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.

I suppose it is possible but as regards GW we are only talking about plastic toy soldiers. It is hardly rocket science -- they were invented in the 1940s.

There was also rumours the restrictions were put in place by New Line Cinema in order to secure the Hobbit contract. NLC didn't want any information about the film (new models, sourcebooks or the like to spoil plotpoints, a Smaug model).

 Deadshot wrote:
Having broken combos encourages people who want to be competitive to play those broken combos and are usually new units that cost a lot of $$$ and so GW loses money by making the new shiny stuff just as good as the old stuff for efficiency.

Except there are three issues with this:

1) GW doesn't do a very good job of this. Yeah, Riptides are overpowered and every competitive Tau player had to spend hundreds of dollars on them, but the same new release included new flyers with weak rules and (presumably) poor sales. IG got a plastic Hydra after competitive players already converted all the Hydras they could ever need, and the big kit with new rules was an ugly abomination with weak rules. I think there's obviously a desire to make new releases appealing and it potentially produces balance issues, but I think that has more to do with failure to playtest sufficiently and catch the mistakes than a deliberate desire to make new releases overpowered.

2) The people who buy stuff based on broken combos are a tiny minority. As a percentage of GW's total sales the difference between a broken combo and balanced rules is almost nonexistent. On the other hand there are probably a lot more people who will suffer the bad side of unbalanced rules, and potentially quit the game in frustration (or just never start playing because everyone knows the game sucks). I don't think the one guy spending $500 to buy the latest broken unit is really worth having them kill the whole local community and drive several customers (or potential customers) away.

3) Buying broken stuff usually just means not buying something else. If you assume that a player has a relatively fixed budget for 40k then it doesn't really matter whether they buy the new overpowered thing or an older kit. And, again, there is a high price to pay in lost sales. I can't imagine the small number of people who change their budget for something overpowered really offset those losses.

 knas ser wrote:
Old games systems are mature, people have what they need. You have to keep moving things around to keep swimming because you're grown too big for your tank.

I disagree with this need. 40k right now has way more models and options than anyone (except maybe an obsessive collector or two) will ever buy. Even if GW stopped adding new stuff to the game a new player would be able to keep buying stuff that is new to them until they spend all the money they're going to spend. Changing the rules does get some people to buy new stuff, but most of them probably would have spent that money anyway since they're still active players with more models available to buy. A new game-changing release just drives immediate purchases at the cost of losing customers who are tired of all the changes.

The only real benefit changing the rules has is selling more rulebooks without having to invest any meaningful design and development time like you'd have to do for a new army or awesome campaign/fluff book. Change a few rules and you can sell another copy of the same $50 book they just bought. Of course this has the same problem of driving people out of the game. I wonder which is bigger: the additional sales of 7th edition rulebooks to veteran players who otherwise wouldn't have bought anything, or the lost sales to people who decided that they don't really feel like spending money on a new edition only two years after the last one.

Loborocket wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:
But why is foreknowledge bad?

Because GW is obsessed with impulse buys. They want your first knowledge of a new product to be when you see it on the shelf at your local GW store, preferably with a "limited edition, buy now!!!!" sign on it, so that you'll have the obvious "wow that is awesome" reaction and then buy it immediately. They're afraid that if you have time to think about it and more information about the new product you'll realize that you don't really want it after all. From that perspective playtesting leaks are terrifying, they give out information far in advance of release day, and they're an obviously unfinished product that might make the new release look bad and make it even less likely that you'll buy it.

Now, obviously this demonstrates a very low level of confidence in their own products, which suggests that GW's management know they're publishing garbage that doesn't deserve confidence. Companies with better products don't worry about this as much, since they know that learning more about a new product will only add to your desire to buy it, and impulse buys are a lot less important. In fact, they'll "leak" information in their own previews to build interest in a new release. And since their customers know the final product will be awesome it's not a big deal if unfinished rules leak, because everyone knows they're unfinished and the problems will be fixed in the final product.

That is interesting and I wonder if some part of that is why GW creates an iron curtain around themselves. With Warmachine they tell you far in advance what's coming out. People get excited and say "Oh, I want that in my army." or "That's cool, I can make an alternate list for that." Or whatever. It builds excitement and talk. With the latest GW releases, we get lies, half truths and a few actual hard facts so it creates a mess of negativity, disappointment and confusion. That can't be a good thing.

