GW and their thoughts on "Balance"

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.

**Savageconvoy**

SO what you're saying is that they are selling rules independent of model releases?

**Cladmir**

Fafnir wrote:
Cladmir wrote:

Interesting that you brought up monopoly. Out of all the board games I've played, monopoly is considered one of the most luck-based and extremely susceptible to turning into a runaway game when the dice roll a certain way.

For what it's worth, even the original developers of Monopoly recognized that it was a pretty unenjoyable game.

But as far as "balance" goes, the game is rather balance if two people with identical list and skill play against each other, right?

Only insofar as that specific match using those specific lists. The overall game itself, as well as each specific faction internally, are still not balanced.

What's more, the skill of the individual players has nothing to do with the balance of the game. When balancing a game, it's assumed that you typically want to balance towards the highest level of skill in the metagame (while you also might want to cater towards a level of balance at lower skill levels, in order to stop characters/factions with low skill ceilings from becoming unreasonably dominant at low levels of play, the highest level of play is important, since that's where players will be able to develop the most exploitative strategies, given the chance).

If the two players have different builds/skills, then we have what we say in the Superbowl, right? Unless the game of football is also imbalanced?

What do we say in the Superbowl? I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Every team has the same amount of players on the field, and each team is composed of the same positions. While individual players may be more or less skilled than one another, the basic team construction is identical.

What's more, I think I understand what you're trying to argue, but that doesn't make it any less silly. Balance does not require both sides to be identical. It simply requires them to have an equal chance of winning in the current metagame, assuming an equal level of aptitude between the players. If each faction can achieve victory through different methods or playstyles, there's nothing wrong with that.
While it's a given that, short of giving players identical tools, perfect balance is impossible (even Chess isn't perfectly balanced, since White has a slight advantage for going first), a reasonable level of balance where players of a similar level of skill can actually manage to compete against one another is expected of almost any game.

To make a comparison to a different game, I'd like to point out the fighting game series Guilty Gear. The series has a reputation for being one of the most meticulously balanced fighting games in the entire genre (it's not unreasonable to see bottom tier characters winning large tournaments in the GG series). But the really interesting thing is that each character is so unique that they might as well play as their own distinct game. The developers manage to get around this by making sure that each character, despite their wild differences (seriously, wild is the best term to describe it, the characters in that game are insane), has the relevant tools required to deal with any matchup that might be thrown their way.

And I thought GW does have a line that they are not about creating a "competitive" (and therefore, balance), but rather a "narrative-driven" system?

Except GW's systems aren't narrative driven. That's just the company line that they constantly use to cover their lack of ability to write rules. They're extremely abstract and random to the point of alienating the player and the decisions they make from the game itself (essentially turning the players into dice-rolling machines above all else).

Well, I should first mention that I DO NOT think the game is at all "balance", but at this point that's not simply an issue due to how I play the game, but I can see how it can upset other people.

But back to your point, WH40k is the ONLY TT game I've played, and unlike chess or go, seems a lot harder to balance because of all the possibilities. So are you guys saying that other TT games are "balanced" to the point that if I bring whatever "cool" army I want I still stand a chance of winning given some practices and reasonable skill level? There's no such thing as "I want to build an infantry army!" and just get completely outclassed?

Finally, I find that "games" like Call of Duty / BF4 super imbalanced... but then again it's probably due to my lack of skill.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnomanderRake wrote:
To the people who have been telling me "The fact that they release new expensive rules means your statement is dumb": Consider that the new rules tend to have an advantage in power over the old ones and the advantage seldom comes from the same units that were good under the old rules.

I must be reading the Tyranid codex wrong, then.

**Fafnir**

JubbJubbz wrote:
That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

And none of those 'whys' even make sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cladmir wrote:

But back to your point, WH40k is the ONLY TT game I've played, and unlike chess or go, seems a lot harder to balance because of all the possibilities. So are you guys saying that other TT games are "balanced" to the point that if I bring whatever "cool" army I want I still stand a chance of winning given some practices and reasonable skill level? There's no such thing as "I want to build an infantry army!" and just get completely outclassed?

There are plenty of fairly well balanced games out there. Infinity is probably my favourite example (it tends to be my favourite example for a lot of things...) for this, since they introduce new units at a fairly regular pace, while keeping everything fairly viable. Every faction has the tools required to accomplish most any job, with the differences being in how they get the job done, rather than having the ability to do so or not. While it's possible to go wrong in list building for infinity, it's generally assumed that every faction can compete with one another, and that every unit has a function.

In fact, compared to the major competitors these days (Privateer Press, Infinity, Malifaux--although I'll admit I know very little about Malifaux), GW tends to be a far outlier in terms of balance. Which makes sense, since they're the only one of the bunch (and pretty much the only gaming company in the history of time) that doesn't actually playtest their game.

**Cladmir**

Fafnir wrote:
JubbJubbz wrote:
That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

And none of those 'whys' even make sense.

Well, if the way they make the game more "balance" is to make it more like chess (less diversity and fewer options), that would be terrible!

I would also hate it if they have to "patch" the game every week/month the way starcraft did... re-learning rules/re-doing lists that often would be terrible.

