark elves warriors or black orcs were horrible game design. So were 50 man blobs of cheap chaff like goblins.

It wasn't a feature of older editions like 6th though, IMHO WHFB peak, when horde armies like empire typically brought 20 man blobs.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/16 09:08:15


Post by: Dysartes


Not to mention encouraging large units, then releasing expensive 10 model boxes of infantry - Goldswords and Witch Elves come to mind as egregious examples.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 08:05:06


Post by: Hecaton


 Blackie wrote:
One of the reasons why WHFB died was because 8th edition encouraged blobs of 40+ models, also for elite armies. 40 man squads of dark elves warriors or black orcs were horrible game design. So were 50 man blobs of cheap chaff like goblins.

It wasn't a feature of older editions like 6th though, IMHO WHFB peak, when horde armies like empire typically brought 20 man blobs.


Again, they knew at the beginning of 8th the game was going to be canned, so they turned it into a "milk the whales" edition.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 16:42:13


Post by: auticus


Interestingly enough they encouraged big units in AOS and people were fielding 40 or 50 models.

So it can be done. It just requires things like rules support and new models and other items that generate excitement.

8th edition WHFB there was very little to be excited about. New things were few and far between. The End times books sold super fast as did the new models at the end of 8th because there was genuine excitement for the first time in years (and then we woke up one day in July of 2015 to find out that game no longer existed and was replaced with 4 pages of very abstract rules and no point system).


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 17:31:11


Post by: Hecaton


 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough they encouraged big units in AOS and people were fielding 40 or 50 models.

So it can be done. It just requires things like rules support and new models and other items that generate excitement.

8th edition WHFB there was very little to be excited about. New things were few and far between. The End times books sold super fast as did the new models at the end of 8th because there was genuine excitement for the first time in years (and then we woke up one day in July of 2015 to find out that game no longer existed and was replaced with 4 pages of very abstract rules and no point system).


Which leads me to believe that canning WHF was more about internal politics than anything objective; some suit had decided that WHF was dead and was gonna enforce that idea even if it had life in it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 17:45:50


Post by: Dysartes


WHFB didn't die of natural causes - it was abused, and then murdered.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 18:01:32


Post by: Ordana


Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough they encouraged big units in AOS and people were fielding 40 or 50 models.

So it can be done. It just requires things like rules support and new models and other items that generate excitement.

8th edition WHFB there was very little to be excited about. New things were few and far between. The End times books sold super fast as did the new models at the end of 8th because there was genuine excitement for the first time in years (and then we woke up one day in July of 2015 to find out that game no longer existed and was replaced with 4 pages of very abstract rules and no point system).


Which leads me to believe that canning WHF was more about internal politics than anything objective; some suit had decided that WHF was dead and was gonna enforce that idea even if it had life in it.
I have no problem accepting that at the time the decision to kill WHFB was made it was a small enough part of GW's income that it didn't make financial sense to keep alive and that they didn't expect End Times to be as popular as it was.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 18:03:18


Post by: auticus


Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough they encouraged big units in AOS and people were fielding 40 or 50 models.

So it can be done. It just requires things like rules support and new models and other items that generate excitement.

8th edition WHFB there was very little to be excited about. New things were few and far between. The End times books sold super fast as did the new models at the end of 8th because there was genuine excitement for the first time in years (and then we woke up one day in July of 2015 to find out that game no longer existed and was replaced with 4 pages of very abstract rules and no point system).


Which leads me to believe that canning WHF was more about internal politics than anything objective; some suit had decided that WHF was dead and was gonna enforce that idea even if it had life in it.


Management hearsay incoming but at their manager's meetings leading up to AOS they had those big gatherings in Dallas where all of management came together every year and they had a big slideshow on this very topic. They wanted warhammer to be more in line with 40k as 40k sold massively and their marketing found that their target audience which has always been younger was not interested in rank and file as much as they were interested in the loose formations 40k offered as well as the huge centerpiece models masters of the universe style clashing like action figures.

I have to agree with them on that front - if their target audience (and from a capitalist standpoint, this has garnered them great profit so on that front this is winning and doing well) are the younger crowd, then the deep analysis and tactics required in rank and file games are largely missing the mark. Age of Sigmar definitely fits that masters of the universe action figure demographic.

End Times, per that management hearsay meeting - was a final farewell to whfb and a goodbye for the fans.

Deep rules and the like are not really wanted or required of a large portion of either 40k or AOS fan base, nor is great balance. We are seeing that reflected and its a very popular and successful business model.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 18:12:08


Post by: Hecaton


 auticus wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough they encouraged big units in AOS and people were fielding 40 or 50 models.

So it can be done. It just requires things like rules support and new models and other items that generate excitement.

8th edition WHFB there was very little to be excited about. New things were few and far between. The End times books sold super fast as did the new models at the end of 8th because there was genuine excitement for the first time in years (and then we woke up one day in July of 2015 to find out that game no longer existed and was replaced with 4 pages of very abstract rules and no point system).


Which leads me to believe that canning WHF was more about internal politics than anything objective; some suit had decided that WHF was dead and was gonna enforce that idea even if it had life in it.


Management hearsay incoming but at their manager's meetings leading up to AOS they had those big gatherings in Dallas where all of management came together every year and they had a big slideshow on this very topic. They wanted warhammer to be more in line with 40k as 40k sold massively and their marketing found that their target audience which has always been younger was not interested in rank and file as much as they were interested in the loose formations 40k offered as well as the huge centerpiece models masters of the universe style clashing like action figures.

I have to agree with them on that front - if their target audience (and from a capitalist standpoint, this has garnered them great profit so on that front this is winning and doing well) are the younger crowd, then the deep analysis and tactics required in rank and file games are largely missing the mark. Age of Sigmar definitely fits that masters of the universe action figure demographic.

End Times, per that management hearsay meeting - was a final farewell to whfb and a goodbye for the fans.

Deep rules and the like are not really wanted or required of a large portion of either 40k or AOS fan base, nor is great balance. We are seeing that reflected and its a very popular and successful business model.


Sure, but it's probably difficult to know if that was an accurate assessment because the game was so hard to get into/inaccessible for so long. Where I'm at, the ASOIAF minis game is growing by leaps and bounds because people like fantasy rank and flank games that are easy to get into.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 18:16:59


Post by: auticus


R&F is my preference and always will be. And we had a huge warhammer community. They just didn't buy any new models because nothing exciting was really being put out.

But our community never failed to get us 24-30 players every year for our annual campaign (for warhammer fantasy battles).

And I know now that I promote Conquest (the fantasy R&F game) that its similar - we have a lot of interest.

So I agree with you - the market is there. The marketing speculation would be that its not as easy of a market but I'm not really a marketer and don't have their data so thats just my own speculation.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/17 18:57:51


Post by: kodos


why Warhammer stopped working:

rules did not match the background: if the core of the army in the background is unit A, but this being useless on the table and the real core is unit B, people don't get exited (and blaming the players for playing by the rules instead of playing by the fluff does not help but just creates a toxic environment)

rules were not updated and bad: the fact that community FAQ/Errata meant the game was popular enough to get people doing the heavy work, while GW itself markets game that do not get official support on a monthly bases are dead games
and not even pretend to try to solve problem and make the rules work, just solidified the impression

half the box content, double the prices and increase the unit size: this did kill LotR over night as well, but as Warhammer was so popular people kept playing it with alternatives, 3rd party models, unit filles etc where LotR lived from the original models no ones else was doing (and the community was less GW addicted, so the was no reason do not switch to something else, in fact some historical games here saw a big boost in players after that)

so the high entry level is not something natural for R&F, as are the high prices


all successful R&F games have common themes:
the rules work well and represent the background of the armies
units are cheap (either because of cheaper models or the possibility to use less models per unit, or both)
there is ongoing support for rules and/or models (either with new models for armies, new armies, new scenarios/campaigns etc)


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 15:37:49


Post by: Hankovitch


 kodos wrote:


all successful R&F games have common themes:
the rules work well and represent the background of the armies
units are cheap (either because of cheaper models or the possibility to use less models per unit, or both)
there is ongoing support for rules and/or models (either with new models for armies, new armies, new scenarios/campaigns etc)


I'm unfamiliar with the genre--are there many non-historical IPs in the R&F space aside from WFB and LotR that have a non-trivial customer base? I feel like the space is dominated by historical and pseudo-historical games, for which the product lines for rulebooks and models are not linked by copyright.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 16:25:25


Post by: catbarf


Hankovitch wrote:
 kodos wrote:


all successful R&F games have common themes:
the rules work well and represent the background of the armies
units are cheap (either because of cheaper models or the possibility to use less models per unit, or both)
there is ongoing support for rules and/or models (either with new models for armies, new armies, new scenarios/campaigns etc)


I'm unfamiliar with the genre--are there many non-historical IPs in the R&F space aside from WFB and LotR that have a non-trivial customer base? I feel like the space is dominated by historical and pseudo-historical games, for which the product lines for rulebooks and models are not linked by copyright.


Kings of War might qualify, depending on your idea of 'non-trivial'.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 17:47:49


Post by: auticus


Kings of War purposely steers clear of a deep background because people often ignore background in favor of min/max, and Kings of War is a heavy tournament themed game. Thats from the mouth of the rules committee when they have discussed background and either A) why is there not a lot of background and B) for what background exists why do the armies still look like spam sessions. I am of course paraphrasing several years of responses into a sentence.

There is background, but people in Kings of War often ignore it in favor of whatever gets them the most output on their spreadsheeting.

In that instance, the rules and background of the armies are irrelevant.

Oathmark is another example of not caring about background - you can make it up as you go.

I've played Warhammer Fantasy since 5th edition and the armies never looked like their background counterparts. That was in the golden age of Warhammer as well. It may have looked MORE like the background in the golden era, but it was still all about tuning monster powerlists using 10% of the overall faction models available to you.

So I don't think the background and rules working well with the background really matters too much - most games I've ever played the rules and background rarely come together once you throw tournament style powerlisting in the mix.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 19:19:12


Post by: Tittliewinks22


What killed off WHFB for everyone in my playgroup was that 8th edition changed the standard game size from 2000 to 3000 points and simultaneously lowered the point cost of most things in the game.

Skaven slaves were even measured in half points... this was absurd.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 19:23:58


Post by: Sim-Life


Tittliewinks22 wrote:
What killed off WHFB for everyone in my playgroup was that 8th edition changed the standard game size from 2000 to 3000 points and simultaneously lowered the point cost of most things in the game.

Skaven slaves were even measured in half points... this was absurd.


Only if you gave them shields.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 19:29:57


Post by: Tittliewinks22


One thing that needs to happen to all GW games though is complete removal of fluff from the rules section.
Take the current 9th core rulebook. How many people actually read the entire paragraph on how something works instead of the paraphrased bullet points at the bottom. I'm surprised people haven't given them backlash for not being "green" enough by writing like a college student padding their term paper to make the word limit.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 20:54:53


Post by: SemperMortis


Does GW just make this up as they go along... Yes.

If the CA2022 leaks are correct they just "Buffed" lootas by dropping them 2ppm. For comparison, that means that 150pts of Lootas would now put out 16 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn at 24-48' range and 24 at 1-24' range. That equates to 5.33 hits and 8 hits respectively. That is 1 hit per 28.14pts and 1 hit per 18pts.

An AdMech chickenwalker, which has been nerfed twice this edition would, for 150pts, get 12 shots, and 10 hits. Thats 1 hit per 15pts. If it chooses not to get BS2+ and go for a durability or speed boost instead its 8 hits. So at worst the chickenwalker is hitting as hard as the best the lootas can do, and at best the chickenwalker is smoke checking the Lootas by almost 100%.

So does GW just invent this stuff as they go along? yep. There is no other reason for their ridiculous decision making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 wrote:
One thing that needs to happen to all GW games though is complete removal of fluff from the rules section.
Take the current 9th core rulebook. How many people actually read the entire paragraph on how something works instead of the paraphrased bullet points at the bottom. I'm surprised people haven't given them backlash for not being "green" enough by writing like a college student padding their term paper to make the word limit.


Its worse than that. They need to just go digital entirely and occasionally release new fluff books for the factions because right now its something like 1/5th of the codex is actually useful, the rest is just rehashed garbage.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 21:20:36


Post by: vict0988


17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 21:25:54


Post by: Mariongodspeed


If youre going to arbitrarily assume the Ironstrider in your example is benefitting from using his 1 round per game Doctrina to increase army-wide BS by 1 and decrease his WS by one, you should run your numbers assuming the Lootas are under the benefit of their 1 use per game army wide Waaaagh! as well.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/18 21:51:07


Post by: Tyran


Or are Freebooterz for that easy access to +1 to hit.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 07:56:36


Post by: vict0988


Besides, you don't need to be able to draw 1-1 comparisons between armies, theoretical balance is impossible to calculate because characteristics are not always equally important, T5 is only better than T4 against S4, 5, 8 and 9, but it is better. A 10% drop seems sensible for Lootas, 20% should be reserved for the worst units in the game and more than that is too dangerous to meddle with IMO. AdMech aren't dominating anymore and have never really used the autocannon chickens much, the only reason to nerf them is theoretical at this point as far as I know.

I still think Semper is right that GW is making things up as they go and haven't done the underlying math for damage output and survivability, like we know, has been done for the LOTR battle game at one point according to the author of the original rules for that game. Semper's ire at having to include Spanners in his Lootas is totally understandable as well, I'd be annoyed if I had to include a Hexmark Destroyer in all my Lokhust Destroyer units all of a sudden.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 08:04:27


Post by: Blackie


Mariongodspeed wrote:
If youre going to arbitrarily assume the Ironstrider in your example is benefitting from using his 1 round per game Doctrina to increase army-wide BS by 1 and decrease his WS by one, you should run your numbers assuming the Lootas are under the benefit of their 1 use per game army wide Waaaagh! as well.


Lootas don't benefit from army wide Waaaagh, unless you think than being able to assault and charge and +1A for a pure shooting unit is a bonus. When was the last time you saw lootas charging enemy units? Speedwaaagh buffs shooting units, but only vehicles and bikers benefit from it.

Freebooterz +1 to hit and Bad Moons extended range are basically the only buffs a unit of lootas can get for free, and also stratagems don't really add anything to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
Or are Freebooterz for that easy access to +1 to hit.


Not that easy if you start including units like lootas


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 16:26:33


Post by: Backspacehacker


Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 17:13:43


Post by: Ordana


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.
And yet Pyrovores are still crap and have been crap since the day they were introduced.
Yet strangely this GW that makes rules to push model sales never bothered to try and sell a Pyrovore.

GW is incompetent, much more then it is malicious. And if you believe they act malicious then they are incompetent in that to, because damn were Primaris not the absolute best thing ever when they were introduced in order to sell them to the community... oh wait, they weren't.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 17:16:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 17:18:26


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it

Oh 100% yes. I dont think GW is capable of writing good rules anymore if they wanted to. I have said for the longest time, they should just outsource their rules to another company that actually can write rules.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 21:25:18


Post by: ERJAK


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.


Explain ALL of the following then:

Gladiators
Storm Speeders
Servo Turret
Invader ATV
Hammerfall Bunker
Sister's of Battle Castigator
Immolator
Exorcists
Paragon Warsuits (not bad, just not at all pushed)
Anything in Phobos armor
Most of the new Necron stuff.

People say this stuff all the time but there's just as much evidence that GW just straight up has no idea what they're doing a lot of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it


Is making a rule to sell a model inherently malicious?

If so, why are we even here?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 21:54:14


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It is malicious if you are claiming you are doing otherwise.

You can't say "we support narrative play and balance matched play!" and then write rules that have balance and lore anchoring as a second fiddle to model sales. That lie is what is malicious.

If they just wrote an article that said "balancing 40k isn't a priority compared to selling models, so don't expect a balanced game" it would be more honest. You could even spin it Tom Kirby style.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 22:22:16


Post by: Voss


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.


Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.


Do you not remember the primaris on release? The new headliners for the focal faction for the entire game that basically props up the entire company? They were _bad_. Just absolutely rubbish in terms of points value and capability.
After updating, they were still bad.
Another 8th edition codex happened and they were barely fine. The problems turned up in stupid secondary (traits and strats and such) rules writing in specific supplements, not general rules for units.

They're currently OK (some units, anyway), but they don't stand out, and SM armies are generally middle of the road, not bonkers or broken.

New tanks to sell with the 9th edition codex? Awful. Old tanks? Also awful. Speeders were kind of meh.
The ATVs were a little broken with how apothecaries worked, but they were fixed in a way that screamed 'Crap, we didn't notice that worked' rather than 'let's make this broken.' And that's pretty much how the codex worked- anything OP pretty much snuck through on accident, and only seemed broken until the rest of edition's army designs started to unfold.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/19 22:50:27


Post by: ccs


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is malicious if you are claiming you are doing otherwise.

You can't say "we support narrative play and balance matched play!" and then write rules that have balance and lore anchoring as a second fiddle to model sales. That lie is what is malicious.


Right. Because it can only be all-in on one or the other, not some percentage of both....


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If they just wrote an article that said "balancing 40k isn't a priority compared to selling models, so don't expect a balanced game" it would be more honest. You could even spin it Tom Kirby style.


Sure, it might be more honest. But they don't need to say such a thing. Just keep making models & rules and leave it to the customers to decide what they will.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 00:46:17


Post by: SemperMortis


 vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.


You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.


There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 04:48:37


Post by: vict0988


SemperMortis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.


You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.


There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

Chickenwalkers also need Belisarius Cawl and a Dominus to heal 2 vehicles each turn that's 400 pts for 2 Chickenwalkers and 2 vehicle healings each turn OMG Chickenwalkers are bad *bork bork boooork*


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 15:26:50


Post by: SemperMortis


 vict0988 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.


You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.


