GW's FAQ mentality

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.

**KnightoNi1894**

Get outta my head malfred...

Knight

**keezus**

Slave: Just to append on to Malfred's post. One of the major differences between GW's system and Privateer's system is how customization works.

In 40k/Fantasy, you buy the "buffs" for your each unit individually. If you want a unit to hunt tanks, you buy them the guy that carrys a tank gun or a powerfist. However, other than this type of customization, there are very few "global effects" or external "buffs". A few of the rare examples of the former are the Tau Ethereal and Lysander. The only example of the latter is the Farseer. (The librarian's / chaplain powers are more self or own squad-buffing). Fantasy is a little closer with the Winds of Magic, however, the unpredictability of spell lists and the few buffing spells makes magic a less important component than in Privateer's product.

In Warmachine/Hordes, units are geared towards anti-infantry or anti-armor. If you want further customization, you buy the warcaster / warlock / unit attachment which gives the appropriate buffs (and debuffs). Finally, the Feat system in Privateer's system is what really sets warcasters / warlocks apart as they have game-changing properties..

**carmachu**

The same things you posted apply to both games. you change ANYTHING in 40K, you change the way you play, just the same as in WARMACHINE

No. You dont.

Using the chaos as an example: It doesnt matter if its Slaneesh or Khorne, a demon bomb is a demon bomb. Which faction you use, doesnt change the fact of how it works.
Using a tactic in the tactic forums: csm bikes....as quoted there, its a great way to go 24" and dump off demons. But it doesnt matter whether its Demonettes, Bloodletters or Plaguebears. You can do it interchangably, and it makes no difference.

It doesnt matter much between a farseer or an autotarch: your still going to bring say Direavengers in waveserpents or Falcons.

But chaning from say, The butcher to Sorcha, means a whole different way of playing. Even changing from regular to epic variants changes your play style. I might use the same jacks with magnus as I do with epic magnus, but HOW it plays is completely different.

**frenrik**

There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers.

An IW list is vastly different than a Deathguard list.

Sure, some are similar like a khorn or slaneesh demom bomb, but you can't even take bikes with the other 2 marks.

**Slave**

Posted By malfred on 01/01/2007 9:24 PM

You can never ever say that WM gives you MORE choice in army creation, has more factions, or even attempt to spout the crap that GW has LESS variety to try and balance. Thats simply bulls***.

That doesn't sound very relaxed.

The 20 different configurations of a dreadnought all lead to the same kinds of
game play. Stand and shoot. Move x inches (I forget the exact rules) and shoot.
Assault a heavy target and tear it to shreds. The different configurations modify
the statistics up or down.

The warcasters are standardized, but that doesn't mean the gameplay (this has
been the comparison all along at least in my head where no man dare tread
except the underwear rummaging Jester) is standard. Abilities/spell lists/ weapons
have different effects on the table, which is why the game is sometimes compared
more to CCGs than 40k. A "standard" warcaster has more options available to them
in terms of gameplay than just "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Their spells
enhance their own effectiveness or the effectiveness of others. Their feats often
have game altering effects. I think the closest thing that 40k has to that is the
farseer. And the thing that people like best is that you can change a warcaster
and suddenly your army, without changing a figure, will play very differently.

A part of this bias toward WM might be the prevalence and effectiveness of the
meq in 40k. The popularity of marines and certain game effects (3+ armor saves,
access to good general units) leads to less of a variety in terms of effectiveness
(see the composition argument for more details, lol). So our perception is a bit
skewed. Maybe a good comparison is the scariness that is Sorscha.

To sum up:

40k has more guns and weapons. On the table, they alter your range, and
effectiveness but your options remain the same. Shoot, advance, etc.

WM has no customizable units at all, but units on the table have more effects
they can use in game that go beyond weapon strength.

I've come to enjoy the latter more than the former, and see it as a form of
more variety to play with that goes beyond list building. I prefer the variety
in gameplay over the variety in equipment options.

