Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

New meta watch data.


I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. When the previews were released I said that eldar would be strongest and that death guard would be weakest.

Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Just because GW is incompetent doesn't mean frontloading all the codexes isnt a better format for the consumers.

At least every faction has current rules, so the upcoming codexes might have a theoretical chance of fixing some of these issues

..oh who am I kidding

I have the feeling Eldar will remain OP as long as Jes Goodwin is still working at GW, its my latest favourite conspiracy theory.. The Eldar are Jes's favourites, their model range gets to keep all their classic models always, gets to keep their multipart aspect/kitbashability etc. Go ahead, try changing my mind

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Just because GW is incompetent doesn't mean frontloading all the codexes isnt a better format for the consumers.

I think the issue is that GW simply doesn't have enough writers to do all at once.

Also the best format would be full digital release, no paper.

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Just because GW is incompetent doesn't mean frontloading all the codexes isnt a better format for the consumers.

I think the issue is that GW simply doesn't have enough writers to do all at once.

Also the best format would be full digital release, no paper.

Also, it helped if the rules writers actually played pickup games against randos themselves..

There are probably several NDA reasons they cannot do that.

The core issue is that GW sees no reason to invest into expanded writing and playstesting capabilities, as the community is mostly fine with accepting an unbalanced mess as long as there are seasonal balance patches.

Sure they might grumble about it, but they still keep playing and buying.

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Just because GW is incompetent doesn't mean frontloading all the codexes isnt a better format for the consumers.

I think the issue is that GW simply doesn't have enough writers to do all at once.

Also the best format would be full digital release, no paper.

Nah, three years is plenty of time. Remember this is these guys full time job. Presumably they're working 9-5, five days a week for 48 weeks of the year (I think 4 paid weeks off a year still standard for a UK job, might be different these days).

The question is how much info do they have on edition cycles and when they learn they have ANOTHER full reboot. Ideally all the codexes would be written and tested at the same time but we know thats not true and that new books are only tested against the strongest most recent books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the decision to reboot 40k again was decided like 6 months ago.

No worries guys September patch will fix all of this. GW is ready this time to deliver on the best edition they ever made.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Just because GW is incompetent doesn't mean frontloading all the codexes isnt a better format for the consumers.

I think the issue is that GW simply doesn't have enough writers to do all at once.

Also the best format would be full digital release, no paper.

Nah, three years is plenty of time. Remember this is these guys full time job. Presumably they're working 9-5, five days a week for 48 weeks of the year (I think 4 paid weeks off a year still standard for a UK job, might be different these days).

The question is how much info do they have on edition cycles and when they learn they have ANOTHER full reboot. Ideally all the codexes would be written and tested at the same time but we know thats not true and that new books are only tested against the strongest most recent books. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the decision to reboot 40k again was decided like 6 months ago.

Most skilled professionals (however much anyone mat grumble at the term here) would expect 25 days + Bank Holidays for 32 days.

We also don't know how many testers/designers they have, nor what else they do. They likely also have to work on a combo of 40k, 30k, AoS, KT, warcry and 4+ specialist games at any given time to some degree.

GW will 100% be woefully ill-equipped for those testing demands, it's likely not worth hiring too many more because they'd basically work themselves out of a job once the backlog was cleared and they're not in a position to break the work patterns without an influx of time/people.

 Tyran wrote:
There are probably several NDA reasons they cannot do that.

The core issue is that GW sees no reason to invest into expanded writing and playstesting capabilities, as the community is mostly fine with accepting an unbalanced mess as long as there are seasonal balance patches.

Sure they might grumble about it, but they still keep playing and buying.

I don't think people actually want balance as much as they simply want change.

Heh, can't wait to see how GW will fix thix (especially LoV) with mere pts-adjustments.

I still wonder what their rules-team thought when they made the Index-rules for LoV:
- This army wants to die in order to trigger and build up their army-rule. Let's make it expensive.
- This army is shooting-focused. Let's lower their BS to 4+/5+ and make sure their armyrule doesn't stack with any modifiers.
- This army is slow with M5". Let's give their guns an average range of 18-24" and make sure nothing has Assault.
- This army has very limited options and units. Let's not give it any sources of re-rolls, synergies or tools in general.