I am not totally sure, but it is possible as a publically traded company GW may be prevented from revealing information about new products. I work for a software company which is public and we have to be very careful what we share in the public realm about our develpment. If we reveal features of software prior to release and then fail to deliver those features, it can prevent us from recognizing ANY revenue until said features are released. The are SEC rules. We would like to share plans.etc with customers but in many cases are not able to.

This COULD be the same situation for GW. if they announce product and then for some reason fail to deliver it at the time they said (things happen a the time) then they may have a revenue recognition problem as well if the same kinds of rules apply to them as they do for my company.

I have no real idea if this is why GW is "secretive". I am just throwing it out as a possible reason.

This is sort of true. Kind of basically, what would happen if GW releasd a "open" beta of their product would that their stock would actually go down because of the reaction to that beta. There can be "closed" betas, but yeah just a open here are the rules type thing probably wouldn't work.


Now what GW could do is provide each of their stores with a individual , numbered copy of rules and people could playtest the game at their stores and in a enviroment o their creation. Which would encourage people to come out to GW stores to try out the new rules and give input.

But they'll never ever do that in a million years.

Hollismason wrote:
This is sort of true. Kind of basically, what would happen if GW releasd a "open" beta of their product would that their stock would actually go down because of the reaction to that beta. There can be "closed" betas, but yeah just a open here are the rules type thing probably wouldn't work.

Well now it all depends on the quality of the product doesn't it? If the open beta shows an absolute train wreck of a game it'll hurt but probably not a lot. People might hold off on buying model A if it sucks in the new system but equally they may pick up B if it's looking good. That could well be a wash and most stock owners only care about the money coming in.

But even if they release a train wreck it's not the end. If they do the same as the WH/H beta and set up a website where players can go and register and provide feedback that will still provide mountains of useful (though a fair bit of useless) data. If they go the step further like PP and based on the info start issuing corrections for obvious typos/formatting, issue tightened up wording on rules and abilities and of course adjusting points costs/restrictions, it could be gold. Imagine you get handed a steaming pile of beta rules. You play them and submit feedback (with thousands of others) and a few weeks later GW puts out the beta 1.1 rules. Two weeks later the 1.2 rules. Whatever the timeframe is, every player gets to watch the game get neater, tighter and better right in front of their eyes. Those with good ideas may even see their very ideas incorporated. After six months of testing the steaming pile that was the original beta should look like a decent if not actually good product and a significant number of play groups will feel directly responsible for some of that. You want people to be interested in a new edition? Let them help make it.

I would dearly like to see this happen. We just got 7th so not for a while obviously but man.. You want to see investors happy? Tell them you did a playtest, got 100,000 pieces of feedback and this version has unprecedented player support and interest. That preorders are going nuts because your entire customer base has been able to watch and help craft the best version of the game yet.

And this is all possible. All GW has to do is wake up to the fact that the quality of the rules matter.

Agreed. Quality of the rules matters a great deal.
The question is, do you, the Dakka community, think GW will learn their lesson and pull up from their decline?

 MWHistorian wrote:
The question is, do you, the Dakka community, think GW will learn their lesson and pull up from their decline?

Nope.

Not without an upper management shakeup.

 -Loki- wrote:
Not without an upper management shakeup.

Incidentaly, how did the upper management manage to avoid getting fired after the February stock debacle?

Deschenus Maximus wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Not without an upper management shakeup.

Incidentaly, how did the upper management manage to avoid getting fired after the February stock debacle?

The fact the guy holding both top management positions is also the largest single stock holder may be a contributing factor...

Though to be fair it's rather rare that upper management gets sacked, even in the case of a major debacle.

GW's main problem is that they think they're a miniatures company that sells an associated rules set, when in reality most of their gamer base sees them as a gaming company that sells miniatures. This is mainly evidenced by the fact that you commonly see people buying alternative minis to play 40k and Fantasy, but you hardly ever see people buying GW minis to play other games.

The crap rules have prevented me from buying minis or rules over the last two editions. I'm not going to pay $15 for a dataslate PDF, rules for ONE model, that some intern slapped together in half an hour with zero playtesting.