You don't have to agree. But you also don't have to get so angry. I'm not trying
to turn this into GW vs. PP at all, but an analysis of why I see a certain game
the way I do and maybe ry to convince you to see why I see things that way.

you telling me i am angry doesn't make it true.

Are you saying that warjacks or any other unit in the game has a different purpose in WM than a dreadnaught has in 40k?

the purpose of every single model in the game is to kill, or help something else kill,. or weaken something so it can be killed.

A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model.

A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM.

if you enjoy WM more, just say that, trying to convince anyone else but a PP fanboy that 40K models are less customisable, or a warcaster, all of whom are the exact same if you buy the same model, and can not ever ever ever be changed, is more customisable. They all share the same stats, same base abilities, each differs in thier feats, and foucus, armour, etc, but all are static. The high redemptionist in my army is the EXACT same as it is in your army. The epic version is the EXACT same as it is in my army.

To say a demon bomb is the same as any other demon bomb is pure sophistry. Blood letters fulfil a vastly differnt battle field role that a demonette. The even take saves differently.

Its also garbage for you to suggest that a chaos lord's only abilities or functions are to "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Nothing in 40K is that static. For you to say different is just pure lies and deceit. Sitting in front of me I see 5 slaanesh minor psychic powers, each on of them do none of the above you are trying to say.

40K plays as differently as any other game when you change out units. Thousand Sons Chaos marines play nothing like Blood Angels.

You stop attacking me now, trying to make me about to be this angry person, I will hope that you can admit that you are making up crap to give 40K a bad name, all of which apply equally to each minature game on the market.

WM is easier to balance because of its static nature. 40K is harder to balance because of the variety, and GW's laziness.

This crap you are talking is worthy of a toilet bowl.

**syr8766**

STOP SAYING I'M SHOUTING! I'M NOT SHOUTING! I'M NOT ANGRY! I'M NOT I'M NOT I'M NOT! AND YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD FOR THINKING THAT! WM IS THE SUXXOR, AND ALL YOUR DREADNOUGHTS ARE BELONG TO ME!!!!!

Slave's not angry, Malfred. Can't you see that he says you're citing "Bull****" and "crap...worthy of a toilet bowl" with love?

**malfred**

I'm not making up crap to give 40k a bad name. I don't like the game that much
but I like the figures, so if GW went out of business I'd be sorry to see them go.

A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model.

A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM.

Just to make the middle schoolers in the audience giggle: But it feels different.

**Janthkin**

Hi, Malfred.

The word you want is "synergy". Warmachine has tons of it. WHFB has some. 40k has relatively little.

Because of the interrelation of units in Warmachine, changing several of them will greatly modify the more effective ways of playing the list: old combinations are unavailable, new ones open up.

What synergy exists in 40k tends to either focus around specific pairings (e.g., demon packs and summoning icons), or around the ROLES of units (e.g., transport cracker & assault unit, to break open a transport and chop up the chewy insides). [Not the best possible example, that latter one, but it's late.]

There are relatively few synergistic role combinations in 40k that are effective, and they extend well beyond codex boundaries. The easiest to explain example is the 3rd ed Rhino Rush. Every marine army, regardless of base codex (and including Chaos) could use the rhino rush model; barring minor fluctuations in specific options/powers (Blood Angels vs. Ultramarines vs. Chaos Marines), the rhino rush played out identically in all cases.

**Hellfury**

*Hands Malfred the Asbestos suit.*

Sorry I didnt get here sooner. You look a little charred but otherwise ok. *brushes of a chunk of charcoal from malfreds shoulder*

Ahh Dakka. I want to know who the hell keeps bleeding for the sharks to circle the way they do here.

I swear there is a dakka super villian whose name is "Chum", lurking here.

**syr8766**

Yessirs, that's what happens when you linger too long in a parking lot. All kinds of things can happen to you, son. You gotta watch your back, make sure that righteous lord Chinesus is looking out for you.

Janthkin's description is pretty spot-on. WM is a game of synergies, and those synergies determine your tactics. 40k is not; it is about homogeneity, minimizing diversity and concentrating on having an entire army do one thing with one kind of unit (there are exceptions, but they are rare).