Great jurb GW, 3 thumbs up!

 MinscS2 wrote:
Heh, can't wait to see how GW will fix thix (especially LoV) with mere pts-adjustments.

I still wonder what their rules-team thought when they made the Index-rules for LoV:
- This army wants to die in order to trigger and build up their army-rule. Let's make it expensive.
- This army is shooting-focused. Let's lower their BS to 4+/5+ and make sure their armyrule doesn't stack with any modifiers.
- This army is slow with M5". Let's give their guns an average range of 18-24" and make sure nothing has Assault.
- This army has very limited options and units. Let's not give it any sources of re-rolls, synergies or tools in general.

Great jurb GW, 3 thumbs up!

its just paying penance for its broken release state. I imagine that around the time of its 10e codex, it will get a large release wave, along with a ground up rebuild that propels them to decent stats again.

xerxeskingofking wrote:


its just paying penance for its broken release state.

Nah I'm pretty sure it's just sheer incompetence, with some doses of "idgaf" mixed in.

xerxeskingofking 811175 11577880 wrote:

its just paying penance for its broken release state. I imagine that around the time of its 10e codex, it will get a large release wave, along with a ground up rebuild that propels them to decent stats again.

Eldar had a broken release too. Why aren't they paying for anything, ever in any edition they get a codex?

 Tyran wrote:
There are probably several NDA reasons they cannot do that.

The core issue is that GW sees no reason to invest into expanded writing and playstesting capabilities, as the community is mostly fine with accepting an unbalanced mess as long as there are seasonal balance patches.

Sure they might grumble about it, but they still keep playing and buying.

They have all the designers they need.

Changing imbalance is feature to get the tournament tryhards pretending to play "competitive" game replace armies and models constantly.

Marketing department loves how easily players follow their guidance like lemmings.

 LunarSol wrote:

I don't think people actually want balance as much as they simply want change.

I don't think it is even really that. Any meaningful change is always shouted and screamed at.

Points bumps and stat tweaks seem to be the limit to what people want.

Interesting question to lobby, say they got every unit in the game fairly balanced and in a stable spot. Then what?

Dudeface wrote:
Interesting question to lobby, say they got every unit in the game fairly balanced and in a stable spot. Then what?

Then they can release expansion that bring new rules/models (like psychic awakening did).

With the detachment system, that wouldve been a perfect opportunity

Dudeface wrote:
Interesting question to lobby, say they got every unit in the game fairly balanced and in a stable spot. Then what?

Take a well-earned break and sell the existing game. The new content treadmill needs to end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Marketing department loves how easily players follow their guidance like lemmings.

And they hate how poor balance and the new content treadmill drive customers out of the game. Balance is bad because GW employs minimal-talent losers like Jervis (who is gone now but kept a job decades too long) and has no idea how to make a better game, not because they're carefully building the exact imbalance that the marketing department wants.

 LunarSol wrote:

I don't think people actually want balance as much as they simply want change.

You'd be wrong. People very much want balance and fairness.

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Not quite sure how it gets worse(since it's cesspool bad currently) but fair nuff

The cornerstone to GW balance issues is that every 3 years they change the core rules so everything they improve on within an edition gets thrown out the window and it has to restart itself. Even if they devoted more resources, more money, more staff and more skill into rules writing; the 3 year timeframe is brutal (remember because of production chances are of those 3 years you might have 1 year or less to actually write the rules before it all has to go to production)

If GW reigned in the actual changing of the rules to a polish every 3 years with minor adjustments to the core rules then they'd at least create an environment where they can steadily polish things and where greater resource investment would likely pay off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Interesting question to lobby, say they got every unit in the game fairly balanced and in a stable spot. Then what?

Take a well-earned break and sell the existing game. The new content treadmill needs to end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Marketing department loves how easily players follow their guidance like lemmings.