There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

Chickenwalkers also need Belisarius Cawl and a Dominus to heal 2 vehicles each turn that's 400 pts for 2 Chickenwalkers and 2 vehicle healings each turn OMG Chickenwalkers are bad *bork bork boooork*


I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood. Lootas are REQUIRED by the rulebook to take 1 spanner for every 4 lootas. The spanner is part of the lootas unit. You have no option not to take them. I understand the confusion, you wouldn't assume it would be a requirement since it makes no sense and is patently stupid. But sadly, thats how GW writes Ork rules.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 17:25:41


Post by: Voss


Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 20:50:15


Post by: SemperMortis


Voss wrote:
Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.


except that isn't really true. Boyz mobz aren't required to take 1 Nob per 10 Boyz, nor are we required to take 1 Runtherd per 10 grots. This was artificially done for whatever reason.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 21:13:49


Post by: GhostKnight31


The death guard points changes feels like GW just hate DG in general


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 21:45:17


Post by: Aenar


Nothing in this update even comes close to the -1 point on the Riptide last year.
One point and basically no other changes to Tau, when the faction was already bottom of the trash tier.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/22 22:14:03


Post by: Dysartes


True, that really should've been a +1 instead.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/23 18:13:14


Post by: Toofast


 Ordana wrote:
And even if they had all that, Warhammers single greatest feature is its market penetration. a game like 40k, Bolt Action, Warmachine or X-wing lives or dies by your ability to find someone else to play it with.

Even if a better games comes along and 40k feels bad the fact that you can find a club or store to play with complete strangers in probably every major town in the US or Europe is what will make 40k the more attractive choice.


This. I would much rather play Adeptus Titanicus, Necromunda, BFG, or any number of games from other companies. However I have moved states several times and everywhere I go, 40k is the only thing consistently being played. Consequently I mostly build/paint 40k armies


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/23 18:20:03


Post by: Voss


SemperMortis wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.


except that isn't really true. Boyz mobz aren't required to take 1 Nob per 10 Boyz, nor are we required to take 1 Runtherd per 10 grots. This was artificially done for whatever reason.


Things can still be a pattern without applying to every single kit.

Besides, when this happens, its mostly about weapons in the box. Boys are now two kits, so defaulting just to the layout of one doesn't work as well. Its why I'm not particularly concerned about basic chaos marines, because while the autocannon isn't an option in the box, it is an option in the start collecting CSM squad.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 05:54:02


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jayden63 wrote:
As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules.


Given the amount of books they've been throwing out I'm not sure thats true anymore. Also the "GW makes new models good" is demonstrably false, I don't know how people can still think that? Even just recently the two big releases from the Sisters second wave (Castigator tank and Paragon war suits) are both rubbish.


No, GW still makes most of its money on model sales. The profit margin on plastic models is insane. Most GW games come down to the same thing rock, scissor, paper.

I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 15:34:35


Post by: auticus


I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.


Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:13:53


Post by: jeff white


 auticus wrote:
I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.


Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.


This ^^

Back in the day, we would talk about how to interpret the poorly written rules in a way that furthered everyone’s interests, houseruling mostly for fairness, with the idea being not winning at the expense of others but all winning with friendly interpretations. Blast templates and so on worked fine in such an atmosphere… One exception was a guy who ended up in law school and he would, well, interpret to his advantage. When that happened, I found other things to do with other people.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:41:31


Post by: Backspacehacker


 auticus wrote:
I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.


Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.


This reminds me of a particular web comic that is so often frowned upon but the core idea behind it is true.

When the game turns into just "an excuse to socialize" and rules and the health of the game gets thrown to the wayside, you can't really blame the people who got into the hobby for the game being upset that people are just taking over the hobby to socialize and screw up the game they originally fell in love with.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:49:23


Post by: Tokhuah


The low hanging fruit would be periodic updates based on the meta. But GW cannot even do that without creating another money grab with Chapter Approved. But the financial part is just the ugly, not the bad. The bad is, choosing to tie rule fixes to a production schedule, including physical copies to distribute, means that every Chapter Approved is dated at release. Failing on this simple thing shows me there is no hope... so stop hoping. But why not buy the cool models for other games? The problem with GW is their rules and accessories, that you do not even need to buy to enjoy the models.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:50:32


Post by: Backspacehacker


I mean you want the answer to this problem?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:51:25


Post by: auticus


For me - its just that I am from a different bygone era where tabletop gaming was a completely different thing and what was considered skill is not what people want to engage in today.

The world evolved, gaming evolved, and while we may say that evolution is good - its really in my experience just "different'. The games that I fell in love with though and are what drive my interest are mostly dead today with the exception of a few like Battletech which is (THANKFULLY) still around and not giving into the current design paradigms of moar abstraction moar random moar faster moar faster moar faster games. (Alpha strike exists for that but the devs have continued support for the crunchy battle sim that I fell in love with so we have choices over there, unlike most games where you just have the one version and thats these days going to be the gamey game version). And if you like that thats wonderful!

And the people enjoying things today are in for a treat in 10 or 20 years when the things they fell in love with are called crap and flushed out of games in favor of whatever is coming up next wants.

The only thing for sure is ... things will change as they always have as game studios churn their dev talent over to the next wave of developers and those people will bring in what their generation of players wants. I work in the games industry and the average age of game devs that I work around is about 21-24, with management and directors being late 20s and early 30s.

The cycle of old man screams at cloud in anger will always continue lol The older you get, the more things will continue to change.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:53:16


Post by: Backspacehacker


You are not wrong lol.
I guess at least we have a shared gorup of old men yelling at the sky so we can tell at it together.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 20:58:42


Post by: auticus


so we can tell at it together.


Such a beautiful chorus we all make.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 21:02:00


Post by: Backspacehacker


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 21:05:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I don't like shouting at the sky. It sucks, the rules are terrible, and it doesn't support narrative play.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 21:07:37


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't like shouting at the sky. It sucks, the rules are terrible, and it doesn't support narrative play.


Fine just go back to your boomercore shouting at clouds, the future is now old man we yell at the sky.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 21:09:46


Post by: auticus


I have toyed with making my own version of 40k that is more narrative driven and less listbuildy meta building driven but... thats a lot of effort to basically play with myself lol.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 21:38:54


Post by: jeff white


We shall find time in Valhalla old man…


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 23:28:49


Post by: Skinflint Games


I actually wrote a post about basically this situation just before Grandfather Nurgle unleashed his Great Plague upon us:

https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2019/12/12/musings-on-game-design-or-can-40k-ever-be-good/

TLDR, basically GW makes £ from selling new models, so new models have to be better in the rules than old ones or no one will buy them.. hence the inevitable cycle of power creep through the Codexes and then a new edition reset every 3/4 years. Honestly, I think it's just an economic inevitability more than any sort of conspiracy on the part of the rules writers.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/24 23:58:15


Post by: auticus


The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 00:02:52


Post by: Sim-Life


 Skinflint Games wrote:

TLDR, basically GW makes £ from selling new models, so new models have to be better in the rules than old ones or no one will buy them..


But thats wrooooooooooong.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 00:04:19


Post by: Ordana


 Skinflint Games wrote:
I actually wrote a post about basically this situation just before Grandfather Nurgle unleashed his Great Plague upon us:

https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2019/12/12/musings-on-game-design-or-can-40k-ever-be-good/

TLDR, basically GW makes £ from selling new models, so new models have to be better in the rules than old ones or no one will buy them.. hence the inevitable cycle of power creep through the Codexes and then a new edition reset every 3/4 years. Honestly, I think it's just an economic inevitability more than any sort of conspiracy on the part of the rules writers.

A shocking new argument that no one has ever made before.
For every new kit with better rules there are 2 new kits not worth buying because they suck balls.

Whether or not GW is malicious doesn't matter that much when they are to incompetent to actually pull it off.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 00:05:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).
And the counter to that is that just because GW tries to do something, doesn't mean they're any good at it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 01:28:06


Post by: PenitentJake


 auticus wrote:
I have toyed with making my own version of 40k that is more narrative driven and less listbuildy meta building driven but... thats a lot of effort to basically play with myself lol.


Curious about this.

We've discussed several times that Crusade is more progression system than narrative- at this point, I'm not going to deny it, because that's an old discussion.

But I find that driving games via narrative lies mostly in the way individual games are linked to each other, and as such, they aren't always well represented by rules anyway.

So if you look at a progression of battles and how they link, that gives you narrative. Despite the fact that Crusade can be seen through the lens of progression system, I'd say it offers a greater potential for linking games in different ways for two reasons. In matched, the only real way of linking games is through the dichotomy of win/loss. This is because secondaries are connected to victory, so you can't say "Advance to Mission A if you win, Mission B if you succeed at this secondary or Mission C if you succeed at this other secondary."

In Crusade, of course, this dichotomy doesn't exist, because Agendas are not tied to victory. Beyond that though, most bespoke Crusade content provides faction specific goals that are often decoupled from both Victory Conditions AND Agendas. So you can put a player in a situation where they have to choose between Winning, to create one outcome, vs. completing an Agenda to create aa different outcome, or a faction specific goal to create a third outcome. Missions can be designed in such a way to facilitate a likelihood of completing more than one of these objectives, or to facilitate a likelihood that a player has to make a choice and use appropriate tactics on the table to follow through.

There are combination approaches too- where the path forward is keyed to victory/loss, but achievement of an agenda provides variation- ie. if you win, you're fighting in the heart of the plague next battle, but if you achieve a particular agenda in addition to winning, there might not be as many toxin emitters active when you get there.

And then of course, the other great story hook we get in 9th which isn't specifically connected to Crusade is game size. It puts a lot of variety in stories by allowing for "side quests" between large games. I'm having a riot with interactions between Kill Team and 40k, which is another really nice little narrative hook. experience levels are set at the same thresholds for both Kill Teams and Crusade forces, so your XP from KT can be used interchangably with Crusade in a few different ways: you can choose to buy either a Crusade upgrade or a KT upgrade either at unit creation- meaning you have to stick to your choice for the unit's lifespan- or you can have them choose every time they level. In either of these methods, the upgrade selected applies only in the game it was designed for. The third way to do this is a gestalt, so that everytime you level, you pick a KT trait that will apply in KT games AND a Crusade trait that will apply in 40k games. The Ideal, of course, is picking traits that are similar- but this isn't always possible.

Strategems, while problematic in other modes of play, can be a tool in an arbitrated narrative campaign- the ability to use given strategems can be restricted or enhanced based on the story.

I think that these tools are powerful in terms of forging a narrative. And while it may be true that GW might have provided more guidance on how to use these things as narrative tools than "Here's an XP system so you can take whatever you want whenever you want it," it's also true to say that had they done so, they may have interfered with our potential to use them as we see fit. What they HAVE done is illustrated different ways we could do this for ourselves by providing 3 campaigns so far, with another just about to kick off.

And while you may FEEL like you have to invent a new system to be MOAR narrative, I would caution you about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm a Sisters and DE die hard, and I tell you this in all seriousness: if your new system takes the Penitent Oath and Repentance or Sainthood off the table or Territorial Acquisitions, I think a lot of Narrative players would not be interested. I can honestly say that I've wanted these things for decades, and when I read them in print, it felt like someone had read my mind. Tell me you're inventing a narrative system and then take them away and I'll tell you I'd rather stick with what I've got.

By all means add. Unit told me once about a DE concept he had for a Kabal that worked closely with Corsairs and were fleet-based rather than locked in Commorragh; the concept sounded really cool, but obviously the Commorrite Crusade rules are an imperfect fit for this army at best. So by all means, Unit should be able to modify or create something that will suit his list better, using existing rules as inspiration for the sake of consistency. But it would be foolish to throw away the existing rules, as they might be perfect for another DE player.

Recently, I've had to augment the Crusade rules for the GSC. The rules that exist are great- they helped me define the NPC factions from which both the GSC and the Chaos Cult recruit their operatives. But they didn't go as far as I wanted, because I really wanted a set of rules to reflect the way a cult grows in terms of generations and brood cycles. So I'm creating those rules myself- not throwing out anything that already exists, but augmenting it. I'm also working on a GSC Kill Team Variant known as the Primogenitor Cult; it follows the patterns laid out for custom KTs by the existing rules for consistency, but it allows you to field Purestrain and Brood Brother fire teams in addition to those described in the Compendium list, but it locks the inclusion of all fire teams to Spec Op missions that reflect the breeding cycle of the Cult. So you MUST start with only Purestrain Fire teams. Every time they use the Implant Tac Op, you add a brood brother to your roster. Once you have enough brood brothers to form a fire team, you can include them. But if they sit out, they can create and train Acolytes. Once you have enough Acolytes to form a fire team, you can include them... but if they sit out, they create and train neophytes... etc, etc. Because we use KT and Crusade interchangeably, these rules grow the roster for both games. But all other rules (ie. RP costs in Crusade, Fire team sizes and limitations in KT) are followed as usual.

Add as needed.

But never subtract.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 01:36:56


Post by: Hecaton


 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 01:54:55


Post by: sandor1988


they schedule the releases, but as for writing the rules themselves in the releases, they pretty much just wing it

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-interview-with-james-hewitt-part-1-age-of-sigmar-and-40k/


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 02:59:23


Post by: auticus


And while you may FEEL like you have to invent a new system to be MOAR narrative,


Oh my desire to invent a new system has nothing to do with being "moar narrative", it has everything to do with the game of 40k is to me repellant in almost every avenue it drives through.

Its abstraction, its lack of maneuver mattering, its lack of positioning mattering, its over abundance of truck loads of dice, its heavy focus on combo building and chaining like its a card game, its strict adherence to a small few basic overall mission objectives which allows you to even more easily listbuild against it, its horrifyingly bad balance pushing players to purchasing bad units with a ton of real-life money that they then feel bad over because they were duped into thinking that points == balance.

Those are all reasons why I want to write my own 40k.

Narrative play really comes down to me a few pointers (heavy emphasis on TO ME since narrative means something different to each person)

* the story matters
* armies in the narrative should reflect the narrative and not adepticon tables
* many times commanders aren't going to have the finely tuned best of the best of the best list to go to war with
* unforseen things happen in battle all the time and commanders have to respond and react to that as much as to the enemy
* sometimes you don't have the units you'd rather have, but you have to make due to whats available
* sometimes the mission parameters are not going to be in your favor
* the game feels like you are reading whats happening in a 40k novel

Many of those things can be done with 40k as it stands today, but the over abstraction and lack of wargame in the wargame means having to stretch it a bit (for me) to be worth it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 03:33:50


Post by: PenitentJake


Fair enough. Given insurmountable problems (for you) with the core game, I can see why a rebuild is your only option.

Too bad, cuz if a can't take Penitent Oath and subsequently redeem myself, or work toward sainthood, it still wouldn't matter to me personally how good it was, I'd still rather play what I've got... But then that's me.

Some of your parameters for your narrative style also don't mesh with my own preferences- I tend to find story based opportunities more interesting than story based obstacles, and you seem to lean pretty heavily into obstacles. Again, not a BAD approach, just not my preferred approach.

To each their own.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 03:46:45


Post by: Mezmorki


 auticus wrote:
And while you may FEEL like you have to invent a new system to be MOAR narrative,


Oh my desire to invent a new system has nothing to do with being "moar narrative", it has everything to do with the game of 40k is to me repellant in almost every avenue it drives through.

Its abstraction, its lack of maneuver mattering, its lack of positioning mattering, its over abundance of truck loads of dice, its heavy focus on combo building and chaining like its a card game, its strict adherence to a small few basic overall mission objectives which allows you to even more easily listbuild against it, its horrifyingly bad balance pushing players to purchasing bad units with a ton of real-life money that they then feel bad over because they were duped into thinking that points == balance.

Those are all reasons why I want to write my own 40k.


This is what drove me and my group to assemble ProHammer (see the link in my signature). It's a blending on 4th + 5th edition at its core, but with compatibility rules to allow people to use any classic era caudexes from 3rd-7th edition. Many of the rules shave off the more egregious codex-level issues (no formations or super-formations, flyers are toned down, psychic powers from 7th edition toned down, no random warlord traits, etc.).

We've been trying to find the sweet spot in the delineation of rules that GW always seemed to overcorrect too far and miss between editions. And for what it's worth 6th and 7th edition codexes seem to work better under more of a 4th/5th paradigm set of rules than they do under 6th/7th.

We also added in a few new elements that feed into tabletop positioning. Classic style overwatch is back, but with restrictions. Units can take reactive fire under certain situations now. There's a suppression mechanism that also incorporates a cross-fire rule. We have a universally viable way to handle vehicle facings. Lots of other tweaks too.

We're working to make this a fully complete and unified system for both light-hearted "competitive" play as well as narrative play. Beyond the core rules for ProHammer, we've generated an entire Mission Pack that provides we feel a very diverse range of missions, each with a host of variables built into them, so that you need to account for a lot of possible situations when building a list.

We're also adapting an old campaign system we used to run back in 3rd edition to ProHammer, but pulling in a bunch of ideas and methods from the current 9th edition crusade system. It's a tight set of rules for running a MAP based campaign, with the strategic warzone map determining (with some built-in variation) what mission players will play when their armies meet (tapping into all of the missions in the new mission pack we made). There are rules for progression, experience gains, reinforcements, etc. We're getting ready to launch it so we'll see how it goes.




Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 07:24:05


Post by: vict0988


Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.

Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Tacticals were good.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 08:13:41


Post by: kodos


GW just don't know what they want and change direction mid-release because someone thinks this might be the better option

Primaris might have been designed to be True-Scale replacements of Marines, finally making the models people asking for

but than AoS failed, the new Fantasy Space Marines not the beloved models as expected and the "but we like the old stuff more" from the players comes into 40k and GW changed their mind to add Primaris as addition instead of a replacement

now we a strange mix of some units being a 1:1 replacement, others being an addition to the line, while again others are a replacement for new untis that were not received well

Marines are a mess were no ones really knows what to do with them except for keep new releases going because they sell and are the iconic line for 40k


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 08:16:29


Post by: Hecaton


 vict0988 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.

Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Tacticals were good.


...no?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 10:38:00


Post by: vict0988


Hecaton wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.

Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Tacticals were good.


...no?

Primaris are not better than firstborn. Scouts are gak because they got a pts hike and were moved to Elites because GW tired of Scouts, other than that Firstborn VanVets, Attack bikes, Devastators and Tacticals are as good or better than their Primaris counterparts. Why did firstborn get an extra wound?

GW are stumbling their way ineptly towards balance, that is the only theory that explains everything that has happened in 8th and 9th. Not that I think it's impossible that the odd bad intention slips in because it's the designer's favourite faction or management wants sales, but as a theory of everything it fails utterly.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 10:38:05


Post by: Ordana


Hecaton wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.

Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Tacticals were good.


...no?
really? so why did they give normal marines 2 wounds then? If the objective was purely to sell new Primaris kits they wouldn't have had reason to change old-marines.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 11:26:00


Post by: Dysartes


 Backspacehacker wrote:
This reminds me of a particular web comic that is so often frowned upon but the core idea behind it is true.

When the game turns into just "an excuse to socialize" and rules and the health of the game gets thrown to the wayside, you can't really blame the people who got into the hobby for the game being upset that people are just taking over the hobby to socialize and screw up the game they originally fell in love with.

Except... the group you think should now be upset, are the group who have done this to other players already.

1st and 2nd editions, and arguably 3rd and at least early 4th, were not games people generally got into for "the game" rather than because of the sculpts, the lore, the visuals, the social aspect. From my experience - and I may be a little off on the timeline - it was only around mid-to-late 4th that you started to see groups focusing on the game itself rather than everything else. This was also the timeframe where the internet was having more of an impact as a discussion platform, and tournament scenes were getting larger and more visible.

If the pendulum is swinging back towards people playing the game to socialise as a primary factor, then that's a good thing, quite frankly. After all, 40k isn't a good enough game to be obsessing over it as a game first and foremost.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 11:29:45


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah, but it could be. As you point out... It was.

Why should we celebrate the game being crap when it was once a good game?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 11:47:34


Post by: Blackie


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, but it could be. As you point out... It was.

Why should we celebrate the game being crap when it was once a good game?


But was it really? The concept of good (or bad) is entirely subjective.

40k seems at least as popular as it was in 4th, if not more popular. For many, including me (I started in 3rd), this edition is the best one so far. Maybe on par with 3rd, but 3rd had a huge downside back then: it was extremely difficult for some armies to play properly due to lack of official models or bitz. Playing 3rd with current models' range is a whole different experience than what it was back then.

Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol) and dice rolling was much lower. That's it, for anything else I think 9th is better. So maybe once it was a good game, but now it's better and it's definitely much easier now to play the game mostly to socialise compared to late 5th, all 6th, all 7th and I think all 8th as well. Which is more than a decade of 40k. Yeah, we should definitely celebrate!


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 12:41:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 13:07:18


Post by: hobojebus


 vict0988 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 auticus wrote:
The counter to that is always to point out that newer models aren't always more powerful (reference: primaris marines).


Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Primaris were good.

Yeah but they kept tweaking the rules until Tacticals were good.


...no?

Primaris are not better than firstborn. Scouts are gak because they got a pts hike and were moved to Elites because GW tired of Scouts, other than that Firstborn VanVets, Attack bikes, Devastators and Tacticals are as good or better than their Primaris counterparts. Why did firstborn get an extra wound?

GW are stumbling their way ineptly towards balance, that is the only theory that explains everything that has happened in 8th and 9th. Not that I think it's impossible that the odd bad intention slips in because it's the designer's favourite faction or management wants sales, but as a theory of everything it fails utterly.


Primaris did not sell as they expected, we didn't all rush out and replace our marine armies like they thought we would.

Because GW has never believed in market research, that's why AoS crashed and burned on release.

So they had no choice but to make marines equal in terms of wounds because those kits could no longer be discontinued because they still sold.

Primaris were meant to be superior but they are too inflexible to work as an army, without truesons filling in certain rolls they just can't compete.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 13:24:39


Post by: Blackie


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


I don't. But I know that good is subjective. What's good for you might not be good for others, maybe the majority. And vice versa.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 13:29:32


Post by: Platuan4th


 Blackie wrote:


Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol)


Really? Cause this is a 2nd Ed era model.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 14:59:07


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


I don't. But I know that good is subjective. What's good for you might not be good for others, maybe the majority. And vice versa.


But who's to say the majority knows what's best?

If something was created, marketed to a specific group for a specific reason, then suddenly charged to appeal to the majority. To that original group, those changes will not be seen as good.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:12:36


Post by: Eldarsif


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, but it could be. As you point out... It was.

Why should we celebrate the game being crap when it was once a good game?


It was never really a good game in my opinion, just the only kid on the block with attractive lore and setting and good friends to play with. I have been playing since 2nd edition with a break in 4th, and the game has always been a mess. If anything I would say that GW is only more structured now although it doesn't necessarily show in the end product.

I personally enjoy 9th a lot(especially Crusade) even if it is covered in warts and I couldn't imagine going back. If I'll go back for anything it would be with old Epic instead of the puddle of mud many of the older editions were. I think the only edition I might revisit for the lulz is second edition, but only because I love my second edition era of Warhammer, Shadowrun, and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


I don't. But I know that good is subjective. What's good for you might not be good for others, maybe the majority. And vice versa.


But who's to say the majority knows what's best?

If something was created, marketed to a specific group for a specific reason, then suddenly charged to appeal to the majority. To that original group, those changes will not be seen as good.


Still entirely subjective. You can't claim that your feelings towards a product are somehow immutable universal facts. In the end it is just you enjoying a certain product.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:25:12


Post by: Deadnight


 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


I don't. But I know that good is subjective. What's good for you might not be good for others, maybe the majority. And vice versa.


But who's to say the majority knows what's best?

If something was created, marketed to a specific group for a specific reason, then suddenly charged to appeal to the majority. To that original group, those changes will not be seen as good.


Who's to say the minority knows what's best either?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:42:02


Post by: Backspacehacker


Yes it's subjective but who's less in the wrong
If you had a group of people who where the big fans of the big red block and it drew other fans of the big red block life is good in the big red block group.

Now if all of a sudden other people are coming in and saying well let's have the block be blue, and let's make it a ball, that's great for the people who like the big blue ball. But not for the people that were the fans of the big red block. The problem is they are still saying they are ether big red block group, then everyone who's for the blue balls starts to tell everyone who likes the big red block they are the problem, that the big red block was never good, you just think the big red block was good and are only looking through your big red block goggles. If you don't like the big blue ball then you were never really a fan of the big red block to begin with. And if you bring up that the big blue ball is not that great and we should go back to the big red block, your just a grumpy old gamer who does not like change.

We see this all the time.

So who is really in the wrong here, the fans of the big red block that started the group because they like the big red block? Or the people in the big red block group that are all about the big blue ball.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:43:14


Post by: Shuma-Gorath


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol)


Really? Cause this is a 2nd Ed era model.



An incredibly limited edition gargant release, barely seen outside of inquisitor magazine is hardly a representation of what 2nd edition was about.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:45:57


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 auticus wrote:
I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.


Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.


Yes that also, but there are a TON of people out there who don't play the game at all. They just like cool looking models to collect and paint. A lot of customers aren't in the GW eco system to play the game, they just like the models.

Dude I was a redshirt, I saw all kinds of different people come into the store to buy stuff. People who where there every Wed when the new stock came in, people who I would see once a month and make a 1000-1500 purchase and be back next month for new stuff to paint, little timmy and his moms creditcard, the turney guy who had to have the 'most competitive' army and all his games where 'for turney practice against the new guys', the normal guy who would buy a few things or just one or two things, people who just liked the novels and videogames and wanted nothing to do with the mini game.... GW has tons of different customers and not all of them are interested in the game.

GamesWorkshop is a model producer first and a 'game system' a distant second. The fact that they shill the game at every chance they get is just good business...imagine if people figured out that you could play GW games with non GW models or the other way around? That was the greatest trick GW ever pulled, you can only play GW games with GW models...


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:46:53


Post by: Platuan4th


 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol)


Really? Cause this is a 2nd Ed era model.



An incredibly limited edition gargant release, barely seen outside of inquisitor magazine is hardly a representation of what 2nd edition was about.


The point was contradicting the specific statement made and you know it. That specific model could be swapped for any of the 2nd Ed Titans, BioTitans, or Baneblade chassis. Armorcast/Forgeworld US/Mike Biasi models were pretty common in 2nd Ed.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:49:30


Post by: Backspacehacker


That's being woefully generous to people who just paint models.

"GW is a model company and a gaming company second" is a bygone notion. They are absolutely a gaming company that makes models for their game. The game is what drive that sales. You might have seen a lot of customers that bought models just to buy them, but that is just a fraction of the customer base. The primary audience now is hands down 100% the tournament player and GW is leaning hard I to making the game. They just also know for good practice and to make money it's best to make the game with rules that favor the newest hottest thing. Which that's not an issue if GW was decent at making rules. With some how since 5th, they have only managed to make things worse and worse with each editon.


Saying GW is a model company first and a gaming company second, would be like saying Tesla is a battery company first and a car company second.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:54:28


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol)


Really? Cause this is a 2nd Ed era model.



An incredibly limited edition gargant release, barely seen outside of inquisitor magazine is hardly a representation of what 2nd edition was about.


The point was contradicting the specific statement made and you know it. Armorcast/Forgeworld US/Mike Biasi models were pretty common in 2nd Ed.


No they where not. I played from RT until the end of 98 when they switched over to 3rd, I NEVER saw a armourcast/Forgeword USA model. The community in Vancouver was pretty big at the time. This was when Mark Dance was placing in Golden Demon's era. The only time I even heard about 40k scale titans was a game they did at a UK games day where they did epic in 40k scale, with titans and marines/infantry on 5 man bases. The GW manager told me about it and showed me his pics he took of the game.
Owning Armourcast/Mike Basi/ Forgeworld USA was a pipe dream for most people because of the price and availability. That is VERY disingenuous to say those models where 'common' during second edition era.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:57:43


Post by: Backspacehacker


To be fair both of you are using anicdotoal evidence.

I could say "well I have never seen titans before so they are not common in 40k and I live in an area with 3 golden daemon painters" yet just the town over they literally play Titanicus with full scale titans.

When I started I never saw FW models, now FW is common as Marines in my area.

Just because you do or do not see them does not mean they are or are not prevelent.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 15:58:17


Post by: Tyran


 Backspacehacker wrote:
That's being woefully generous to people who just paint models.

"GW is a model company and a gaming company second" is a bygone notion. They are absolutely a gaming company that makes models for their game. The game is what drive that sales. You might have seen a lot of customers that bought models just to buy them, but that is just a fraction of the customer base. The primary audience now is hands down 100% the tournament player and GW is leaning hard I to making the game. They just also know for good practice and to make money it's best to make the game with rules that favor the newest hottest thing. Which that's not an issue if GW was decent at making rules. With some how since 5th, they have only managed to make things worse and worse with each editon.


Saying GW is a model company first and a gaming company second, would be like saying Tesla is a battery company first and a car company second.


On the other hand, maybe you are also being woefully generous to people who play the game.

The large majority of the players do not really care about the quality of the rules. They may complain about it, but still will continue buying miniatures when the new hottest thing favors them.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 16:11:47


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 Backspacehacker wrote:
To be fair both of you are using anicdotoal evidence.

I could say "well I have never seen titans before so they are not common in 40k and I live in an area with 3 golden daemon painters" yet just the town over they literally play Titanicus with full scale titans.

When I started I never saw FW models, now FW is common as Marines in my area.

Just because you do or do not see them does not mean they are or are not prevelent.



I think this is what they are doing so im right.... We are both coming off of anecdotal evidence. This has been GW's modus operandi since day one. PUSH models. Do you really think GW cares what you do with the models once you walk out of the store? Do you really think they care if you come back and buy more? Do you think they care if you show up to the weekend tournament? Not in the least. They made their money, if you bought a 2000 point army every week and walked out of the store and binned it GW wouldn't care in the least, the only thing they would of wished for is if you bought some h-h-hobby supplies, paint, glue and "Do you have a WD sub?:.

They can target a specific demographic in their target audience like they used to do with 'little timmy' one birthday, one christmas then push them out of the store was the model back then. It might be now 'target the tournament player' with CCG style churn and burn rules, that doesn't mean that the collectors have stopped buying new stuff. That doesn't mean 'the little timmys' have stopped buying stuff. They might want to target and court the churn and burn players who will buy a new 2000 point turney army ever 6 months ( and that kind of person does exist now) but that's not their backbone of sales. Look how well the hardcore turney approach worked for PP ( then again it did for a while until PP thought they where the next GW with 3.0 rules LOL).


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 16:20:28


Post by: Backspacehacker


Do I think they care if you buy more....yes in fact that's 100% provable by the furvor at which they go after recasters or 3rd party modelers, I'd they did not care if you bought more why the hell would they go to all that effort lol.

Like I don't like to argue but you are 100% wrong in this GW absolutely care about all of those things because all those things transfer into money and profit.

If they only cares about someone buying a few models and dipping out they would go outta business fast. This is why the game and the rules are important it's what gives people a reason to buy the models and the kits, to play the game, which is why they should car eid the rules are not good. I'd the rules are not good, then no one will want to play, if people don't wanna play, no one will want to buy models for a game they won't play save for that very small group or peoe who just like to paint and model.

And yes the tournament players absolutely are their backbone currently. The tournament plays are the ones that drop 300+ USD at a time to get the new army, it's the same thing with magic, and gw is captilizing in that same competitive crowd.
The game is 100% shifting toward mostly competitive play now, that's the market, little Timmy and the hobby painter are just icing on the cake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The churn and burn army is definitely the big dog in the room now, that's the driver behind the sales because GW has just blatantly shifted to power creep and the competitive crowd is all about playing what wins.

GW knows this, and is leaning into it hard, buffing the underselling/unpopular armies to boost them. Watch you are gonna see so many people now are gonna be rocking Tau and eldar again.

I wish they catored toward more hobby and narrative aspect but, gw is all about the dollar dollar bills and the comeptsrive scene is where it is at.


This is why I say GW absolutely cares about the rules because the rules are the tools and method on which they sell their models, to the competitive crowd. They care if these rules are good or bad, it's why we got the revamp of 8th in the first place. If they did not care about the rules they would have just kepts the 7th Ed rule set and called it good


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 16:48:03


Post by: Tyran


I disagree on the terms, they care if the rules are strong or weak, because people buy models with strong rules. But they do not really care if the rules are good or bad.

Quality =/= power.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 16:50:52


Post by: Hecaton


 Ordana wrote:
really? so why did they give normal marines 2 wounds then? If the objective was purely to sell new Primaris kits they wouldn't have had reason to change old-marines.


In a 2 damage meta having 1 wound is actually good.

Given that they never changed csm it was definitely about pushing loyalist marines overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
I disagree on the terms, they care if the rules are strong or weak, because people buy models with strong rules. But they do not really care if the rules are good or bad.

Quality =/= power.


Sure, but that just meand those customers have objectively bad opinions.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:16:05


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Tyran wrote:
I disagree on the terms, they care if the rules are strong or weak, because people buy models with strong rules. But they do not really care if the rules are good or bad.

Quality =/= power.


This is more accurate. They want to make units powerful to sell them, that does not mean good as in enjoyable


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:28:59


Post by: Eldarsif


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Yes it's subjective but who's less in the wrong
If you had a group of people who where the big fans of the big red block and it drew other fans of the big red block life is good in the big red block group.

Now if all of a sudden other people are coming in and saying well let's have the block be blue, and let's make it a ball, that's great for the people who like the big blue ball. But not for the people that were the fans of the big red block. The problem is they are still saying they are ether big red block group, then everyone who's for the blue balls starts to tell everyone who likes the big red block they are the problem, that the big red block was never good, you just think the big red block was good and are only looking through your big red block goggles. If you don't like the big blue ball then you were never really a fan of the big red block to begin with. And if you bring up that the big blue ball is not that great and we should go back to the big red block, your just a grumpy old gamer who does not like change.

We see this all the time.

So who is really in the wrong here, the fans of the big red block that started the group because they like the big red block? Or the people in the big red block group that are all about the big blue ball.


This is a very convoluted way of putting up who likes what edition. Neither group - or rather no group as this is a layered issue with no binary option - is wrong or right. I might like current edition but I still miss 24" range on Shuriken Catapults. I still miss the old edition art even if I don't miss most of the old edition rules, and every edition has something I liked about it even if I have no interest in revisiting it, so I guess I belong to a rainbow Unicorn group as I have enjoyed every single edition except 4th(the one I took a vacation on). In the end nobody is right. None of us can claim ownership over GW property and therefore have no say or vote in what happens except by either spending money or not.

Now, the issue I think is more prevalent is that there are people who want to enjoy the current game while a group wants to do nothing but complain(or so it would appear to passerbys). The thing is, if the same group of people complain in every single thread it can poisons the well. People are excited about models and new rules and whatnot, but then negative voices start rearing their head and you suddenly just can't be bothered with people. It's why TGA forums have policies on excessive naysaying as it just drives people away and creates a toxic environment. Reddit is different because of the upvote and downvote system which then gives you an idea of the general consensus. Dakkadakka has nothing of those which is why many threads on certain sub-forums do devolve into miserable grognard naysaying. Personally I cut out a lot of the negative talk just by blocking people and it made Dakkadakka a much better experience.

Who knows, maybe Dakkadakka can create sub-forums for older editions so everyone can be happy. I think that would be ideal and would perhaps even reinvigorate interest in older editions better than the perpetual "No your edition sucks" back and forth a lot of talk seems to become. A lot of people enjoy 9th and that won't change no matter how people complain and say that edition X was better.

However, rose-tinted glasses are a thing. There is nothing wrong with wearing those glasses and if you do just own it and enjoy what you want. I have rose-tinted glasses towards Epic 40k and will die on that hill with those glasses on. Best game ever.

And yes the tournament players absolutely are their backbone currently. The tournament plays are the ones that drop 300+ USD at a time to get the new army, it's the same thing with magic, and gw is captilizing in that same competitive crowd.


Although I agree that GW is eyeing that tourney money I do think that they are just not doing enough to seal the deal in regards to it. Their app is atrocious, their point adjustments are several months out of date, and their rules are very much divided complicating things. If they want to go for true tournament money they really need to fix the basics.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:35:32


Post by: auticus


Its not just "no your edition sucks" its that for a giant swathe of gamers, once the new edition drops, thats the ONLY edition. So its more than "no your edition sucks" its "this is now the only thing that exists for most people, like it or gtfo"

The big red block and blue ball analogy are totally apt to me. If you fell in love with the concepts of a game, and then suddenly it gets yanked and replaced with something else, it sucks.

Nothing stops anyone from keeping on with the older edition, the big red block. Except that in many places you'll be playing with yourself.