**malfred**

Thanks Hellfury.

**keezus**

Posted By Slave on 01/02/2007 7:12 PM

WM is easier to balance because of its static nature. 40K is harder to balance because of the variety, and GW's laziness.

This crap you are talking is worthy of a toilet bowl.

Slave: I personally feel your arguements are laughable. 40k and Warmachine can NOT be directly compared because in 40k, the units modify themselves by purchasing squad and unit upgrades, and in Warmachine, the units are modified through interaction with other choices. So yes, superficially, Warmachine models have fixed statlines and seem more simplistic than Warhammer ones which do not. However this changes in gameplay.

Let's look at a simple example.

A Juggernaut warjack is designed to kill things. Vlad can give it a boost in accuracy and damage. (Extra D6 pick the highest). Sorscha and Vlad can make it charge an extra 2 inches. Irusk can make it so it can't be knocked down. Epic Sorscha can bond it for an extra FOC alotment. While the different warcasters don't change its role, they give it significantly different abilities.

In 40k terms these abilitiy changes would be akin to: Twinlinking, charges as cavalry, can't be immobilized / pinned, and +1A. These ability changes are bought right on the model (if applicable). However, the point you are missing is that in Warmachine, these abilities (for the most part) can be applied to any legal model / unit, or are global effects, making for vastly different gameplay.

Let's look at a second example:

Grand Exemplar Kreoss buffs Knights Exemplar (and by extension Exemplars Errant) by boosting MAT, RAT, S and CM. He also makes the immune to continious effects. This is a -global- change boosting WS, BS, S, Ld and the continious effect immunity is somewhat akin to "never counts as outnumbered". The closest analogy to this in 40k is the Farsight and Ork Fighters (changing them to totally-suck vs Orks in HTH to merely-suck vs Orks in HTH). So while, this doesn't change the roles of the Exemplar, it significantly improves their ability to go toe-to-toe with stronger models.

So I'd just like to say that to discount this interplay between models is assinine. 40k is ALL about list-building, since what you buy at the start is what you're stuck with. - Sure there's gameplay skill required too, but it is more an extension of executing what you started with in listbuilding. You can't buff that unit of Devestators to fight that Chaos Lt in HTH in the middle of the game. You can't make that dreadnought get into HTH any faster. You can't give those Stormtroopers a boosted coversave mid-game.

Warmachine has an important list-building aspect as well, but proper use of synergy is imperative. The closest 40k analogy is the -theory- of combined arms where the sum is greater than its parts... I say theory because units seldom work together in 40k, apart from the superficial "let's attack the same target" or "let's shoot the same target". This is the fault of the ruleset since units that contribute to this kind of gameplay - transports, pinning, fear-causing units and external unit-buffs are either laughably useless or laregly missing.

An example of Warmachine's flexible play: The Choir of Menoth can turn your Jacks into a wall of "no shooty" and then turn them into beatsticks when they are close. Failing that (i.e. your Jacks are killed), with the right support, the Choir itself could crack some skulls, or be redeemed for souls. You'd be hard pressed to use an Engiseer and servitors in the same role, because they can't be externally buffed and are stuck with whatever role you put them in (either fixy or shooty).

At any rate, enough about Warmachine and 40k.

Finally, to address your statement that 40k can't be balanced: Back in the days of yore, there was this thing called the BBB at the beginning of the 3rd age of 40k. In the back there was an armylist section with -gasp- largely balanced 40k forces! Fancy that. The thing that GW is not doing is taking the system as a whole when building new codices. Editing would help too.

**carmachu**

There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers.

Not really. They all get slammed into combat.....

**carmachu**

Are you saying that warjacks or any other unit in the game has a different purpose in WM than a dreadnaught has in 40k?

the purpose of every single model in the game is to kill, or help something else kill,. or weaken something so it can be killed.

A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model.

A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM.

Your ingnorace is really showing.

Yes a jack is completely different from a dreadnaught. See thats where you getting confused.

Jacks have a variety of roles. Dread....doesnt: either it shoots, or it assaults, or both.

