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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: Alright, I'll leave the balance conversation out. I'll just say I can appreciate that perspective Zwei.

I am still under the feeling though that if a new rule edition DOES come out this summer and invalidates that LE 6th I bought only two years ago, I am going to be piiiiiiisssssssseeed.

Hello, my name is Tom Kirby, perhaps you've heard of me. I exist as a Sauron-esque malign spirit that requires the condensed tears of tabletop gamers to live, but I would never be so duplicitous as to invalidate your overpriced hardback rulebook less than two years after you bought it, honest. Mauahahahahahaha-*ahem*, 'scuse me.


Seriously though, I just hope that any attempts GW make to bring the Allies system to heel in regards ridiculous combo units doesn't kill off the system's usefulness for representing armies GW don't put out official rules for. Being able to combine units from SM, IG, and INQ, for example, makes it much easier to put together an Adeptus Mechanicus army.

Changing how psychic powers work to make them more like magic in WFB would do a good job of curbing the Taudar combo. "Oh, you're going to use Fortune on your Farseer? Let me throw all my dice at preventing you from getting that off."

any improvements to psychic powers has to be a good thing. Right now they are a mess and we should be due for one last round of debates for enfeeble stacking and witchfires without a weapon profile before june

I doubt they'll get rid of BB, but they will add in escalation & stronghold assault. Which at that point they might as well just add in apoc to the mix and have one book for any game from 100 points to 100,000+ points.

and I just bought that book a few months ago.

 TheKbob wrote:
Zion, the release of the Storm Trooper codex prior to the IG codex feels like a short sell tactic.

Small army lists like this have existed since at least 3rd Edition (Kroot Mercs, Deathwatch, ect) the only difference now is that we're seeing a book that is priced as if it's a full codex (which is also something I feel is priced a bit insanely but that's from the outside looking in, I'm sure it makes sense to someone internally).

 TheKbob wrote:
So does all the limited release items.

Not really a new thing either.

 TheKbob wrote:
With rumors that the storm trooper book now being out of print, that would all but confirm this strategy.

Sadly not a rumor, I've gotten confirmation from customer service that it is OOP once it runs out of stock (I shot them back an email pointing out that by not at LEAST putting it on the BL they're basically telling their customers that if they want it they have to pirate it or go out and spend a few hundred bucks on an iPad for a single book and people aren't going to do the latter). Not too unlike the old WD "Chapter Approved" armylists, but at least there are digital rules available for them instead of going OOP completely. Still a bad idea in this day and age in my opinion but I don't run a company so maybe they have some logic to it I don't know or understand from where I am. At least I hope so because otherwise they're just insane.

 TheKbob wrote:
Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol.

And not every company actually deals with them. GW isn't the only company out there that isn't dealing with the consumers on a more personal level. They are the only wargaming company not communicating more publicly and my only guess is that it's based on a purely cost decision and has very little to do with anything else. I'm not saying they're right or wrong for doing it (as I can't see the whole picture they're looking at), I just know what I'd prefer.

 TheKbob wrote:

Every major entity that deals in any for of consumer affair must deal with interenet "hatred" be it warranted or unwarranted fanboy vitriol. A great majority of companies have realized that allowing this toxic behavior to breed and escalate is bad for business. Hence, many companies now have twitter, facebook, instagram, etc. type social media accounts along with forums. And they have created a new job called the "community manager". We all know video games draw the same, if not more, ire for bad business decisions. All the major large brands have these managers work as liasons to help smooth over rough spots and to make sure the consumer feels engaged with. This feeling of engagement lends to a feeling of community which leads belonging. Those emotions make a more faithful consumer base who will purchase more products and services.

And how many of those companies do everything the players ever want and don't just do what they were going to do in the first place? Is having a community manager going to change anything the design team do? I doubt it. So what you'd effectively get is a faceless entity 'virtually' holding your hand and kissing it better. The one thing that they do of worth is sometimes shed light on why they are doing things the way they are because their design philosophy is x, y, z I'm basing this on Blizzard's community managers who do a lot of explaining and not a lot of "yes you are right and we are a bunch of dicks". And that's what Jervis does in his column. GW don't need to be touchy feely. A lot of players would love them to be but they aren't. Also they have open days throughout the year and games days where after gorging yourself on BL and FW releases you can actually talk to the designers themselves. Rather than wishing for a Community bot. (I would like to add that I realise not every one lives in the UK but then I'm sure you've got over it by now )

I still have some hand-written replies to rule queries I had made from Gav Thorpe and Jervis Johnson stashed away somewhere

That was the company they were, this is the company they are. That's it and all about it I'm afraid.

The modern GW Modus Operandi: Each new rules edition solves some queries while creating new ones, necessitating further updates. Each codex and army book regurgitates previous fluff and creative design, swaps a few stats around where necessary, chuck a new cover on the front (make it a hardback! Woo!) and get your fan-base to spend out on the latest edition. The creative process, previously the kernel of GW's rise to prominence, has been smothered by an upper management that cares little for the product beyond figures on a spreadsheet. Want to know why the Storm Raven looks like a stunted chibi-version of a flying vehicle and the Taurox also looks like a squashed-up tonka toy? It's because they were squeezed on to the smallest sprue space possible - save plastic pressing production, storage space, shipping cost. The general fan-base perception is negative, but it will make a few more pounds in profit (rather than just giving the creative people just a little bit more of the reigns) then that's the decision they make. GW aren't alone in this and of course you have to consider production costs - Mantic does the same thing for instance. But, I find it more understandable when you are dealing with a company with a staff of a dozen, rather than one with hundreds of design staff that has operating profits measured in hundreds of millions.