Not because the blue ball or new edition or whatever is better, but because to many (i'll say most) its the only viable living option.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:38:41


Post by: Tyran


People like living editions, they like getting new rules.

And it doesn't help that GW always has sucked at codex balance so even older editions with better core rules were still a mess when it cames to Codexes. E.g I know many loved the 5th edition, but I'm not playing 5th edition Tyranids even if you paid me.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:44:06


Post by: Ordana


 Eldarsif wrote:
Although I agree that GW is eyeing that tourney money I do think that they are just not doing enough to seal the deal in regards to it. Their app is atrocious, their point adjustments are several months out of date, and their rules are very much divided complicating things. If they want to go for true tournament money they really need to fix the basics.
Because they are *drumroll* incompetent.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:44:34


Post by: Dysartes


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Spoiler:
Do I think they care if you buy more....yes in fact that's 100% provable by the furvor at which they go after recasters or 3rd party modelers, I'd they did not care if you bought more why the hell would they go to all that effort lol.

Like I don't like to argue but you are 100% wrong in this GW absolutely care about all of those things because all those things transfer into money and profit.

If they only cares about someone buying a few models and dipping out they would go outta business fast. This is why the game and the rules are important it's what gives people a reason to buy the models and the kits, to play the game, which is why they should car eid the rules are not good. I'd the rules are not good, then no one will want to play, if people don't wanna play, no one will want to buy models for a game they won't play save for that very small group or peoe who just like to paint and model.

And yes the tournament players absolutely are their backbone currently. The tournament plays are the ones that drop 300+ USD at a time to get the new army, it's the same thing with magic, and gw is captilizing in that same competitive crowd.
The game is 100% shifting toward mostly competitive play now, that's the market, little Timmy and the hobby painter are just icing on the cake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The churn and burn army is definitely the big dog in the room now, that's the driver behind the sales because GW has just blatantly shifted to power creep and the competitive crowd is all about playing what wins.

GW knows this, and is leaning into it hard, buffing the underselling/unpopular armies to boost them. Watch you are gonna see so many people now are gonna be rocking Tau and eldar again.

I wish they catored toward more hobby and narrative aspect but, gw is all about the dollar dollar bills and the comeptsrive scene is where it is at.


This is why I say GW absolutely cares about the rules because the rules are the tools and method on which they sell their models, to the competitive crowd. They care if these rules are good or bad, it's why we got the revamp of 8th in the first place. If they did not care about the rules they would have just kepts the 7th Ed rule set and called it good

Please don't post while drunk, you're making yourself look worse than normal.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 17:46:10


Post by: Backspacehacker


This is also why I think there needs to be more people that do things like pro hammer.

I really really hope, like really hope, that GW approaches HH this way. Preserves the rules as they are, does not change the core of them, but slightly alters them to simply streamline them and cut back on duplicate rules.
Because it really does suck when you got into 40k for the older style rules. Because you can look back and largely the rules did not change between 3rd and 7th. The core wya the game was played was maintained, new things got added, but there was little "over haul, like we saw in 8th.
I and a lot of people like that older version of Warhammer it's just a lot more fun imo, and it sucks basically investing literally $1000s into this hobby, having an entire room of my house devoted to it, and now having one of the major aspects of it, the game, turned completly around on me, and the only supported version of the game is HH, not that I hate HH by any means. It just sucks investing in the hobby only to be shoved into a shoe box and put aside.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 18:17:30


Post by: auticus


and it sucks basically investing literally $1000s into this hobby, having an entire room of my house devoted to it, and now having one of the major aspects of it, the game, turned completly around on me,


Indeed. I moved last year after owning my house nearly 20 years and I had three full rooms dedicated to my wargaming hobby. All of it a testament to burn and churn and having to keep up with the hotness to keep enjoying the game.

I was able to sell some of it, donate some of it, but some I had to trash because I couldn't even give it away because the rules for those models were currently horrible.

I had 18 fully painted armies of 3000-5000 points (or in case of my chaos collection, about 20,000 points lol).

It was both painful and a massive relief when that last gw army hit the dumpster because while it can be argued i got my money out of it through years of playing... what i had fallen in love with is not represented in even the tiniest form today in either of their games.

But thats also ok. Letting go of the physical product and now just perusing these forums to watch it continue moving along without costing me is where I prefer to be today

One day I may after I finish releasing my fantasy ruleset on steam do something where I can collect 40k models and play around with them again, but Battletech has my sci fi attention right now.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 18:17:39


Post by: kodos


I think this is the hardest part, if people are not even taking a painted army for free because the collection does not fit the current meta

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I really really hope, like really hope, that GW approaches HH this way.

for this I hope GW leaves HH untouched as whenever they try to improve it just gets worse
 Tyran wrote:
People like living editions, they like getting new rules.

people like living editions as in "improvements over the previous ones with new models/units added" and not "reset the game to a new version with the same name whenever we have messed it up"


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 18:23:42


Post by: Backspacehacker


Oh yeah I don't want them to mess with HH much if at all.

If anything I really would love it if they did what they were doing in 8th and putting out beta rules for people to try like that was amazing.

Like maybe hey, unit x feels kinda bad I'm HH, here is a beta rule, go out and play it, send feed back and we will see how it works if it's good, official rules, If not, remove it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 19:22:50


Post by: vict0988


 Tyran wrote:
I disagree on the terms, they care if the rules are strong or weak, because people buy models with strong rules. But they do not really care if the rules are good or bad.

Quality =/= power.

Why did they fix most of my issues with 8th or clean up the flaws BCB found? RAW being wacky, unchargable units, FNP taking forever to resolve...


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 19:25:06


Post by: Eldarsif


 Ordana wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
Although I agree that GW is eyeing that tourney money I do think that they are just not doing enough to seal the deal in regards to it. Their app is atrocious, their point adjustments are several months out of date, and their rules are very much divided complicating things. If they want to go for true tournament money they really need to fix the basics.
Because they are *drumroll* incompetent.


In short, yes, but I think the problem is more ingrained than anything else. GW could actually listen to playtesters, hire game developers who want a competitive game, and more, but they choose not to. A part of me wonders if GW kind of suffers from "Old Guard" syndrome, ie. veteran workers who are just stuck in an old mindset that resists change and the current times. I have some experiences with that mindset in my career and it is an interesting thing to witness.

Now, I do think that GW is trying to evolve and with the promise of more frequent FAQ and CA two times a year it is evident that they want to change to meet a demanding environment. The problem is that the steps they are taking would have been relevant 5-7 years ago. Also, much like many book publishers, they appear often simply afraid of how fast the world is moving and are holding with crooked hand at the last vestige of what they think they can control. I think this is mostly evident in the fact that they seem unwilling to hire or properly finance proper app developers which should be a straightforward thing in today's fast evolving world.

Third problem is that we have no clear indication of how meddlesome the money people are in the entire pipeline, which is evident in some of the discourse here. I am actually curious that no one that has worked within GW walls has actually opened up about the practices within except that one AT developer and HR person a few months(year?) back. Although I can understand it as hobby industries like these are a close knit community and you don't want to alienate future work.

The fourth issue, and one I have experiences in the videogame industry is simply that the release schedules are such highly sacrosanct events that even if the developers wanted to listen properly to playtesters and change ruling they simply couldn't do to the pressure of meeting deadlines. In the game industry, with digital releases, this is more often than not circumvented with day one hot-fixes and robust release systems, but with paper releases that is nigh impossible. Which is why GW really needs to embrace the digital sooner rather than later.

None of this is meant to excuse shoddy work, but as a thought experiment on why GW is how GW is. I have no doubt that the people making the rules and models are hardworking people who want to do their best, but somewhere in the pipeline things seem to derail rather quickly as GW releases something like Drukhari. I can only imagine that the money people or some cult of personalities are interfering. Who knows, certainly not me.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:27:26


Post by: Ordana


 Eldarsif wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
Although I agree that GW is eyeing that tourney money I do think that they are just not doing enough to seal the deal in regards to it. Their app is atrocious, their point adjustments are several months out of date, and their rules are very much divided complicating things. If they want to go for true tournament money they really need to fix the basics.
Because they are *drumroll* incompetent.


In short, yes, but I think the problem is more ingrained than anything else. GW could actually listen to playtesters, hire game developers who want a competitive game, and more, but they choose not to. A part of me wonders if GW kind of suffers from "Old Guard" syndrome, ie. veteran workers who are just stuck in an old mindset that resists change and the current times. I have some experiences with that mindset in my career and it is an interesting thing to witness.

Now, I do think that GW is trying to evolve and with the promise of more frequent FAQ and CA two times a year it is evident that they want to change to meet a demanding environment. The problem is that the steps they are taking would have been relevant 5-7 years ago. Also, much like many book publishers, they appear often simply afraid of how fast the world is moving and are holding with crooked hand at the last vestige of what they think they can control. I think this is mostly evident in the fact that they seem unwilling to hire or properly finance proper app developers which should be a straightforward thing in today's fast evolving world.

Third problem is that we have no clear indication of how meddlesome the money people are in the entire pipeline, which is evident in some of the discourse here. I am actually curious that no one that has worked within GW walls has actually opened up about the practices within except that one AT developer and HR person a few months(year?) back. Although I can understand it as hobby industries like these are a close knit community and you don't want to alienate future work.

The fourth issue, and one I have experiences in the videogame industry is simply that the release schedules are such highly sacrosanct events that even if the developers wanted to listen properly to playtesters and change ruling they simply couldn't do to the pressure of meeting deadlines. In the game industry, with digital releases, this is more often than not circumvented with day one hot-fixes and robust release systems, but with paper releases that is nigh impossible. Which is why GW really needs to embrace the digital sooner rather than later.

None of this is meant to excuse shoddy work, but as a thought experiment on why GW is how GW is. I have no doubt that the people making the rules and models are hardworking people who want to do their best, but somewhere in the pipeline things seem to derail rather quickly as GW releases something like Drukhari. I can only imagine that the money people or some cult of personalities are interfering. Who knows, certainly not me.
Yeah, Agree with basically all of this, there is without a doubt a giant Old Guard problem within GW.

But at the same time there also appears to be a lack of oversight and management in the studio. Big differences in codex quality and balance based on seemingly nothing more then whoever happened to write the codex.

GW is damn lucky they are in a business with such monstrous inertia behind it due to needing to play against other people in person with expensive physical armies because if the miniature wargaming market was actually competitive they would have been buried years ago.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:28:21


Post by: ccs


 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:


No they where not. I played from RT until the end of 98 when they switched over to 3rd, I NEVER saw a armourcast/Forgeword USA model. The community in Vancouver was pretty big at the time. This was when Mark Dance was placing in Golden Demon's era. The only time I even heard about 40k scale titans was a game they did at a UK games day where they did epic in 40k scale, with titans and marines/infantry on 5 man bases. The GW manager told me about it and showed me his pics he took of the game.
Owning Armourcast/Mike Basi/ Forgeworld USA was a pipe dream for most people because of the price and availability. That is VERY disingenuous to say those models where 'common' during second edition era.


OK, so they weren't common in Vancouver & you were all poor/unwilling to pay the asking price.


Meanwhile, here in Ohio USA? Especially on the tables of shops near universities?
They weren't all that uncommon. Though, just as with today's stupid expensive FW stuff, there were "tiers". The smaller pieces - the Wave Serpents, the Falcons, the drop pods, the tyranid things, the ork Spleen-bustas or whatever they were called, etc? Those were pretty normal sights on tables. Wouldn't break your budget either.
Then you had the superheavy guard tanks & the Warhounds. And finally in the "rare" catagory we had the Reiver titans, Phantoms, & the Mega-Gargant.
But they were all present & being played.....


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:31:09


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Eldarsif wrote:
...GW could actually listen to playtesters, hire game developers who want a competitive game, and more, but they choose not to...


It's a very simple problem. They're making a lot of money putting absolute minimum effort into the rules, so they have no incentive to make them better. It's sort of like how everyone loves Bethesda to death despite the fact that their games are unplayable until the community patches two years later and buys everything they make, so they have no incentive to properly test anything.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:48:30


Post by: Lance845


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
...GW could actually listen to playtesters, hire game developers who want a competitive game, and more, but they choose not to...


It's a very simple problem. They're making a lot of money putting absolute minimum effort into the rules, so they have no incentive to make them better. It's sort of like how everyone loves Bethesda to death despite the fact that their games are unplayable until the community patches two years later and buys everything they make, so they have no incentive to properly test anything.


That is true. And the way to fix it is to not give them your money. You can help perpetuate it or you can sit back and watch the rubes who do.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:50:30


Post by: Backspacehacker


Yep and what sucks is, and I was saying this at the start of 9th, get is basically bring in the worst aspect of MTG.
New series drops, your old decks suck, but these new boxes to build the new meta decks.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 20:58:28


Post by: Mezmorki


 Ordana wrote:
Yeah, Agree with basically all of this, there is without a doubt a giant Old Guard problem within GW.


I'm not convinced of this. The "old guard" of GW are Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, etc. I don't think there's many of them left in the company that are actually leading design efforts.

I work in a design field professional (not game design, but there are analogues). Design gets challenging the more corporatized and design by committee things become. I think the "old guard" had an advantage in that they were the ones designing, iterating, and testing it all directly themselves. There was a tighter group playtesting and balancing and making sure everything was operating under the same design philosophy. This isn't to say it was all perfect back then, but it was a more coherent system.

But now... I have the mental image of some younger smooth-talking designer with a padded resume convincing all the hire ups about how awesome 40K would be if it was more like Magic TG. And then you get management asking for all sorts of delivery assurances, and competing personal interests, and no time for deeply playtesting or just slowing down to think through the design. So stuff just gets by as best it can - and the poor designer is trapped in the middle of all this crossfire without the experience and corporate clout to do it better.

It's not the old guard. Its the suits. It's always the suits.






Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 21:14:44


Post by: Platuan4th


ccs wrote:
 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:


No they where not. I played from RT until the end of 98 when they switched over to 3rd, I NEVER saw a armourcast/Forgeword USA model. The community in Vancouver was pretty big at the time. This was when Mark Dance was placing in Golden Demon's era. The only time I even heard about 40k scale titans was a game they did at a UK games day where they did epic in 40k scale, with titans and marines/infantry on 5 man bases. The GW manager told me about it and showed me his pics he took of the game.
Owning Armourcast/Mike Basi/ Forgeworld USA was a pipe dream for most people because of the price and availability. That is VERY disingenuous to say those models where 'common' during second edition era.


OK, so they weren't common in Vancouver & you were all poor/unwilling to pay the asking price.


Meanwhile, here in Ohio USA? Especially on the tables of shops near universities?
They weren't all that uncommon. Though, just as with today's stupid expensive FW stuff, there were "tiers". The smaller pieces - the Wave Serpents, the Falcons, the drop pods, the tyranid things, the ork Spleen-bustas or whatever they were called, etc? Those were pretty normal sights on tables. Wouldn't break your budget either.
Then you had the superheavy guard tanks & the Warhounds. And finally in the "rare" catagory we had the Reiver titans, Phantoms, & the Mega-Gargant.
But they were all present & being played.....


Especially since a Warhound back then was 1/5 the cost of the FW version was when introduced. It was much easier to afford than now.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 21:17:50


Post by: Lance845


 Mezmorki wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Yeah, Agree with basically all of this, there is without a doubt a giant Old Guard problem within GW.


I'm not convinced of this. The "old guard" of GW are Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, etc. I don't think there's many of them left in the company that are actually leading design efforts.

I work in a design field professional (not game design, but there are analogues). Design gets challenging the more corporatized and design by committee things become. I think the "old guard" had an advantage in that they were the ones designing, iterating, and testing it all directly themselves. There was a tighter group playtesting and balancing and making sure everything was operating under the same design philosophy. This isn't to say it was all perfect back then, but it was a more coherent system.

But now... I have the mental image of some younger smooth-talking designer with a padded resume convincing all the hire ups about how awesome 40K would be if it was more like Magic TG. And then you get management asking for all sorts of delivery assurances, and competing personal interests, and no time for deeply playtesting or just slowing down to think through the design. So stuff just gets by as best it can - and the poor designer is trapped in the middle of all this crossfire without the experience and corporate clout to do it better.

It's not the old guard. Its the suits. It's always the suits.


The lead designer you are imagining is Robbin Cruddace.

https://1d4chan.fandom.com/wiki/Robin_Cruddace

Thats his 1d4 chan article.

Ignore the tongue in cheek stuff and look at his list of accomplishments.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 21:30:02


Post by: Ordana


 Mezmorki wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Yeah, Agree with basically all of this, there is without a doubt a giant Old Guard problem within GW.


I'm not convinced of this. The "old guard" of GW are Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, etc. I don't think there's many of them left in the company that are actually leading design efforts.

I work in a design field professional (not game design, but there are analogues). Design gets challenging the more corporatized and design by committee things become. I think the "old guard" had an advantage in that they were the ones designing, iterating, and testing it all directly themselves. There was a tighter group playtesting and balancing and making sure everything was operating under the same design philosophy. This isn't to say it was all perfect back then, but it was a more coherent system.

But now... I have the mental image of some younger smooth-talking designer with a padded resume convincing all the hire ups about how awesome 40K would be if it was more like Magic TG. And then you get management asking for all sorts of delivery assurances, and competing personal interests, and no time for deeply playtesting or just slowing down to think through the design. So stuff just gets by as best it can - and the poor designer is trapped in the middle of all this crossfire without the experience and corporate clout to do it better.

It's not the old guard. Its the suits. It's always the suits.
The old guard as we mean it doesn't have to be the designers themselves. It can (and probably is) the management above them.
Its not the designers who are against an actual working army app (I assume so anyway). They aren't the ones hiring the grad school temp that threw that p.o.s together. Its not the designers that canned digital codexes.

There is a layer of management in GW that absolutely against any form of change and adapting to the 21st century. I can certainly see the designers (or others within GW) having had to draw blood from a stone to get the higher ups to accept the quarterly balance updates they plan to do going forward.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 21:34:05


Post by: ccs


 Lance845 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
...GW could actually listen to playtesters, hire game developers who want a competitive game, and more, but they choose not to...


It's a very simple problem. They're making a lot of money putting absolute minimum effort into the rules, so they have no incentive to make them better. It's sort of like how everyone loves Bethesda to death despite the fact that their games are unplayable until the community patches two years later and buys everything they make, so they have no incentive to properly test anything.