Jacks, depending on the force, have a variety of roles besides just shooting and assualting: body guards, assassins, indirect fire, killing infantry. Power attacks are a HUGE bonus, if you have one able to do so. Channel spells....

No, jacks are not the same as dreads. Look similar, different roles and ideas on using them.

**Mannahnin**

Slave, please relax the tone and stop flaming. This is a warning.

-The Mgmt.

**Slave**

Posted By Mannahnin on 01/03/2007 1:25 PM
Slave, please relax the tone and stop flaming. This is a warning.

-The Mgmt.

relax my tone? So, enough people say you are angry, then suddenly you are? Warn away mr. mod.

BTW, I never said that 40K can not be balanced, it can, it's just that GW is lazy.

Appaerently I am angry, plus I am now saying stuff I did not say, oh yeah, I am flaming now. What else?

**Slave**

Posted By carmachu on 01/03/2007 7:13 AM

There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers.

Not really. They all get slammed into combat.....

So do warjacks. Its a war game, you don't win if nothing is killed.

My ignorance eh? Yeah, but I am flaming, and have been warned.

Tell me, you said it, so point out my ignorance? You are saying a Warjack has many roles? A big steam powered killing machine has several roles, in the menoth list, It can also shield right? The devastator can close up and not kill, and instead absorb damage. Cryx light jacks can arc node.

Seems I know something about WM eh? Not bad for an angry ignoramous whom is yelling kicking screaming mad, whom the Mod needs to bust out the red letters to warn, or else lose his lunch money, plus get the dunce cap.

What difference does it make in the grand scheme of Warmachine? So what, a jack is sheilding, or closed up, or what ever, what else is the rest of the list doing? KILLING[/angry yelling]!!!!! Thats the whole point. You kill.

What the issue is, I disagreed about WM being the Holy Grail of wargaming. In the end, I said that 40K can't be balanced (I did not), and I flamed someone (I did not), and I was warned in RED letters. Looks like I am screwed.

In the end, 40K is still more variable than WM, 40K still has more lists, and 40K still can be balanced, if GW tried, FAQs do suck, and GW should still get thier head put of thier collective butts and fix this game.

P.S. You flamers of me do know that I play and enjoy WM right? Just checking.

**stonefox**

It's fun being able to summarize all that's said into a simple analogy

:

40k is like playing Pokemon or yugioh. Stats are upfront. Played almost exclusively by little kids.

Warmachine is like playing Magic. Card combos and encouragement of pushing the abilities to the edge of the rules. Played by hairy, stinky 16 year old guys. Sometimes 25 year olds.

Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.

**Asmodai**

See, I'm more into the simulation aspect and out for a relaxing beer and pretzel game. GW fits that for me.

I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games.

**Janthkin**

I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games.

The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month.

When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old.

I'm not angry. I'm not even bitter. I'm just sad - I like 40k, both the playing itself and the fairly simple level of tactical thought that goes into it. All I could ask for would be a company that gave a damn about the ruleset they put out to support my little plastic/metal dolls.

**Slave**

Posted By Janthkin on 01/03/2007 4:02 PM

I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games.

The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month.

When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old.

I'm not angry. I'm not even bitter. I'm just sad - I like 40k, both the playing itself and the fairly simple level of tactical thought that goes into it. All I could ask for would be a company that gave a damn about the ruleset they put out to support my little plastic/metal dolls.

Yeah, it is pretty sad. The obliterators sat at T5 for a long time, when they should have been t4(5) from the start, and like the gift reads.

Plus stuff like the wraithlord being so cheap for so long, and 30 man seer councils, with a sprinkle of guardians to make it legal. Stuff like that stood for too long, and they band aid it with a poorly written FAQ that solves nothing.

Think of the Tyranid FAQ fiasco, when they made a rule, an independent screwed it up, GW retracted it, and misworded it, leading to the need for yet another FAQ for the FAQ.

They would get it right, but somewhere, someone needs to beat GW on the head, so they get back to proper playtesting and proof reading.

**Shaman**

So answer is

Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.

Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..