They don't have to playtest every possible permutation of the game to find balance. They merely have to have a formula and stick to it. Every unit should have an associated power / points scale. BS3 costs X points, BS4 costs Y points, BS5 etc. Based on this formula, and allowing for slight deviations to reflect a specific army's strengths and weaknesses (i.e., Space Marines pay less for a 3+ save. Eldar pay less for I5 or Fast vehicles), you could easily balance the game by points costs alone. SUPER EASY. And all it would take is some forethought and an Excel spreadsheet.

Contract an actual scientist (or small group of scientsits) with a background in game design or applied statistics, and you'll fix 40k. If you contract out the work, it'll cost maximum $20,000 / yr to keep up with the codex updates, and it would be very easy to find willing volunteers.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
it'll cost maximum $20,000 / yr 

The heart of the problem. Specifically

it'll cost

 SHUPPET wrote:
OT, whiteknighting GW's rules when you know they are lacking, with the reasoning that it's aimed at a different audience - why do people do this? Is it just to be a contrarian? What gain is there from it, you want the rules to remain bad competively? How does this affect your "narrative"? Is it impossible to admit that improving one could only improve the other, not make it worse?

I find this whole discussion quite interesting, I play 40k for the fluff, the stories I can make from it and the sheer randomness of it, however this does not mean that I would like the game MORE random and more unbalanced. And for the most part, I don't believe many people want a more unbalanced game perse, it's just that we're not interested in the little details that don't pertain to us for the most part.

Those who are satisfied the way 40k is set up now are a detriment to the longevity of our long running hobby, although I believe the "Forging a Narrative" sections can be quite amusing and give interesting new ways to play, they should not be an excuse for a balanced game for everyone to enjoy. "Narrative" gamers such as myself, tend to by a little of everything for the purposes of story, and I'm sure GW LOVES players like me, whom don't concern themselves so much the with overall balance of the game. But what GW is doing is ONLY catering to gamers like me, whether it's be because of a concious decision to make the game a mess or because of sheer laziness, which I believe is ridiculous.

Look at a game like Infinity, although the studio is relatively new (compared to GW at least) and the game is for the most part in it's infancy, it's recieved a huge following over the past few years because of the balance of narrative, random, and competitive elements to the game.

GW is far from being the end all, be all miniature wargaming company these days, with games like Malifaux, Warmachine/Hordes, and Infinity butting heads for attention from hobby gamers, GW really needs to get it's head in the game (No pun intended) if they want to keep any sort of ground.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Agreed. Quality of the rules matters a great deal.
The question is, do you, the Dakka community, think GW will learn their lesson and pull up from their decline?

I certainly hope so, I don't wish ill of the company or it's employees, there's no reason to

 Deadshot wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
it'll cost maximum $20,000 / yr 

The heart of the problem. Specifically

it'll cost

Well, for a company that sinks unimaginable amounts of money into a dream team of lawyers that would have made OJ Simpson proud, and a creative staff that comes up with names like Asthma Militampon, it would represent a vast improvement in terms of return on investment.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Well, for a company that sinks unimaginable amounts of money into a dream team of lawyers that would have made OJ Simpson proud, and a creative staff that comes up with names like Asthma Militampon, it would represent a vast improvement in terms of return on investment.

If they had a "dream team pf lawyers" I'd imagine at least one of them would have the sense to dissuade them from some of the sillier legal attacks they've launched in recent years...

Why ? what ever they win or lose they get paid anyway. If you know your going to lose , the best thing to do is to stall. Each day brings more moneyz for your team.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
it'll cost maximum $20,000 / yr 

The heart of the problem. Specifically

it'll cost

Well, for a company that sinks unimaginable amounts of money into a dream team of lawyers that would have made OJ Simpson proud, and a creative staff that comes up with names like Asthma Militampon, it would represent a vast improvement in terms of return on investment.

They are the Nazis. They buy up the free press to stop the press posting bad stuff about them. In this case, they bully and intimidate upstarts into silence, closing and paying them money so they can continue to pay the DT minimum wage and still have wargamers crawling after them.

 milkboy wrote:
I see quite a few opinions about GW not play testing enough before releasing a product so that led me to thinking. Is it actually possible to play test this game?

Celestians.

Yup, that's my answer : Celestians.

I'm nice, I could have mentionned these good old WDex preachers...

If the writers actually played one game and fielded a couple of them, maybe they'd have figured what was wrong with them. Maybe. A W1T3 regular human that provides a modest assault buff to an army that's only marginally better than taus in melee? 25 pts each one? Totally worth it.