That is true. And the way to fix it is to not give them your money. You can help perpetuate it or you can sit back and watch the rubes who do.


I keep telling you thick-headed people that GW makes all most all of its $ off me by selling me models I like....
I promise, when they stop making models I want, they'll make A LOT less from me. They don't seem to be in any hurry to stop doing this though.
Of course GW has no way of knowing & doesn't care WHY I buy their models. There's nothing I can do about how they interpret the sales data on their end. All they see is "Sold x more $ worth of 40k/AoS/? kits to shop xyz this month".
So I guess I'll just keep on perpetuating this problem of rules for the rest of you.

As for the games? While I'm generally enjoying our Crusades, I could completely take or leave playing current 40k. If I never played another game of 9th? {shrug} There's plenty of other games (and editions) to be played come game time.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 21:38:07


Post by: Backspacehacker


That's good for you, and hell I'm the same way, but we are a minority in the market. As of late GWs getting a lot of their money from the tournament league, rules being written specifically for tournament play, the fact that LVO is getting bigger and bigger each year is further proof of that fact.

The constant update to rules is proof of that.
The constant FAQs show that. The game.is what drives the models.

For every hard core fan of the hobby in terms of models and painting there are probably a dozen who are in it for the game primarily.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 22:18:07


Post by: ccs


 Backspacehacker wrote:
That's good for you, and hell I'm the same way, but we are a minority in the market. As of late GWs getting a lot of their money from the tournament league, rules being written specifically for tournament play, the fact that LVO is getting bigger and bigger each year is further proof of that fact.

The constant update to rules is proof of that.
The constant FAQs show that. The game.is what drives the models.

For every hard core fan of the hobby in terms of models and painting there are probably a dozen who are in it for the game primarily.



The rules & hype might be heavily aimed at Tournament play currently, but the tourney scene is NOT what's keeping GW rolling. There's a helluva lot of Warhammer (and other GW games) being played by people who'll never see a tournament table. Not even one at a local shop. Little private groups of 2-5 people give or take, often playing at home. Always has been. What you see playwise at the shops & events/tourneys? Tip of the iceberg.
And that equates to an incredible amount of models being sold.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 22:50:54


Post by: auticus


I have to agree. The local game shops on average (five of them) had about 20 visible tournament players in each (some cross playing in different stores) - so say... there were about 60-80 regular tournament players of 40k in the city I left.

Each store owner would also mention that for those 20 visible tournament players, there were about 200-300 sales in a month from people you've never seen before or from the hobbyist guys that never played public games.

This is why the rules and whack balance can be as horrid as they are.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 23:27:12


Post by: nou


ccs wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
That's good for you, and hell I'm the same way, but we are a minority in the market. As of late GWs getting a lot of their money from the tournament league, rules being written specifically for tournament play, the fact that LVO is getting bigger and bigger each year is further proof of that fact.

The constant update to rules is proof of that.
The constant FAQs show that. The game.is what drives the models.

For every hard core fan of the hobby in terms of models and painting there are probably a dozen who are in it for the game primarily.



The rules & hype might be heavily aimed at Tournament play currently, but the tourney scene is NOT what's keeping GW rolling. There's a helluva lot of Warhammer (and other GW games) being played by people who'll never see a tournament table. Not even one at a local shop. Little private groups of 2-5 people give or take, often playing at home. Always has been. What you see playwise at the shops & events/tourneys? Tip of the iceberg.
And that equates to an incredible amount of models being sold.


auticus wrote:I have to agree. The local game shops on average (five of them) had about 20 visible tournament players in each (some cross playing in different stores) - so say... there were about 60-80 regular tournament players of 40k in the city I left.

Each store owner would also mention that for those 20 visible tournament players, there were about 200-300 sales in a month from people you've never seen before or from the hobbyist guys that never played public games.

This is why the rules and whack balance can be as horrid as they are.


Exactly this. It has been this way since I got into the game in 2nd. Even some of the shop regulars who I hanged out with back then were painters/hobbyists who never played a game in their life. They were there for monthly painting competitions and had their hobby focus on winning Golden Demon, not GT. Since I got back to 40K in the middle of 7th, my group is 3-5 people who play and another few of friends who collect and paint. And due to internet prices and availability of everything being better we are completely invisible from FLGS standpoint. During those 6+ years I set my foot in FLGS once, to buy a pot of paint I desperately needed for the same evening.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/25 23:46:44


Post by: PenitentJake


So I've just done some research on the "Large Scale Models in 2nd Edition" issue.

2nd ed hit the market in 93. Armorcast came into existence in 95. Until Armorcast happened, the only other producer of large scale 40k models is Biasi Studios. So for the first two years of 2nd? Little to no large scale, even in the UK. Armorcast grew pretty quickly; their first year was probably pretty obscure, but certainly in some places, they'd be on the map by 96. But 2nd edition only lasted until 98, which was the same year Armorcast lost the licensing for 40k (along with Biasi) which paved the way for the birth of FW, also in 98.

So of 5th's five year life span? Two years without big toys, 2 years of reasonable market penetration for big toys and a transition year between the two, as big toys were gaining popularity. If you had a GW in your city between 96-98, you probably knew about Armorcast. If you didn't have a GW store in your city, it's a crapshoot based on how big your FLGS is or how many FLGS's there were.

Vancouver is not a small town- they might have had a GW from 96-98, but maybe not. Not sure how many FLGS's they had or how big any one them were. Here in Ontario, you'd definitely have seen SOME armorcast in Toronto between 96-98. We had one store in London (Nexus Hobbies) that had a few of the pieces for display, but I didn't see a lot of people buying them or playing them.

So Greater Toronto Area? Likely seen on some tables. The corridor between Toronto and London? Likely the same. Anywhere else in Ontario? Not likely. I'd guess it would be similar in the vicinity of Montreal. The GTA, Vancouver and Montreal would have been the places in Canada most likely to see Armorcast. Anywhere else? Probably a longshot.

I can't speak for the States or the Brits.

As for other topics in the thread:

The tourney scene is definitely A driver of sales, but I don't know if it's THE driver of sales. Consider: a churn and burn tourney player might buy 3-5 armies worth $1500-$2000 each. This would be in a compressed time frame- maybe over one edition, maybe over two.

Now lets take a look at the Narrative/ Casual Lifer. They may only spend $500 per year. But speaking for myself, 've been that guy for 32 years. In that time, I've turned dozens of other people on to this hobby. Some became meta-chasing tourney folk. Some have been Narrative/ Casuals for two decades now.

Tourney players drive FAST sales. They buy 2K Meta armies in a single purchase, plus maybe 500-1k in sideboard models and play until they get bored or there's new hotness. Narrative Casuals have kept the game alive since before large tournaments existed. Some of us own full Chapters or Hive Fleets. It doesn't have to be a competitive piece for us to buy it. You'll never get as much out of us in any one year as you do that tourney player, but we are probably more likely to be there two decades from now.

And how many of each player type are there? Given that Tournaments tend to be restricted to large urban centers, I would say that there are probably more Casuals than there are tourney players. I'm not even sure there are GT's in Canada, and if there are, it's Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. And I gotta tell you, if you live in a large urban center where these events occur, it's going to skew your perception of how important they are to the survival of the hobby. But the number of Canadians jumping on planes to play in tournaments that only happen in other countries is the smallest fraction of Canadian players that you can find.

Forums are also echo chambers for the tourney-minded, so they too inflate the importance of the scene to the health and survival of the hobby.

Is GW marketing to tourney players? Absolutely.

But Crusade Mission Packs outnumber GT packs more than 2:1, and for every "New Hotness: tourney kit, there's a throwback model- sure it's a store anniversary model, but we're getting our 3rd Inquisitor in 2 editions; we've got Rogue Traders, SoS are finally playable Independently of Custodes, and Rogue Traders got Crusade rules. You can't tell me that any of that was done to cater to Tourney players.

And if you DO try to tell me it was done for tourney players, maybe you'll have to take it up with my Zoat- perhaps in a battle from the Tactical Deployment Mission Pack.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 00:03:44


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Can't say I've ever seen an Armorcast model in the flesh.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 01:04:44


Post by: PenitentJake


Oh man- the Tyranid ones were crazy cuz they were based on the epic models- one looked like a triceratops/ slug and another was a burrowing thing- only the top of its carapace and two arms designed to hurl bile pods were visible above the table surface- totally weird stuff.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 01:33:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I always wanted a 40k scale Dactylis, and getting an Armorcast Exocrine was something I wanted for a very long time, as it was my fav Epic Tyranid unit. Thankfully GW made a new version of that bug.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 01:35:48


Post by: carldooley


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can't say I've ever seen an Armorcast model in the flesh.

Supposedly my 2 Tigersharks are armorcast. Should I post pics?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 01:38:51


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Tau Tigersharks? I don't think Armorcast had the 40k license when the Tau came about.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 02:16:46


Post by: Toofast


 Tokhuah wrote:
The low hanging fruit would be periodic updates based on the meta. But GW cannot even do that without creating another money grab with Chapter Approved. But the financial part is just the ugly, not the bad. The bad is, choosing to tie rule fixes to a production schedule, including physical copies to distribute, means that every Chapter Approved is dated at release. Failing on this simple thing shows me there is no hope... so stop hoping. But why not buy the cool models for other games? The problem with GW is their rules and accessories, that you do not even need to buy to enjoy the models.


I agree. I have a bigger problem with the points adjustments being a reaction to a meta from 8-10 months ago that no longer exists. $40 is insane for a balance pass printed in a pamphlet but that isn't even the most egregious part of this whole debacle. In the future, they should make the points a free PDF so they can update them 10 mins before release if they feel the need to, and make the missions a $20 book. I think the reaction would be a complete 180 from what we're seeing now had they done it this way. At this point I can't tell what they hate more, trees or their customers.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 06:40:11


Post by: kodos


 Ordana wrote:
The old guard as we mean it doesn't have to be the designers themselves. It can (and probably is) the management above them.
Its not the designers who are against an actual working army app (I assume so anyway). They aren't the ones hiring the grad school temp that threw that p.o.s together. Its not the designers that canned digital codexes.

There is a layer of management in GW that absolutely against any form of change and adapting to the 21st century. I can certainly see the designers (or others within GW) having had to draw blood from a stone to get the higher ups to accept the quarterly balance updates they plan to do going forward.


we see 2 different problems here, those "old guard" you think of blocking innovation and adept to the changing market, and the other "old guard" that messes up the design

first problem is, I don't think it is the old guard, as in "those people who played 40k themselves for fun and ingored Kirby talking about that playing the game is not part of the job so does not happen during work time", neither in the managment nor in the design team is the reason as they are not there any more

but the the new people are "old school", they grew up within GW and are trained in the ways the company think its best, with the idea of "GW is the Porsche plastic models" (everyone wants one but not everyone can afford one and it does not matter how good it drives because it is a Porsche)

you have manager who do not change a running system, because as long as profits increase there is no need to change anything but if there is a cloud on the horizon they get panic and overreact
and you have designers who just do what the managers want, only mind their own projects and have no feelings torwards the game outside of "it is just a job"


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 08:07:44


Post by: Blackie


 Platuan4th wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


Still, I think 9th is superior in any possible way except a couple things: there weren't massive models in those old editions (I despise massive models, lol)


Really? Cause this is a 2nd Ed era model.



Lol.

How many of those gargants did you see in 3rd, 4th and 5th? On average games I mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't confuse popularity with goodness!


I don't. But I know that good is subjective. What's good for you might not be good for others, maybe the majority. And vice versa.


But who's to say the majority knows what's best?

If something was created, marketed to a specific group for a specific reason, then suddenly charged to appeal to the majority. To that original group, those changes will not be seen as good.


It's always a matter of personal preference, there's no such thing of objectively better or worse in the context of gaming, and probably in any context.

I play since 3rd and loved that edition, I still think it's a good game. So I might be considered part of the "original group" but I vastly prefer current 40k.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 08:41:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Blackie wrote:
How many of those gargants did you see in 3rd, 4th and 5th? On average games I mean.
Given that they only made about 300 of the things and that they were as rare as hen's teeth even back then, probably not very much.

An Armorcast Great Gargant really was a poor choice of example of "See? 40k had big models back then as well!!!".



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 14:18:51


Post by: Eldarsif


 Mezmorki wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Yeah, Agree with basically all of this, there is without a doubt a giant Old Guard problem within GW.


I'm not convinced of this. The "old guard" of GW are Andy Chambers, Rick Priestly, etc. I don't think there's many of them left in the company that are actually leading design efforts.



Old guard doesn't have to be the OG designers themselves and the old guard doesn't need to be perpetuated by the old designers. The problem is that when a company grows on a certain reputation/style it will do a lot to retain that and the old guard within will directly or indirectly enforce that. So when new designers are hired the old guard is likely to instill into those people the same virtues that drove them, and any new designer that does not follow that rule(or play proper office politics) might see themselves losing a job because they "didn't fit the culture".

So when the old old guard leaves, the next generation takes over, but since they were indoctrinated by those who came before they will most likely continue the same problems as before even if there are slight modifications. In the long run it means that it ends up being some sort of a telephone game, but instead of sentences it is corporate culture.

Now, suits can also be old guard and with how the recent updates in CA and such are approached it does feel like the suits are an older generation that doesn't want things to get digital.

In the end we have no way of telling what is what unless someone opens up about the inside culture.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 14:56:28


Post by: catbarf


Worth noting that Andy Chambers left GW specifically because 3rd Ed was successful and the suits wouldn't allow him to further iterate on the rules.

That was back in, what, 2005? And the game hasn't fundamentally changed since.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 15:34:41


Post by: Dai


Man the game(s) were far from perfect back then but the designers were allowed to show off raw talent in a way they never would be these days.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 15:40:49


Post by: vict0988


Dai wrote:
Man the game(s) were far from perfect back then but the designers were allowed to show off raw talent in a way they never would be these days.

How and why?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 16:11:11


Post by: Backspacehacker


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can't say I've ever seen an Armorcast model in the flesh.

I have they are glorious, guy I know even has an old fire prism pretty sure the barrel is wood lol

But the old armor cast have this total like....thing to them that's great. He is old guard and does all his eldar painting in the 80s style


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dai wrote:
Man the game(s) were far from perfect back then but the designers were allowed to show off raw talent in a way they never would be these days.

How and why?


Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 16:22:43


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Yeah I remember spending Turn 1 & 2 mostly maneuvering before each army started shooting. Very different from today where most armies have weapons that can reach across the table (of course the min. board size has shrunk as well)


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 16:27:01


Post by: Backspacehacker


Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 16:58:50


Post by: Sim-Life


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike


That's not fixing it though, that's slapping some duct tape on the problem and hoping it sorts itself out.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 17:18:25


Post by: Eldarsif


I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 17:26:32


Post by: Ordana


 Backspacehacker wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now
What does that have to do with designers showing of raw talent in a way they would not be allowed to these days?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 17:35:21


Post by: Toofast


 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.


I will argue until my dying breath that the only way cover mechanics make sense is a penalty to hit rolls. That's what cover does, especially in the 41st Millennium where basically every weapon is going through the wall.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 17:44:07


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


I always saw cover saves like that being like the enemy doesn’t have a proper sight line onto a unit in cover, the bullets will go through the wall, they’re going to go where they’re aiming, the target just might not be there. An invuln type save also works better as some armies get penalized far more by minuses than others.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 17:53:42


Post by: Dai


 Ordana wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now
What does that have to do with designers showing of raw talent in a way they would not be allowed to these days?

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:02:28


Post by: Racerguy180


Sim-Life wrote:
Spoiler:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike


That's not fixing it though, that's slapping some duct tape on the problem and hoping it sorts itself out.


More of a fix than what GW's doing...


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:10:58


Post by: Tyran


Dai wrote:

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.

On the other hand it was inconsistent.

Compare the 5th edition IG codex with the 5th edition Tyranid codex, both by Robbin Cruddace.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:15:58


Post by: auticus


Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,


Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:21:07


Post by: Rihgu


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike


I love this because I very much enjoy the commanders of the 41st millennia deciding that the best place to battle would be an area with a big honkin' piece of terrain in the center. A far cry from the olden days where people would look for open ground! This is the future after all, it can't have any similarities to the past.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:22:03


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Agreed, there is definitely a lot of market demand for faster gameplay in 40k and other tabletop games, 40k in 40 minutes for instance. That said I think you can have a faster game without being so killy, not every game needs to have most or all of an army wiped out.

There are still a lot of games coming out that are far longer than an hour but those have been cooperative style games.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:29:04


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


I feel like the problem comes from comp doin 2k points honestly. I think having it so that a 750-1000 point match is an hour-3/2 hour thing, so that a big ol game can be 2-3 hours. Smaller but not miniature point values I think would also work well for comp, decreases the ability to just take everything.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:39:04


Post by: nou


 auticus wrote:
Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,


Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.


There is a "simple" solution for 40K to make the games no longer than 45-75 minutes. And this is to drop hit-reroll-wound-reroll-save-reroll-fnp-reroll nonsense and insane number of dice rolled at once. 75% of the game time is dice rolling, then another 15% is moving models and then only 10% on top of that is actually playing a game and not resolving mechanics.

There is a board game (with a great mobile implementation) called Neuroshima Hex. It is a wargame, it has factions, movement, ranged, flanking, melee, special rules, even terrain of sorts, "auras" etc. It is IMHO the best example of how to abstract the rules of a wargame to the barebones and get an exciting, fast paced and deep game. Single game takes about 10-15 minutes on mobile and about 30 minutes IRL with two players. Now if the resolution of board pieces interactions would change to a GW model of rolling a hundred dice for every attack (I've actually made such experiment), the same game now takes about 2 hrs to resolve, with exactly the same number of decisions to make.

This was my first goal of my total rework of 40K and I managed to reduce the amount of dice for every test to a maximum of two, without sacrificing statistical distinction between squads and single model units. This change alone cuts the resolution time by more than a half and sticking to a strict no rerolls and no fnp philosophy cuts it by another half on top of that. That is 3/4th of wasted time saved and 4x decision making density even without switching from IGOUGO to AA.