**syr8766**

Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is

Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.

Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..

One might even say the K-mart of miniatures games...

**Slave**

Posted By syr8766 on 01/03/2007 6:56 PM

Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is

Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.

Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..

One might even say the K-mart of miniatures games...

I wouldn't give them that much credit. I would give them the netzero (free service) award for crapatcular customer service.

**Crimson Devil**

Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is

Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.

Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..

No, I think they beat GW on that score. My Big Mac only has a 1 page FAQ. And it written better.

www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/factsheets.RowPar.0001.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0007.File1

**malfred**

Super-size me!

**keezus**

Posted By stonefox on 01/03/2007 3:34 PM

Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.

I liked Star Wars TCG. Granted there wasn't as much complexity as Star Wars CCG, and it was nigh impossible for the Dark Side to win without going hard to two arenas... But I still liked it.

(Just goes to show there can be love for GW as well I suppose).

**Mannahnin**

Slave, if you seriously think your responses to Malfred (for one) were appropriate, then you need to reconsider posting on this forum. If you maintain the same manners in posting, you will find your posts edited or deleted, and may wind up banned eventually. Some forums would have resorted to these already.

Here at Dakka, we try to let people talk freely. There's still no excuse for telling someone who is clearly making a carefully-reasoned post, and NOT engaging you on the argumentative level you are sinking to, that they are spewing crap and their argument is worthy of a toilet.

You were flaming, and you have been warned. Keep it up, and the aforementioned sanctions will take place.

**KiMonarrez**

You know... after reading all (ok... most) of the posts (I skipped the Slave and Malf exchange) I have to say, I'm forgiving of the rules.

How many hats do you think the people on the development team have? They are expected to

1) Create new rules
2) Playtest new rules
3) Build their own armies (put together and paint)
4) "Show face" at official events
5) write up and submit articles for WD (not so much nowadays).
6) (sometimes) write NOVELS for GW.

So to expect a perfect product from the get go, I think that's a bit much. What I do agree with, however, is the sorry state of their FAQs and rules corrections in general. I don't really think there is any excuse for that.

Also, of all the analogies getting thrown around, none are really that aplicable. A car can kill people if improperly manufactured. Rulesets won't. GW, is a hobby interest fed by disposable income. My car is a necessity for providing food and shelter for myself and my family.

**keezus**

Posted By KiMonarrez on 01/04/2007 12:06 PM

How many hats do you think the people on the development team have? They are expected to

1) Create new rules
2) Playtest new rules
3) Build their own armies (put together and paint)
4) "Show face" at official events
5) write up and submit articles for WD (not so much nowadays).
6) (sometimes) write NOVELS for GW.

So to expect a perfect product from the get go, I think that's a bit much. What I do agree with, however, is the sorry state of their FAQs and rules corrections in general. I don't really think there is any excuse for that.

KiMonarrez: I'm surprised that you think that this sad state of affairs is acceptable... Let's break it down a bit and say, for the heck of it that...

40% time is create new rules
40% time is test new rules
10% time is show at events / article writing
I've omitted armybuilding on the assumption that since even manager level GW staffers have to armybuild on their own time, that this is probably the case for the rules writers as well. - Playtest games seem to take place using the Studio armies... (which might account for the lack of playtesting...)

There's 3 major releases per year. That means that there is 4 months per cycle or roughly 17 weeks. Assuming a standard 40hr workweek, that gives 680 manhours per staffer put on rules development and testing. - Note, I am also assuming that this process preceeds actual production and rollout by some regular margin.

272 hrs for new rules writing (34 workdays)
272 hrs for playtesting (or enough time for 68 4hr playtest games)
68 hrs for events and article writing (includes FAQs)

Note: This is for one person. If you add additional staffers to the dev team (say 3 more people) then you have twice as many playtest games - (moreso if you include the studio staff), and 132 man-days worth of rules-writing time...

To defend their practices as unavoidable is laughable at best... considering that their 30 or so playtest Witchunter codex was the most riggorously tested codex ever. Hell, with 68 hrs each for events and FAQs, you'd think they could do better than what they're producing.