The 'death-knell' for the GW I remember, of one that cared what their fans thought and strove to do better, died when the company became publically owned and stopped existing 'for the customer' and instead moved its priorities to the shareholders. It's business sense no doubt, but it's brutal and ugly within an industry that had previously been so small and personable. Really, I think the sooner you acknowledge that the 'suits' that run GW don't give two hoots about what the veteran fanbase think, and that the customers are viewed solely as sheep who will stump up cash for whatever half-arsed release comes along, then the sooner you will stop shaking your head in wonder at the constant body blows of hair-brained policy decisions, DLC codex updates and nonsensical rules. When stuff like this keeps happening, then you have to look at the reality of the situation, and its causes.

If you want to know what the privately owned, GW of the 90's would look like in the modern age, look at any of the other news and discussion threads around here; Beasts of War has regular interviews with senior staff of Mantic, Corvus Belli and Battlefront; those companies have fan forums, facebook pages and twitter feeds where they interact with their customer base, and answer queries. I've just looked at a thread where a designer has actually responded directly to a post on the forum. Battlefront actually reversed a policy decision when there was outcry from the fanbase. These are just a few examples but they are everywhere when you care to look at them. I won't say anyone does these things perfectly, but at least they appear to make the effort, and perhaps more importantly the customers can have at least some feeling that they are valued by the company they chose to invest with. It wouldn't be hard - a couple of guys in the office at Nottingham doing networking, helping with promotions and marketing. It's done by companies many, many times smaller, but GW chose not to.

I'm sure, if you have got this far in this pretty long rant, you will realise by now that I'm probably not going to be picking up the latest 40k version 3.4 when it comes along. Terribly sorry for going off on one, I feel a little bit like the guy making a speech at a funeral who has made the unpopular decision (with those present) to admonish the guy lying in the grave for his decent into hedonism and untimely death. He was so lively, so imaginative, and had so much promise, but it all went into the gutter... and you're angry that so much potential has been lost..

Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...

Sigh.

 pretre wrote:
Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...

Sigh.

I tried to stop it!

Nobody gets that there is no such thing as "the last word" on the internet.

 pretre wrote:
Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...

Sigh.

I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.

Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.

Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...

Sigh.

I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.

Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.

Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.

Personal Note: My 5th Edition 2000pt Tyranid list clocks in the 6th Edition book at 1750ish points.

 ductvader wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Annnd yet another thread devolves into the 'demise of GW'...

Sigh.

I blame the internet because it's the Internet's favorite topic.

Back on topic I hope CC gets balanced better so CC units can go down in points costs (change Sweeping Advances perhaps) and balance better with shooting.

Then again I want to see the game adopt a strict costing system and just push the upper limit of what is considered a balanced game up instead of dropping points all the time. It's not like people with big collections will want to go DOWN in points and play less if they can help it.

Personal Note: My 5th Edition 2000pt Tyranid list clocks in the 6th Edition book at 1750ish points.

Most armies keep getting cheap with every release and it'd be better to push a large game than try and cram more in at less because it'd be easier to balance.

Personally...My biggest issue with Tyranids is the FoC...in a 2000 pt game I can fill every FoC slot and find myself needlessly taking upgrades or additional models in units to fill points.

I like this percentage system.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Not true. Balance has both advantages and disadvantages. Plenty of games are designed with purposeful imbalances. There are trade-offs to balance.




With anything involving trade-offs, choices can fall along a wide continuum of possibilities.

Now, some games will try to emphasize balance (and they are popular, no doubt), some games will try to get a good "middle-ground", some games will stray very far from the idea of balance to explore the advantages offered by imbalance. 40K, arguably, is among the latter. It might not be your flavour, but that doesn't mean it is a "mistake".

And you would be perfectly right, if every unit had its good moments and was priced accordingly. Fact is, there are plenty of units, that are simply bad ruleswise. They are either completely overpriced, redundant, ineffective or any combination thereoff that it is just painfull. Certain things, like 2++ rerollable Deathstars are just broken and imbalance is created with the sole purpose to sell kits and not to keep the game fresh.
There are good examples of perfect imballance out there. League of Legends, maybe MTG, whatever. Warhammer 40k is just badly ballanced.

A %-system might shift the balance a bit back in favor of...uhm..balance after GW decided to purposefully completely break it. Especially stupid stuff like Escalation might be balanced out by simply adding a max % on each slot, making it e.g. impossible to take a Transcendent C'tan in a 1500 (or even 1000!) pts game.

On the other hand, this brings disadvantages as well - it's bad for mediocre units in a slot with strong competition. Take Necrons for example. Imagine there was a strict %-limit per each slot, including the Fast Assault one. Why would anyone ever take anything but Wraiths then? They are clearly better than the rest in the slot and while in the current system, you can still take overpriced but flavorful units (i.e.: Heavy Destroyers) but with a %-system, overpriced units become even less attractive and will be left out even more in favor of superior competitors.

So, as it looks like this one can't stay on topic... it looks like we're done until there's actually something new to discuss?