40K doesn't require dumbing down to fit the focus span of modern audience, it requires optimising resolution time.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 18:44:43


Post by: Lord Damocles


Toofast wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the biggest change in survivability was when cover was effectively an invuln save. It meant a lot of weaker units could survive a barrage just by getting behind cover.


I will argue until my dying breath that the only way cover mechanics make sense is a penalty to hit rolls. That's what cover does, especially in the 41st Millennium where basically every weapon is going through the wall.

Also makes template weapons and assault more efficient ways of clearing enemies out of cover - which is how it should work.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:05:22


Post by: Mezmorki


Regarding faster games....

One of my project's I'm starting to sketch out I'm calling "HexHammer"

The idea is to use hex-based battle maps (e.g. the size of an old school BattleTech map) to represent the battlefield.

Each hex would correspond approximately to a 3" x 3" area. The equivalent of a 6' x 4' board could fit on a 24" x 18" print out.

Units would occupy one or more hexes depending on their size. Every six models, or one vehicle could occupy a hex for example. The 3" hex would work well because you'd get things like difficult terrain tests (under classic 40k and ProHammer) working such that on a D6 roll of a 1-3, you'd only be able to move one hex through the terrain, and on a 4-6 could move two through, etc.

Units would just be represented by single models and/or tokens as players see fit. You'd have a unit roster card where you can track casualties and the like.

The edges of the hexs can denote difficult conditions, like barricades or lines of cover, or impassible terrain features. The hexes themselves can also denote open ground, area terrain/dense cover, and so on.




Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:10:48


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
Thankfully this can be fixed, and I'm working on fixing it for my table.

Big. Los blocking. Centerpiece

Making a big 2x2 raised platform in the center board as like an imperial landing/check point that's got ramps on 2 sides and is tall Enlufh to block Los for knights. Fixes a LOT of turn one alpha strike


That's not fixing it though, that's slapping some duct tape on the problem and hoping it sorts itself out.


Well ductape can fix a lot of problems in my experience, but having big LOS blocking terrain pieces that help prevent turn 1 alpha strike is a lot better then just getting shot across the table.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:27:15


Post by: chaos0xomega


 catbarf wrote:
Worth noting that Andy Chambers left GW specifically because 3rd Ed was successful and the suits wouldn't allow him to further iterate on the rules.

That was back in, what, 2005? And the game hasn't fundamentally changed since.


Thats not really true. While certain key core mechanics remain unchanged, many of the games fundamentals have changed entirely. Its incredible how just a few minor changes can produce a dramatically different experience on the tabletop. That being said, many of the games fundamentals can still be described as being dinosaurs of the past in need of a refresh.

Dai wrote:
Man the game(s) were far from perfect back then but the designers were allowed to show off raw talent in a way they never would be these days.


This is a joke, right? The designers "back in the day" really didn't show off any talent or really attempt to think outside the box, they mostly stuck to a very narrow vision of what the game was and how it should play. If anything 8th and 9th edition have shown a lot more risk taking and creative freedom than the editions prior.

Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons, ranges were not nearly as long as they are now, 24" was pretty far I'm older editons.
Cover made a bigger difference, over watching worked different. It was a lot more infentey based less big toys, like seeing a LR on the table is what it's like to see someone field a bane blade, or Magnus/mortarian.
Also did not have all the wombo combo strats we see now


These are personal gripes, none of which speak to any sort of "raw talent" on the part of the designers or an enhanced degree of creative freedom.

You used to get crazy but fun and innovative rules that could be played very narratively. It all seems to read rules designed by comitee these days despite accusations of making up as they go along.


There was nothing in 40k that was mechanically innovative. Maybe back when 1st ed/rogue trader was released it was, but since 3rd edition at least the game has been fairly sterile and devoid of any sort of real innovation. If anything 8th and 9th have been far more innovative than any of the editions prior (short of the games original incarnation). al


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:37:40


Post by: Toofast


 auticus wrote:
Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,


Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.

Additionally tournaments. To cater to tournaments you need games that end fast so you can get as many rounds in as possible.

These things will not go away frankly because thats what current gen wants, and I'd argue current gen wants faster games than they are right now.

Conquest (the fantasy game) the designers stated goal are games that end in an hour to an hour and a half max. And those are full 2000 point games, so they want killy killy killy amped up to 11.

The last five or six projects I've been a part of, one of the constraints was gameplay could not last longer than 60 minutes. Thats just the new normal.

There are now games trying to crack 45 minutes of gameplay though involving many pieces.


Dota made a lot of changes a couple years ago with the same goal. People don't want to watch or play in 1hr+ games. It makes sense, when I get home from work and have time for a game of dota, I don't want a 3 hour epic battle. I want a 45 min game that still allows me to eat dinner, shower, and get to bed at a decent time.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:40:21


Post by: Backspacehacker


Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:42:00


Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike


 auticus wrote:
I have to agree. The local game shops on average (five of them) had about 20 visible tournament players in each (some cross playing in different stores) - so say... there were about 60-80 regular tournament players of 40k in the city I left.

Each store owner would also mention that for those 20 visible tournament players, there were about 200-300 sales in a month from people you've never seen before or from the hobbyist guys that never played public games.

This is why the rules and whack balance can be as horrid as they are.


Ding, GW games have ALWAYS been carried by clubs and small groups of people who play garagehammer.

Now a days GW wants to be like "type2", "standard" magic block cycle where every new release you basically have to bin your old deck to remain 'competitive' in the new meta. They are TOTALLY going after that crowd. I agree 100% there. They want you to think that tournaments are the be all to end all and everyone should be on board for them. Of course they do, imagine having to buy a new $1000-$1500 army every three to six months. That is GW's wet dream.

Vancouver was the second GW in Canada behind Toronto. It opened up in late 1989 or early 1990 I believe ( I might be wrong on the dates). They opened at 205 carrell street right infront of the gassy jack statue. A few years later they opened up around the corner at #7 Water street. The store had 10 times the floor space and a huge downstairs for stock. It was great, it was like a battle bunker before they came up with that idea. Man I miss playing Epic back in those days. 2nd Edition epic was my favorite GW game.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:47:37


Post by: Backspacehacker


Oh you are 100% right, GW is absolutely going for that magic marketing system. New series, new decks. Its honestly the worst part about MTG, and GW is selling it, and people are taking it hook line and sinker, and its blatantly obvious at this point.

This is why im saying that the tournament players are becoming if not already the new backbone of GWs money. Yeah you have garage hammer coming in every now and then and buying something here and there, but nothing like the tournament players coming in willing to drop hundreds and hundreds for the latest and greatest. every 6 months.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:52:40


Post by: kodos


just my personal experience, but 40k did not become faster over time but slower

yes, also the points increased, while points per models were reduced, so there are a lot more models on the table now compared to 3rd

but the more "kill kill" of 40k, does not really compensate that and the game still takes longer even with GW trying to speed it up


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:53:44


Post by: Racerguy180


Backspacehacker wrote:Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.



Basically this.
If you have a permissive group that cooperates together, you'd be surprised what you can do with 9th.

Or say feth 40k and play Necromunda, Aeronautica, Titanicus(their best game), or any of the other multitude of games outside of the GW ecosphere.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 19:55:53


Post by: Backspacehacker


You can attribute that to the fact that GW does not know how to speed up their game.
When 8th launched they put out the notion that OH we are working to make the games go faster by removing templates, scatter, needing to check WS vs WS, ect ect
But over time, because their current rule set did not allow for expansion and balance the time they saved just got added on in other places.
Things like, here let me add all my modifiers
Let me do all these rerolls
Let me use this strat so i can do this all over again

They just exchanged one set of problems for another.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 20:10:38


Post by: PenitentJake


I have to disagree with the idea that "GW as whole" is targeting tournament players, or that the 9th edition is the "tournament" edition.

GW is using MATCHED PLAY to target tournament players.

GW is using CRUSADE to target long-term narrative casuals.

GW is using OPEN PLAY, specialist/ smaller games and licensed products to target new/ young players.

All three demographics are important to the long term survival of the company for different reasons. All three have different spending profiles and different needs. And GW is simultaneously using multiple strategies to hit ALL of them.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 20:55:01


Post by: catbarf


 Backspacehacker wrote:
Whats annoying is that is what a lot of people want, long epic battles, and thats how 40k used to be. Now if thats what you got into the hobby for, you basically are being told to go pound sand and get nothing to support the old play styles.


Apocalypse is pretty good for big, epic battles. Movement trays as a core part of the gameplay + very fast combat resolution + minimal interrupts (ie stratagems) makes for a quicker play experience.

It's not the scale that matters, it's complexity of mechanics. There's nothing stopping you from using the current 40K rules to play a 4K+ point game if you want more granularity (at the cost of far longer resolution time) than something like Apocalypse offers.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 20:58:44


Post by: Backspacehacker


I have actually heard that apoc is really really good funny enough, because they made all the army rules at once.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:11:07


Post by: Racerguy180


Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:21:54


Post by: AnomanderRake


In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:24:22


Post by: Backspacehacker


 AnomanderRake wrote:
In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.


I feel like the old planetary onslaught named stratagems the best.
Both players got the same number of command points.
Most stratagems usually were best used to counter your opponents stratagems.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:26:27


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Racerguy180 wrote:
Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.



Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:27:23


Post by: Backspacehacker


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Apocalypse is a great game but anything new since it's release doesn't have stats/rules.



Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?


Nope, pretty much was a one and done.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 21:53:58


Post by: Ordana


If GW wanted the game to be faster then they once again prove their incompetence.

For the casual player that doesn't know his entire codex by heart the game is slower then its ever been since I started playing in 3e.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 22:25:16


Post by: Platuan4th


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I always wanted a 40k scale Dactylis


The Forgeworld Dactylis is one of my favorite 28mm licensed Nid models and you can still find them popping up on eBay every now and then.



Tomato chuckers for the win.

Edit: There's one up right now, actually, though the guy put the arms on backwards.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 22:38:06


Post by: vipoid


 auticus wrote:
Older games were not decided by turn 1 like they were in more recent editons,


Game design over the past 10 years has centered on the experience lasting an hour or so. The generation of gamers from the 1990s and early 2000s were ok with playing games that took most of the afternoon. That was normal.

The generation that came after did not want to spend an entire afternoon on one game. They want to go to a game store and play multiple games in an afternoon.




Well if that's the case then they've completely fething failed.

In the past, I had 2v2 games that went onto turn 5+ in the time it now takes to play a game of 8th/9th to around turn 3.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/26 23:27:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


PenitentJake wrote:
I have to disagree with the idea that "GW as whole" is targeting tournament players, or that the 9th edition is the "tournament" edition.
You can disagree all you like, but the main thrust 9th has been to adapt a third party tournament mission, objective and scoring system for the most commonly played variant of the game and make that the de facto default for all 40k games. Chapter Approved is now even called a 'Tournament Pack'.

Crusade is a great idea marred by a torturous slow roll-out of rules that has (and will) leave some factions without their Crusade rules for years (something the old-style Chapter Approved could have partially remedied, before it was turned into All Tournaments All The Time).

And, let's be real, Open Play only exists because "Two Ways To Play" sounds stupid and isn't exactly marketable.

PenitentJake wrote:
All three demographics are important to the long term survival of the company for different reasons. All three have different spending profiles and different needs. And GW is simultaneously using multiple strategies to hit ALL of them.
I don't think the Open Play demographic is important at all, assuming it even really exists in any appreciable quantity. I think Crusade would be stronger if it was more centralised (ie. not spread out across multiple books - put the 'Crusade' books into the campaign books, rather then releasing Crusade stuff for each warzone split in two books) and wasn't still being released for various races in a massively slow drip (not completely GW's fault, but, again, the slowness is something they would have fixed in CA back in the day).

Most people play matched play games, and matched play is almost synonymous with 'tournament play'. That's where 40k is right now. That's why 9th, despite introducing Crusade, is 'Tournament Edition 40k'.

 vipoid wrote:
In the past, I had 2v2 games that went onto turn 5+ in the time it now takes to play a game of 8th/9th to around turn 3.
Man... you played a 9th game that made it to turn 3? Must've been a long game.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/27 02:13:59


Post by: PenitentJake


@HBMC- pretty decent and thoughtful response.

Your points about Crusade are all pretty solid- I think the people most likely to play Crusade are the people whose armies their dexes and therefore, their bespoke content. And that certainly does mean that matched would have a player based edge.

And of course, you know I've always been 100% in agreement with your idea that Campaign books and Crusade mission packs could be combined- and I think you're right that doing so would be another way to increase the Crusade player base.

And I also have come around to agreeing with you on Open in some ways- it's super important as a learn to play option, but many of those who try it will go on to either Matched or Crusade... so while it is important and has a place, there probably isn't much of an ongoing, long term player base for it (though I do know a few on Dakka who swear by it).

Based on all of that, I can certainly concede that for at least the time being it does seem that Matched is the most commonly played format. But I still have trouble labelling the game as the Tournament edition when more actual resources are targeted at Narrative players.

Tournament scoring is used for the most popular mode of play, but the mission support for the less popular mode of play is 5x that of the mission support for Matched. Up until now, GT Mission Packs have always replaced the previous set, where as Crusade Mission Packs have always continued to be valid- it's been years since the Pariah mission pack, but you can still play the Pariah campaign if you wanted to. By contrast, once the GT 2021 MP was released, the 2020 MP did become factually obsolete.

Granted, the wording I've seen in the leaks from GT Nachmund suggests that GW is now linking GT rule sets to campaign settings in the same way they always have with Crusade rules. So from this point forward, people will still be able to say "Hey, want to play a Nachmund GT game instead of a <Insert season two setting> GT game. In practice, it won't happen as often as it would with Crusade- many of the people playing matched ARE tournament players, and for them, current is always going to matter more than which rule set they prefer.

But the garagehammer folks playing Matched, those guys might still choose to switch back to previous GT seasons to mix it up a bit.

That gives me a 5 to 1 lead on mission support as a crusade player. Even if matched is more popular (and yeah, I realize it is, as outlined above) I still can't call it a tournament edition when I have so much more stuff I can do and use than a tourney player does.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/27 04:41:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Tbf GW has always had campaign books and narrative supplements.

What they haven't always had are balance updates and Matched Play refinements.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/27 07:24:06


Post by: vict0988


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Tbf GW has always had campaign books and narrative supplements.

What they haven't always had are balance updates and Matched Play refinements.

They haven't always had wargear cost points in 5 pt increments, they haven't always prevented units from being unable to be charged while on top of a ruin, they haven't always had PL, they haven't always had Crusade content in codexes. 9th is the narrative edition, everyone who wants to play narrative does, but it's not for everyone, so some people play matched play. When you want a balanced pick-up game it makes sense to play the most recent tournament mission pack because that's what GW has allegedly balanced points around. If you play a homebrew mission the person in charge of balance suddenly becomes the person suggesting the mission. It is kind of nice to be able to shrug and say "wow GW really messed up balance this season" instead of saying "sorry my homebrew mission ruined our game night".

The game balance has been marred just as much by a slow roll out as the ability for people to have fluffy Crusade rules. Tau and GSC have been trash for a year, where were their 3-8 secondary missions while Space Marines and Necrons each had one amazing one each? I'm not sure all the competitive Tau and GSC players think 9th is the most competitive edition ever. Every faction should have gotten Crusade content at once, every faction should have gotten GT mission faction secondaries at once. No, Crusade was not slighted more than Matched play 40k was.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 02:10:03


Post by: sandor1988


 The Red Hobbit wrote:



Do they do regular updates to incorporate new stuff either digitally or in print?

no longer in print, huge shame. i play it in 6mm and pretty nice


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 02:16:30


Post by: The Red Hobbit


That's a shame, I always hear great things about Apocalypse but sounds like they didn't have any plans for post release support.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 03:00:58


Post by: auticus


It was a one and done which is why the vast majority of people I've ever known ignored it regardless of if it was fun or not. Few want to invest in a stillborn game.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 04:24:02


Post by: catbarf


 vict0988 wrote:
When you want a balanced pick-up game it makes sense to play the most recent tournament mission pack because that's what GW has allegedly balanced points around.


I'll assert that it is not optimal for pick-up games to be using rulesets intended to provide balance at the top tables of LVO.

The number of casual- and really not imbalanced- armies I've seen invalidated by RO3, flyer limits, subfaction restrictions, or other tournament-balance-oriented rules is non-negligible. And the Matched Play missions, optimized as ever for competitive balance, are dull as dishwater.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 06:43:43


Post by: kodos


problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

those just care about balance on the table, that a first turn advantage is not too big etc.

if every person who wants to win the event requires the same army list is not a problem for tournaments

its the players fault if he comes naked to gunfight, not the tournaments for not banning guns
but it is GWs fault for giving some factions guns while others have to fight naked, as this is what kills pick up games

GW Marketing tries to advertise that balance is only important for events, while it is actually important for casual pick up games as events don't care and make their own rules anyway



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 06:58:06


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Backspacehacker wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
In practice it's so stripped down that it takes longer to take out/put away minis than it does to actually play. I'm also not a big fan of the stratagem deck.


I feel like the old planetary onslaught named stratagems the best.
Both players got the same number of command points.
Most stratagems usually were best used to counter your opponents stratagems.


I liked original 4e Apocalypse stratagems a lot. They were one-use things that had a major impact on the game that you acquired during list-building by taking specific formations and paying points for them, plus one freebie, and often cost you strategic resources (=victory points) to use. There weren't that many, most of them were common to all armies, you didn't get that many, and they were extra cherry-on-top things rather than core stuff that they balanced units around using.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 07:48:04


Post by: Blackie


 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win



Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 08:18:56


Post by: vict0988


I don't want to play against Valkyrie spam or Killa Kan spam in casual pick-up games. I've always liked the Nova-style pick-your-own secondaries, I think it's a fun mini-game. I've had plenty of fun games using them. I liked the 7th edition Maelstrom missions a lot for casual games, but they leave a lot up to chance.
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

those just care about balance on the table, that a first turn advantage is not too big etc.

if every person who wants to win the event requires the same army list is not a problem for tournaments

its the players fault if he comes naked to gunfight, not the tournaments for not banning guns
but it is GWs fault for giving some factions guns while others have to fight naked, as this is what kills pick up games

GW Marketing tries to advertise that balance is only important for events, while it is actually important for casual pick up games as events don't care and make their own rules anyway

So you're saying that GW while trying to internally and externally balance Necrons for the Nachmund mission set have accidentally made Necrons more internally and externally balanced in a different mission set? This is not about what tournament players want, it's whether GW are trying to make Necrons balanced for the GT missions or for the Only War mission.