And they hate how poor balance and the new content treadmill drive customers out of the game. Balance is bad because GW employs minimal-talent losers like Jervis (who is gone now but kept a job decades too long) and has no idea how to make a better game, not because they're carefully building the exact imbalance that the marketing department wants.

I always ask people to pause and consider how many armies people in the real world at clubs often play with. Not collect, not build, not want to build, but actually play with. Because often as not a LOT of people do not have many armies that they play with. Most are not meta-chasing and swapping armies every 5 months or something. Yes people do pick up new armies, but by and large wargame armies take time. To buy, build, paint and play. Even if you buy second hand or commission an army the last one - play - is still a huge limit.


So yeah better balance works out better because it means people are exploring other armies out of excitement and choice instead of because their current army is rubbish in the rules right now. When that happens you are FAR more likely to consider other games outside of GW; meanwhile the guy who has a great running army might well buy other armies within the GW system because of the positive experience with their current army.

Honestly what I want is just, not even a crazy super high level of quality, I'd settle for just what they manage to do with Age of Sigmar frankly. There's a few balance hiccups, some armies drop with some zany combos in them and then theyve got to tamp them down. By all accounts the Cities of Sigmar are gonna be a little strong on release - but that game's been chugging happily along, GHBs providing occasional shakeups to what's fun to take, new factions dropping with sometimes a "oh 60% winrate" level splash and generally speaking balance rotates about a fine little cycle.

Games Workshop, the company, can accomplish this. They do accomplish this, with games like necromunda and titanicus and age of sigmar. changes come but theyre not jarring enough to really make you feel bad, and they more just serve to make things fun and interesting. The game has been on pretty much stable ground in the time span that 40k has had to endure 2 full hard stop resets tear everything down and start over.

Far as I can tell the problem is like the double turn in AoS.

One thing A/some designers in 40K (and by extension fans) are keen on are huge swings and big meaty turns. This leads to things that let you get alpha strikes in turn 1/2; to wiping out 1/4-1/2 an enemy army in a single blazing turn of firepower and other super powerful "OMG That was EPIC" kind of moments.

Moments that are really bad for balance and honestly, yeah its cool and all for the person doing it - the other person just watches half their army get torn apart.

I love it when WarCom posts comedy articles!

 Overread wrote:
Far as I can tell the problem is like the double turn in AoS.

One thing A/some designers in 40K (and by extension fans) are keen on are huge swings and big meaty turns. This leads to things that let you get alpha strikes in turn 1/2; to wiping out 1/4-1/2 an enemy army in a single blazing turn of firepower and other super powerful "OMG That was EPIC" kind of moments.

Moments that are really bad for balance and honestly, yeah its cool and all for the person doing it - the other person just watches half their army get torn apart.

I think it's even more general than that. There's an element at GW that wants games to be a "watch what the dice do" experience more than a game. Set up your cool toys, roll some dice, and see what happens. Don't worry too much about player agency or anything that could let a less-skilled player have a bad time, roll some dice and if they go against you it's only dice luck and you'll do better next time. Maybe at most you have some obvious buff stacking so players can feel clever for figuring out that you should use the "attack twice" stratagem and the "+1 to hit" stratagem on the same unit and it should be your best offensive unit, but never anything that can't be explained in a short netlist post.

Part of why modern 40k is such a mess is that there's unresolved tension between that element, the element that wants a serious narrative game, and the element that wants a serious competitive game. So you have things like GW using all the language of a serious competitive game in writing the rules but then writing missions that encourage you to shove your armies into the middle of the table and roll dice to see what happens, or competitive play articles that focus exclusively on faction win rate (easy to have with a "see what the dice do" game) and ignore more advanced and informative metrics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I love it when WarCom posts comedy articles!

They could at least come up with a new joke, the current one is getting kind of stale.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
They could at least come up with a new joke, the current one is getting kind of stale.

MetaWatch is like a real-time practical example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Smooth edition rollout GW. 10/10. No Notes.

Yet we always hear "they should release all codex on day 1". Well, imagine this but worse.

Not quite sure how it gets worse(since it's cesspool bad currently) but fair nuff

Nah, it's a bad faith argument from Dudeface.