Players whining about playing 3/5 rounds against the same list is a thing and people are generally happy if they've played against a variety of lists in a tournament. Organizers try to adapt missions and terrain to curb OP factions because TOs know that if 50% of attendees bring the same list then the tournament will not grow. Curbing go-first win-rates is also important because tournament go-ers are generally not interested in too much RNG and being 20% more likely to win based on one lucky roll before any models have moved is too much. That does not mean that nothing else matters, sometimes a TO will choose to focus more on external balance or go-first balance over not ruining internal balance, but internal balance is generally so bad in GW publications that no matter what you do as a TO every faction's internal balance will be garbage.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 08:38:53


Post by: kodos


not all people go to an event to win it, but for a lot of people this is a social event or even the only possibility to play the game
for those it is important that they can have a good time with the faction they like and the models they have painted
in this case, balance is important and event orgas want to make it possible that all having the best possible time
so if GW fails to make good enough rules, the orga will try and make changes to ensure balance as best as possible and for the pure competitive game, it does not matter if there is 1 winning list or 20

that GW manages to make something good by accident, well even a broken watch is right twice a day
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.

which is unrelated to my statement
if there is only 1 army list in all of 40k able to enter the top 5 in an event, those that want to win will use it and not care if something else has no chance
it is not important if other armies are not able to do so for the pure competitive gaming, this is only important if you play the army for different reasons or casual games


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 09:44:32


Post by: Blackie


 kodos wrote:
not all people go to an event to win it, but for a lot of people this is a social event or even the only possibility to play the game
for those it is important that they can have a good time with the faction they like and the models they have painted
in this case, balance is important and event orgas want to make it possible that all having the best possible time
so if GW fails to make good enough rules, the orga will try and make changes to ensure balance as best as possible and for the pure competitive game, it does not matter if there is 1 winning list or 20

that GW manages to make something good by accident, well even a broken watch is right twice a day
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
problem with this is that tournament balance does not care about internal codex balance or if all factions have an equal chance to win

Really? I think internal codexes balance and win rates for the factions are both at their highest level in the history of 40k. They're both not perfect of course but compared to older editions we've already seen way more armies doing great at tournaments and way more units from each faction being viable at competitive levels.

which is unrelated to my statement
if there is only 1 army list in all of 40k able to enter the top 5 in an event, those that want to win will use it and not care if something else has no chance
it is not important if other armies are not able to do so for the pure competitive gaming, this is only important if you play the army for different reasons or casual games


But that's what did happen in older editions of 40k, 9th is the extreme opposite. There are tons of different lists that went in the top 5 at events so far. A lot of armies managed to enter the top 5 with a wide array of units. Never before we had this variety of viable models. So I don't understand where your statement came from and why.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 09:56:00


Post by: kodos


as a reply to catbarfs comment directly above mine

aka, this balance is not aimed at "competitive play" but casuals entering events


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 10:08:48


Post by: Blackie


The point is most players do pick up games or garage hammer using those tournament rules, which at that point is like playing competitive 40k, so yeah this balance is aimed at both casual and competitive gaming. GW wants to curb some OP lists that show up at events in order to avoid making them common in pick up games. But also at tournaments, since the most competitive people get tired of playing with and against the same stuff over and over again. That's the whole point of balance patches.

And I disagree about pick up games being unbalanced, as we never had this level of internal and external balance in 40k. So pick up games might be unbalanced compared to other games or in a vacuum, but compared to the history of 40k this is basically the golden age of balance.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 10:36:00


Post by: kodos


I would avoid calling it "comeptitive games" as I said, for those it does not matter
and those competitive people that are tired of always playing the same are those that demand change for the sake of change with any random adjustment that changes the meta being fine (balance is not the driving point behind this)

pick up games and garage hammer uses the rules for events/matched play so benefit from the balance changes made there

GWs recent point changes would be suited to please the competitive people, as it just changes things without making (for some of those units) balance better
but just that a current list with 1998 points not being legal any more and people need to bring something different for the next tournament

that this also can affect balance for the casual and event players, is a side effect, and a limited one

PS: for my personal experience, pick up games were the best prior 5th, but not because of the game but because event/community rules were used nearly everywhere and he tolerance over house rules etc was higher, while now everything not official is a no go for everyone outside the fixed groups

and also the game takes too long now for me, even if the balance is better, needing 4+ hours to get thru a game with a random person is too much


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 14:41:19


Post by: chaos0xomega


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And, let's be real, Open Play only exists because "Two Ways To Play" sounds stupid and isn't exactly marketable.


It should really be "One Way to Play". I believe firmly that it is possible, with a basic degree of competence and skill, to produce rules which are mechanically tight and complex enough to create an exciting and balanced competitive meta while also being thematic and fluffy enough produce narrative excitement at the same time. All what "three ways to play" accomplishes in my mind is creating a split/partitioning of the player base and the meta in such a manner that muddies the water of discourse in a manner which makes it impossible to meet the needs of any of them. Its bad enough already that the concept of national, regional, and local metas will result in skewed playtest and meta data and player feedback that can vary wildly, but now on top of that you're also layering the differences that arise from what are essentially three different games based on the same core engine. Someones viewpoint on balance based on their experience playing an army in a Crusade format is going to vary wildly from someone who bases their experience playing an army in a competitive format, versus someone who does whatever it is the open play crowd does (I've never seen an "open play" game but in my head I imagine its two or more people showing up to the table with a random collection of minis taken from across 5 different codexes plus at least one unit from AoS or another game or otherwise kitbashed from a 1/35 Tamiya kit with homebrew "its balanced I swear rules" to make them work in 40k, and theres at least a 20% points disparity between the players if they bothered to check, etc.). The resulting feedback and noise is really only useful if you have detailed background data to understand the environment that these players are playing in, something which I'm guessing the average player isn't clever enough to parse themselves based on how these sorts of details are typically ommitted entirely during online discussion.

To some extent the "three ways" bit is a load of BS too. While GW has been providing a lot of support for Narrative players in 9th, I can't say I've seen much for open. Matched still seems to be GWs favorite child... in fact, it seems that GWs balancing decisions are being based entirely and only around the matched play concept as their playtesters are (to my knowledge) 100% competitive meta players and the metawatch articles are of course only concerned with tournament results, thereby excluding narrative/open play from the discussion. This is probably a good thing overall, but it does essentially mean that GWs matched play oriented balance changes and updates are being forced down on narrative and open play gamers.

I don't think the Open Play demographic is important at all, assuming it even really exists in any appreciable quantity.


Agreed.

I think Crusade would be stronger if it was more centralised (ie. not spread out across multiple books - put the 'Crusade' books into the campaign books, rather then releasing Crusade stuff for each warzone split in two books) and wasn't still being released for various races in a massively slow drip (not completely GW's fault, but, again, the slowness is something they would have fixed in CA back in the day).


Agreed here too, but it would be nicer still IMO if the "Crusade" rules were also synonymous with "Matched" rules. What I mean is, the 5-10 pages of rules in each codex that many players will never use, either because they are strictly "matched only" or because (like me) have a local community that is borderline "matched only"/"anti-narrative", were actually usable by people playing matched games in some capacity (including tournaments) and the rules instead incentivized players to field armies that were more grounded in narrative.
Obviously the entire system would need to be overhauled from the ground up and you would need to eliminate the "persistance" aspect of it (you're not going to walk into round 1 of a tournament with a buffed up character or unit because you won a bunch of games last week against your regular playing group, honest guys I swear, right? Nor is it really fair to have you walk into your next game with a leveled up unit because you had a really good first tournament round, but because your opponent lost he got nothing out of it, etc.), but those Crusade rules would (to me). What I envision instead is, a section of rules built around promoting fluffy and thematic armies rooted in narrative - basically Crusade would be an alternative set of army-building rules (i.e. you "Build a Crusade Army") that forgoes the detachment system but instead uses a more restrictive/proscriptive framework designed to promote armies built around fluff and narrative at the expense of raw points efficiency and competitive power, i.e. things like taking multiple maximum sized troops units as the core of your army (as opposed to the competitive alternative of paying the troop tax with MSU), being restricted to the number of certain units you can field (either hard limits of "only 1/2/3 per army" or "only 1 per every 2 troops units" type things), being restricted in terms of which units you can field in combination with one another (oh, you're fielding LRBTs? Well unfortunately you can't also take Basilisks, etc. because your crusade force is being supported by a tank company rather than an SP artillery company, and in order for your infantry to keep up with the armor they all need to be mounted in chimeras - you can't use tauroxes because only motorized guard companies use those, and those don't have access to tank or SP Artillery support, instead they have to rely on sentinels and Hellhounds/Banewolves/Hotdogs), etc.

In exchange for theoretically handicapping yourself in such a manner, the Crusade army comes with a number of perks, such as a more comprehensive "build your own custom character" system that brings back the highly customizable (but prone to abuse) herohammer characters of yore with an expanded wargear and special rule menu to choose from, special "crusade only" strategems, additional crusade only artifacts, additional more thematic/fluffy secondary objective options, providing bonus special rules to certain units, extra wargear and customization options for them that wouldn't otherwise be available (i.e. you can upgrade your squad of guardsmen to be "tank-hunter veterans" with +1BS and +1LD, equipped with melta bombs, and a special rule that gives them a bonus to wound/damage reroll when targeting vehicles, etc.), offer free upgrades/bonus units that would not otherwise be balanced or work within the framework of the freeform detachment system currently being used by matched play players, etc. You could get fancy with this and base it on a "progressive" army building structure (i.e. if your army includes 2-3 maximum sized troops units you get x, 4-5 gets you y, 6+ gets you z), etc.There could even be multiple crusade army options in each book built around a number of different themes, including some designed to promote the use of units which would otherwise probably go unfielded.

I guess in essence I am proposing Warmachine theme forces to an extent, but done in a manner which is more fluff-forward in terms of requiring you to take certain units in certain quantities and sizes, rather than simply restricting you to only taking select units and allowing you to figure out how you can best abuse them. Would probably work better than the existing "Regiment of Renown" system or whatever they are calling it, as the more restrictive nature of the system allows for much more powerful and tailored bonuses to be handed out.

As for the mission aspect, I'm convinced that its possible to make the competitive missions a bit more narratively interesting. To some extent, some of the secondary objectives have pushed competitive play in a slightly more narrative direction in some aspects as it stands, but theres definitely room for improvement.

The number of casual- and really not imbalanced- armies I've seen invalidated by RO3, flyer limits, subfaction restrictions, or other tournament-balance-oriented rules is non-negligible. And the Matched Play missions, optimized as ever for competitive balance, are dull as dishwater.


Agreed. My Militarum Tempestus are now borderline unplayable (I've yet to actually win a game with them in 9th, so even at their best this edition they have been fairly terrible and from what I gather have an even lower winrate than guard as a whole does) as a result of flyer nerfs. The only thing I can conceivably do to have an even remote chance of winning against a 9th edition book is to spam taurox primes. I know a number of others who had to make some big modifications to their armies as a result of the changes, and these were mid/bottom tier competitive guys at best. And yeah, the matched play missions are very bland, I think the secondaries are the only aspect of the missions that I like.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 15:26:40


Post by: auticus


There is one very large flaw with basing game balance solely on tournament results.

Tournament metas are not a reflection of the game as a whole. They are a reflection of the most uber and optimized choices that represent roughly 5% of the entire game.

I still don't see them balancing anything period because I just saw a game last week where the game ended in about 30 minutes because the lists were so far apart in power despite being disguised as 2000 points.

But... IF they were hypothetically balancing the game against the tournament meta, thats still a big fat fail to everyone except for the tournament meta chasers or people that have tournament meta chasers build their lists for "for fun casual" games.

My last 40k game was a few years ago but it featured my for fun campaign narrative thousand sons list getting annihilated in two turns by an adepticon knights list (in a narrative for fun campaign event, which adepticon knight player replies "this is how I have fun"), and I was told "the game is fine, tournaments are doing great and the top 5 are pretty diverse, you just don't know how to list build (you should have built the thousand sons meta list of Magnus and Mortarion and the demons that hold objectives in your narrative for fun army where Magnus and Mortarion hate each other but you bring them anyway because they are the 0ptimal, not use actual rubrics in your thousand sons army, everyone knows thats bad list building to include those)".

Those moments right there happen so many times every day and people get sick of it and drop. The only thing is that 40k is so huge that they are replaced right away and the churn and burn of players continues.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 15:58:19


Post by: The Red Hobbit


That's a good point, for every person burned out there's probably two more to replace them. And the burned out player might still collect and paint so overall it's a net growth for GW.

If you do end up playing your Thousand Sons again I run mine without Magnus just Rubrics and Terminators and have a lot of fun with them at 1000pts.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 15:59:43


Post by: Tyran


You cannot balance for a casual meta, because there is no way to account for the issue that casual players can and will bring different degrees of optimized lists.

For casuals, you want to make things easy and understandable, you want to make it easy to pick up the game. And admittedly 9th sucks at this. But game balance is tournament stuff.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 16:19:22


Post by: auticus


I don't agree that you can't balance for a casual meta. You can't achieve perfect balance, and no one is asking for that, but the level of disparity and imbalance can be often found after literally 5 minutes of flipping through an army book.

If in the thousand sons example you cannot take rubrics, the things that make the thousand sons the thousand sons to many people, because they get buried, you look at why that is.

If you find that things like tactical marines, the backbone of the army, are almost never taken because they aren't "optimal" you find out why that is and address it.

If I have an army of five imperial knights evaporating the enemy army in two turns (this was back when they were an adepticon darling a few years back), I'm going to want to look at why that is and tone them down a few notches.

You can't achieve this level of balance without effort, but you can achieve a much better state of the game by many times over than what is given to us today.

I was on the team that wrote the azyr point system for age of sigmar before official points, and while it was not perfect, it did achieve a very sold and respectable flatter bell curve, to the point where its #1 complaint was "AHHH YOU KILLED LISTBUILDING!!!!"

In fact that was the first time in at the time 20 years of game dev and design where I had heard someone actually say that the desired goal of the game was for there to be bad choices so listbuilding could be a thing and that the biggest turnoff of our work was that it didn't matter what list people threw together, it was all the same power wise, which was to them bad.

I've been on enough projects in my career to know that you can achieve a much better experience for non-tournament players than what exists today.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 16:23:45


Post by: Backspacehacker


 auticus wrote:
There is one very large flaw with basing game balance solely on tournament results.

Tournament metas are not a reflection of the game as a whole. They are a reflection of the most uber and optimized choices that represent roughly 5% of the entire game.

This is why I love to play knights because they always end up acting as the meta checker. Everyone makes wombo combo lists that rely on specific units to make buffs work and strats do specific things so they can either do a lot of damage to a lot of units/models or jump around the board.

Meanwhile knights just walk into the field and if you don't have an answer to them they just sorta blow that wombo combo to bits. It's honestly why I think most people hate them, because it's a wrench in the tournament meta, despite the fact knights only have like a 50% win rate.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 16:57:15


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


Orks also sorta work as that monkey wrench, or at least they used to when you could greentide up the whole board.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 16:58:17


Post by: Tyran


 auticus wrote:
I don't agree that you can't balance for a casual meta. You can't achieve perfect balance, and no one is asking for that, but the level of disparity and imbalance can be often found after literally 5 minutes of flipping through an army book.

If in the thousand sons example you cannot take rubrics, the things that make the thousand sons the thousand sons to many people, because they get buried, you look at why that is.

If you find that things like tactical marines, the backbone of the army, are almost never taken because they aren't "optimal" you find out why that is and address it.

If I have an army of five imperial knights evaporating the enemy army in two turns (this was back when they were an adepticon darling a few years back), I'm going to want to look at why that is and tone them down a few notches.

To be honest, I'm failing to see how that is different from balancing for the tournament meta.
If an Imperial Knight army is evaporating an army in two turns, you will see that reflected in the tournaments.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:00:05


Post by: auticus


On one hand you have armies that only consist of the 5% best things.

On the other hand you have armies that are composed of everything else.

The armies composed of the 5% best things likely won't be evaporated in 2 turns because they have broken or super optimal rules that either mitigate or prevent that from happening (which is how they are the 5% best things and taken in a tournament environment)

The whole thing I was told on that day was "you should have taken mortarion and magnus because they can't die as fast and they can kill knights by themselves". They were a requirement at that point in time. That made for a most unpleasant and unfun play experience.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:04:58


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Tyran wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I don't agree that you can't balance for a casual meta. You can't achieve perfect balance, and no one is asking for that, but the level of disparity and imbalance can be often found after literally 5 minutes of flipping through an army book.

If in the thousand sons example you cannot take rubrics, the things that make the thousand sons the thousand sons to many people, because they get buried, you look at why that is.

If you find that things like tactical marines, the backbone of the army, are almost never taken because they aren't "optimal" you find out why that is and address it.

If I have an army of five imperial knights evaporating the enemy army in two turns (this was back when they were an adepticon darling a few years back), I'm going to want to look at why that is and tone them down a few notches.

To be honest, I'm failing to see how that is different from balancing for the tournament meta.
If an Imperial Knight army is evaporating an army in two turns, you will see that reflected in the tournaments.


The reason for that is because knights play a totally different game. Knights don't have a good ability to have board control, in that they can't be in a lot of places at once. Because of that it's harder to capitalize on objectives, and getting into enemy territory.

So while you see all these lists that have elaborate wombo combos, knights don't give a crap a out that, they just are gonna walk up the board and punch you in the face. Which works half the time. But needing to be in a lot of places all at once? Eh not so great.

You will see them in tournament, but they are not that hard to counter as a list, it's just I'd tour list can't specifically deal with them your gonna have a hard time.

They are just a wrench in the meta operation.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:06:17


Post by: Tyran


 auticus wrote:
On one hand you have armies that only consist of the 5% best things.

On the other hand you have armies that are composed of everything else.

The armies composed of the 5% best things likely won't be evaporated in 2 turns because they have broken or super optimal rules that either mitigate or prevent that from happening (which is how they are the 5% best things and taken in a tournament environment)

The whole thing I was told on that day was "you should have taken mortarion and magnus because they can't die as fast and they can kill knights by themselves". They were a requirement at that point in time. That made for a most unpleasant and unfun play experience.
Armies consisting of the best 5% is a failure of internal balance, which again to be fair GW has always struggle with.

But that is still something done at the tournament level. Just because it is tournament play does not mean the tournament balancing team can forget about the 95% of the rest of the game.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:08:01


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


I think fan balance is the best way to go honestly, but you need to gather a team somehow of quite a few people who are knowledgeable about factions, but not overly biased. 40k from GW is never going to be balanced though, cause they don’t realize that if everything is good people will just buy everything.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:10:48


Post by: Backspacehacker


A think a lot of the issues too is that honestly, the people that write the rules don't play the game like most of the players.

I had a GW store manager tell me a story about it back in 8th and he went over to the UK and the way they played in 8th was like, totally different then the way the US played. We literally played like animals and would have super aggressive lists while over in The UK there was a lot more fluffy lists that did not abuse it as much. Like guard mixed with other imperial armies was common, but the loyal 32 was something that tournament and US players kinda made a big thing.

Like the flyrent list spam? That did not get changed until one of the rule writers got stomped by it at a tournament. I think that's a big contribution is that you have people making rules for the game, but they don't play it at the "hyper" competitive way that a lot of people do. And now they are trying to balance based upon those hyper competative results but don't really get why they take what they do, they just see win rates go lol better nerd that with a bat, rather then addressing the core issues behind them


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:17:17


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


I’d personally like it if we all went to nice fluffy armies, but that’s majorly difficult when boyz run away at the sight of a fluffy woodland animal, and a grot costs as much as a guardsman.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:22:50


Post by: auticus


I will say for sure that the uk folks play a completely different game than the US folks yes. And the design team is in the UK.

If I had a dime for everytime someone I knew from the UK said something like "why on earth would you build a list so busted as that to remove all fun from the game" - I'd own GW by now.

So for sure how they approach the game over there (and in the design studio) is leagues apart from how the competitive american market runs with it.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:24:21


Post by: Backspacehacker


Yeah i found it funny when word for word "you Americans play like bloody animals" was how the US players wre described.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:31:12


Post by: ccs


chaos0xomega wrote:
(I've never seen an "open play" game but in my head I imagine its two or more people showing up to the table with a random collection of minis taken from across 5 different codexes plus at least one unit from AoS or another game or otherwise kitbashed from a 1/35 Tamiya kit with homebrew "its balanced I swear rules" to make them work in 40k, and theres at least a 20% points disparity between the players if they bothered to check, etc.).


Sure, someone out there might be doing something that wild.
OR.....
Their games might be almost indistinguishable from matched (even using the current pts) differing only in, for a few examples;
1) ignoring the new flyer limit - because hey, guess what, you aren't the only guy with an air-mobile Guard force!
Unlike you we aren't content to just sit on it/bin it. So "Open". When you get tied of being sad that you've got a shelf full of stuff you can't play with, change how you choose to play. After all, was it a problem in your circle Monday that all of your Guard were mounted in Valks? If not, then why is it a problem with those same people now that it's Tuesday?
2) ignoring the extra coherency rules for large squads.
3) ignoring the new Ork buggy restriction.
4) allowing Las/plas razorbacks to be used. They aren't even listed in the the Legends section. Last they were seen was in the 8e index. Well, we know what a razorback costs. And we know what a lascannon + 2 plasma guns cost. So play on.
5) allowing non-primaris Ragnar Blackmane to be used. Why not? In the Legends section we have not one, but TWO non-primaris versions of Calgar....
6) using missions from whatever source for the size of game we're playing. We're playing a Strike Force game? OK, roll on the compiled table.... you might get something from open, Crusade, matched, WD, or one of the campaign books. Guess what? As soon as you pull some mission that's not from matched, you're technically not playing matched.... And if your not playing Crusade, we'll, I guess your playing "Open".
7) ignoring the sometimes idiotic restrictions placed on special edition models - like that Goff Rocker, or the original SM reprint.
Both state that only 1 such model may be in an army.
Really? Only 1 ork picks up a guitar? Despite some of us having the original set of guitar, singer, etc?
Or the one guy I know who has a whole army of that OG SM (and the other metal SMs of the same style/vintage) as the base trooper. What, we're supposed to say "Sorry Frank, even though you've been playing with dozens of that model for decades, you can't play them anymore because some guy at GW said so."?
8) hey, how about those looted vehicles for the Orks?
I don't see them in matched play.....
9) solving the problem of how to deploy Fortifications. As written? Almost unplayable. (And by default almost unsellable by the shops. Ooh, look, GW just admitted as much & changed their deploy riles - but only if your playing a GT Nachmund game.... guess what? Some of us solved that quite awhile ago. Just makes all our games where they show up not-matched.

So no, an Open game does not have to involve crazy imbalance.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:40:19


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Backspacehacker wrote:

I had a GW store manager tell me a story about it back in 8th and he went over to the UK and the way they played in 8th was like, totally different then the way the US played. We literally played like animals and would have super aggressive lists while over in The UK there was a lot more fluffy lists that did not abuse it as much. Like guard mixed with other imperial armies was common, but the loyal 32 was something that tournament and US players kinda made a big thing.


This is true. I've heard James Hewitt (the game designer who did Titanicus, etc., not the guy who was banging Princess Diana and might be Prince Harry's dad) talk about it a bit, I get the impression that the UK meta (or at least the design studio) didn't think too highly of the way Americans played the game "back in the day". I assume that since Mike Brandt works for GW now and they are catering towards the tournament crowd that this may have changed to some extent.

Like the flyrent list spam? That did not get changed until one of the rule writers got stomped by it at a tournament. I think that's a big contribution is that you have people making rules for the game, but they don't play it at the "hyper" competitive way that a lot of people do. And now they are trying to balance based upon those hyper competative results but don't really get why they take what they do, they just see win rates go lol better nerd that with a bat, rather then addressing the core issues behind them


Arguably this is why WMHDs was(is?) better balanced than 40k was, the design team actually played competitively and as a result rebuilt and maintained the game around the competitive meta to the best of their ability. The downside to that, of course, was that the community of casual gamers that had been early adopters of the system when it was still a casual/semi-casual thematic fluff-based ruleset were driven away completely and resulted in the community and consumer base for the game being hollowed out.

ccs wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
(I've never seen an "open play" game but in my head I imagine its two or more people showing up to the table with a random collection of minis taken from across 5 different codexes plus at least one unit from AoS or another game or otherwise kitbashed from a 1/35 Tamiya kit with homebrew "its balanced I swear rules" to make them work in 40k, and theres at least a 20% points disparity between the players if they bothered to check, etc.).

Sure, someone out there might be doing something that wild.
OR.....
*snip*
So no, an Open game does not have to involve crazy imbalance.

I apologize if I offended you? That bit was intended more tongue-in-cheek than anything else, but also not really relevant to anything else in the post.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 17:48:03


Post by: Backspacehacker


We just have to admit that as US gamers we are literally bullies of the table top


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 18:03:24


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
a grot costs as much as a guardsman.


Not anymore, to be fair.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 18:15:55


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
a grot costs as much as a guardsman.


Not anymore, to be fair.


Ah right, plus one half point, this discount is truly a blessing from the lord .
Fething “no less than five points” gak.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 18:53:19


Post by: PenitentJake


@Chaos0Xomega:

I read your suggestions for the "unigame" proposal and what you want to do with narrative. I've just been through HUGE multithreaded debates about Crusade on other sites, so I'm a bit burnt out.

But I think that you misunderstand what it is that makes Crusade as it is so amazing. I have come around to some of HBMC's thoughts- I've always agreed with him about consolidating ALL crusade content from Campaigns into a single book. I've similarly agreed with Unit and other posters that it would have been cool if they could have released a "Big Book of Crusade" along side the BRB that contained ALL bespoke Crusade content for all factions as well as various models for linking games into campaigns. While it would have been excellent, this last idea is not as feasible as HBMC's, because bespoke Crusade content in dexes references the updated general rules in that dex... and it would be really hard to provide meaningful bespoke content without doing this.

But killing the progression system and destroying the long term quests like Sainthood, Repentance, Territorial Acquisition, Machine Construction, Planetary Insurrection, System Assimilation... This would rip the soul out of Crusade and replace it with what pretty much amounts to Armies of Renown (which we already have) in stand alone games.

Crusade players care about stories- both those that occur in single battles and those which link a series of battles together to create a longer term arc. Some of us view the entire lifespan of our force as a single, ongoing story.

We still may care about things like balance, or unified rules, but those things are not the priority. The story is the priority. Any sacrifice that you make to the latter for the sake of the former is unlikely to be appreciated.

I think that 3 ways to play and game size variation is the crowning achievement of 9th. They could push it further- lots of Matched players are objecting to bloat, so maybe limit strat use a bit more in matched- ie. BRB strats + 5 individual bespoke strats chosen before the game and paid for with points. You could keep the CP rules as is, but every game, you'd only have five of your own strats to plan around, and only five enemy strats to worry about.

And here's the important part: you make that changed for matched to address people's bloat concerns, but you leave Crusade alone. You leave open alone.

This one change allows strats to still be used in matched, but shifts their focus to narrative, where players can use the full list.

Now the truth about this is it's how everyone plays anyway. Every game I go into, before the first turn, I've got a short list of strats in my head that I might use, and the others might as well not even exist. The rule just formalizes the process for Matched play.

@ccs regarding open: exalted! Excellent uses for the open format. I still use my 8th ed Ordo Malleus Terminator- it was removed in the 9th ed update.

And again, open is a great place for beginners to start. Even in its role as just the place where things that aren't possible elsewhere can still be done, it has huge value to the game.




Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 19:34:56


Post by: Sim-Life


 Backspacehacker wrote:
We just have to admit that as US gamers we are literally bullies of the table top


Funny because when I made the point a few months ago about how the competitive US culture filters through the hobby I was told on no uncertain terms that that wasn't true at all and I was talking out my ass.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 19:38:46


Post by: Toofast


 kodos wrote:


GW Marketing tries to advertise that balance is only important for events, while it is actually important for casual pick up games as events don't care and make their own rules anyway



It's most important for pickup games. A competitive player is going to look at the codex and pick the best units. A casual player is going to buy models they like. The problem is when someone buys the models they like and either blows all their friends off the table by T3 without even trying to be competitive if they like Dark Eldar or gets stomped by everyone without having a chance if they like Tau/Necrons. Competitive players will always find broken combos to abuse because the game is just too big not to have some, but casual players shouldn't get their teeth kicked in just because they happened to like the look of a certain faction.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 19:45:29


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
We just have to admit that as US gamers we are literally bullies of the table top


Funny because when I made the point a few months ago about how the competitive US culture filters through the hobby I was told on no uncertain terms that that wasn't true at all and I was talking out my ass.


Yeah, you are absolutely right, the US players literally are animals in the game. Playing in the UK, a lot more players across the pond are more fluff focused then win win focused. it's almost like the difference between feather weight and heavy weight fights.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 19:50:42


Post by: auticus


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
We just have to admit that as US gamers we are literally bullies of the table top


Funny because when I made the point a few months ago about how the competitive US culture filters through the hobby I was told on no uncertain terms that that wasn't true at all and I was talking out my ass.


I've been told this many times as well, particularly in conversations where we discuss how the competitive matched play scene infiltrates and destroys the narrative scenes when they try to get created. ("we are playing for fun? Min Maxing is how I have fun.")


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 19:59:33


Post by: Backspacehacker


What's unfortunate is, because fluffy armies are so gimpted no one has a good time loosing, so you just end up making a competitive list.

What I have found is, I always go in with 2 armies, the one I want to play, and my dikstomp list, which because I'm lazy ends up being knights because it always makes competative players rage.

If I run into another fluffy player, I run my dw rw fluff list, or guard list, if it's competative, it's stompy knight time boys.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 20:03:52


Post by: Toofast


 Backspacehacker wrote:
...you have people making rules for the game, but they don't play it at the "hyper" competitive way that a lot of people do. And now they are trying to balance based upon those hyper competative results but don't really get why they take what they do, they just see win rates go lol better nerd that with a bat, rather then addressing the core issues behind them


Balancing the game for casuals who will never try to min/max is like making laws in society based on how an 80 year old grandmother acts at church. People have been complaining about OP min/max lists for 30 years and the rules team still writes rules as if that style of play doesn't exist. Hopefully this new partnership with ITC will show them that people will do whatever possible to break an army and they need to write their rules with that in mind. Not all of us play fluffhammer in our garages or with a like-minded gaming club, those don't even exist here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:


If I had a dime for everytime someone I knew from the UK said something like "why on earth would you build a list so busted as that to remove all fun from the game" - I'd own GW by now.

So for sure how they approach the game over there (and in the design studio) is leagues apart from how the competitive american market runs with it.


I think that attitude is why we're The United States of America instead of the West British Colonies. "Hey you guys can't wear camo and attack from the trees! You're supposed to walk shoulder to shoulder wearing bright red so we can shoot you more easily! No fair!"


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 21:01:46


Post by: auticus


A lot of them that I know when they play they make a list and then they ask their opponent if they think it would be fun to play against.

Whereas in the US we build a list with the intent of smashing our opponent in the balls and putting them through a table because your opponent will be doing the same to you.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 21:03:38


Post by: Racerguy180


auticus wrote:I will say for sure that the uk folks play a completely different game than the US folks yes. And the design team is in the UK.

If I had a dime for everytime someone I knew from the UK said something like "why on earth would you build a list so busted as that to remove all fun from the game" - I'd own GW by now.

So for sure how they approach the game over there (and in the design studio) is leagues apart from how the competitive american market runs with it.


Backspacehacker wrote:We just have to admit that as US gamers we are literally bullies of the table top


Underlined - I say that gak all the time when I see lame spam.

Italicized - You can't pigeonhole everyone into the same category.

What all this is showing front & center is that Tourney 40k is the now only way to play(unofficially) the game at its basal level.

There needs to be a specific distinction between tourney pts/rules etc from the rest of the game(mechanically).


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 21:14:37


Post by: Ordana


Is this seriously a bunch of Americans talking about how much better they are at playing competitive despite the facts not supporting that?

The US are bullies while everyone else plays fluffy lists? really?


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 21:33:32


Post by: auticus


I didn't read anywhere where Americans were posting that they are better at playing competitively than anywhere else.

What the conversation was saying is that in most other places in the world, there is a time and place for everything, but in America the only time and place is hammer time all the time in public games, which makes fluffy casual narrative fun time very hard to come by here... and that our european counterparts often look at those complaints and ask wtf we are doing over here that that is the case because over there its not like that at all.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 21:51:15


Post by: Backspacehacker


That, not saying we are better, I'm saying we are a lot more brutal on the table.

The example I give being the loyal 32. Across the pond imp guard and other armies we're a lot more common, us took it to the extreme and popularized the loayal 32


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 22:01:05


Post by: Deadnight


Racerguy180 wrote:


What all this is showing front & center is that Tourney 40k is the now only way to play(unofficially) the game at its basal level.



I disagree to an extent.

I've seen this sentiment since 3rd Ed that tourney mode/prep for tourneys is the only way to play and for twenty five years garage groups and homebrewers have been quietly ignoring it.. and people have grown out of it. and I say this as a former tournament player. I burned out of that scene twice. Its an oroboros. Maybe its an age thing but you get to a point where you don't want to deal with that.

Dont misread me. I know where you are coming from. Matched/tourney play as a baseline is absolutely a thing, moreso in stores and the pick-up-game scene, and especially in the us, but this doesn't represent the entirely of the community and imo not the majority either.

Racerguy180 wrote:
.
There needs to be a specific distinction between tourney pts/rules etc from the rest of the game(mechanically).


Problem with this is the 'cult of officialdom'. You say 'these are the tourney rules/legal models' and to that section of the community the rest of the game might as well not exist. From gws pov that's cutting off their own nose.



Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/28 23:11:38


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Officialdom is a problem and not always in an insidious way. Often times it can be that one member of a group regularly plays official tournaments and so only wants to play those rules so they get their practice in. As a result the rest of the group obliges since they don't mind the tournament style rules or they enjoy the challenge.

Everyone has fun but the non-tournament rules end up unused.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/29 01:40:05


Post by: auticus


Having to have every game be a tournament tuning game even in the casual narrative games was a big problem for me.

Running campaign events with non tournament rules and getting blown up by the community for playing 40k "wrong" for not using tournament rules was also a big problem for me lol.

That absolutely needs changed.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/29 01:51:59


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Yeah, I will say Crusade in 9th has been a lot more popular than Narrative games of 8th so that's a step in the right direction.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/29 01:59:12


Post by: artific3r


 auticus wrote:


I was on the team that wrote the azyr point system for age of sigmar before official points, and while it was not perfect, it did achieve a very sold and respectable flatter bell curve, to the point where its #1 complaint was "AHHH YOU KILLED LISTBUILDING!!!!"


I always love this example you bring up about your experiences in testing a ruleset with a flatter power curve. I believe the conclusion you reached was that players don't actually want balance -- they want to be able to execute "perfect play" in the listbuilding phase and win, or at least secure a tremendous advantage, before any dice ever get rolled.


Do they just completely make it up as they go along?  @ 2022/01/29 05:34:12


Post by: auticus


artific3r wrote:
 auticus wrote:


I was on the team that wrote the azyr point system for age of sigmar before official points, and while it was not perfect, it did achieve a very sold and respectable flatter bell curve, to the point where its #1 complaint was "AHHH YOU KILLED LISTBUILDING!!!!"


I always love this example you bring up about your experiences in testing a ruleset with a flatter power curve. I believe the conclusion you reached was that players don't actually want balance -- they want to be able to execute "perfect play" in the listbuilding phase and win, or at least secure a tremendous advantage, before any dice ever get rolled.


The American GW community competitive players I'd say yes, for the most part that is my experience. My experience with say the Battletech community and the UK GW community however is largely the opposite. I didn't realize that balance was not really sought after though until the azyr experience, because up to that point I was under the misconception that balance was a universal want. Somewhere along the lines from 2005 or so on up to that point in 2015 things had taken a different turn here in the states.