Of course, since my games are the likes of "5 terminators and 10 tac holding off 150 orks until the storm raven arrives!" I'm largely unaffected by those changes anyways.

**Wayniac**

Cladmir wrote:
But back to your point, WH40k is the ONLY TT game I've played, and unlike chess or go, seems a lot harder to balance because of all the possibilities. So are you guys saying that other TT games are "balanced" to the point that if I bring whatever "cool" army I want I still stand a chance of winning given some practices and reasonable skill level? There's no such thing as "I want to build an infantry army!" and just get completely outclassed?

For the most part. I mean all games are going to have some choices that just don't work well together, but nowhere near the imbalance in 40k where some units are just too good, and some units you have basically zero reason to take outside of "I like how they look" and in that case you are actively hurting yourself by picking visuals over usefulness. In Warmahordes, for example, your composition is largely based on your choice of Warcaster/lock (more so if you are using a themed list), but there are very few "bad choices" that will actually prevent you from winning simply because you picked them. You might not have synergy with some units, or stretch yourself too thin (e.g. taking too many Warjacks), but that's typically the extent and you can still win with an "inferior" force if you are a superior player and use the strengths to your advantage.

Not so in 40k where often the most significant choice is building your army, not using it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cladmir wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
JubbJubbz wrote:
That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

And none of those 'whys' even make sense.

Well, if the way they make the game more "balance" is to make it more like chess (less diversity and fewer options), that would be terrible!

I would also hate it if they have to "patch" the game every week/month the way starcraft did... re-learning rules/re-doing lists that often would be terrible.

Of course, since my games are the likes of "5 terminators and 10 tac holding off 150 orks until the storm raven arrives!" I'm largely unaffected by those changes anyways.

It's not about fewer choices, it's about all choices being viable and having synergy for a type of list versus "There is no reason to ever take this unit from a purely gaming perspective" (i.e. visuals/theme not withstanding). I don't think anybody has talked about actively limiting choices or making things like chess where everybody has the same units just a different color, but what we have now is a mess - Unit A is way too good, Unit B is average at best and Unit C is bad to the point nobody would ever take it outside of looks/theme since there are better choices. I'd rather have a game balanced around unit synergies, so that Unit A and Unit B work well together, and Unit C is good with A or B but not as much with D, but it could stand on its own if you play it right, but if you take all Unit A or all Unit B then you're going to still be at a disadvantage.

**Xca|iber**

JubbJubbz wrote:
For the most part I'm happy with the game as is. Sure I think there's issues here and there but nothing even close for me to say I'm unhappy with the product. I think I understand both major sides of the discussion. That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

I'd be much happier if a Black Templars "Black Tide" list would stand a reasonable chance of victory against an optimized Taudar list. You know, because the Black Templars are supposed to be the go-to option for anti-psyker, anti-xeno, fanatical space marine crusaders. Oh, but that would require balance, and we can't have that, can we? Too bad, I guess the entirety of the Black Templars' fluff is about winning against psykers and xenos that have deliberately toned-down their forces to give the poor BTs a fair chance - how polite.

I'd also like to see an Ork Green Tide have an epic clash with the best that Chaos Daemons can throw around - but oops, only if the Daemons don't bring their Screamerstar. After all, it's much better if Daemons players get to keep their trump card in case they ever get tired of dumbing themselves down to the Ork player's level.

So yes, balancing the game is just the worst. I mean, how could balance ever make the game more enjoyable for people who want to play fluffy, unoptimized lists? They never want to win unless their opponent pulls their punches at the list-building stage, right?

**Fafnir**

Cladmir wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
JubbJubbz wrote:
That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

And none of those 'whys' even make sense.

Well, if the way they make the game more "balance" is to make it more like chess (less diversity and fewer options), that would be terrible!

Except that is not what anyone is suggesting. At all. There are plenty of games that are well balanced while offering a massive breadth of options. As it stands, 40k's current state is a greater cause of lower diversity and fewer options than anything else, simply because so many units are worthless, and a select few are so dominant.

If there are 10 codecies, and each codex has 10 units in it, we want all 10 codecies to be viable against one another, and we want all 10 units in each codex to have a function that makes them viable for use in an army.

Right now, if there were 10 codecies, about 1 or 2 would be worth using, and of those codecies, only 2 or 3 of those entries would be worth putting on the table. That is what is truly stale, and that is what is truly limiting player options.

I would also hate it if they have to "patch" the game every week/month the way starcraft did... re-learning rules/re-doing lists that often would be terrible.

Except no one ever asked for that. We want GW to playtest their rules before they release them, and we want them to be done to an extent that, although not perfect, is actually playable. Likewise, if changes to units are needed to balance them, they need not be massive to the extent of relearning the entire game.
As it stands now, you have GW releasing updates and erratas on the week a codex is released. How is that any better?

**Cladmir**

I've just looked up people's opinion on dakka about War Machine, and it seems that there's a general consensus that War Machine is "broken to the point of balance". I must admit I'm a bit confused by that statement. Does that mean that if GW continues the current trend of "brokenness" (as claimed), then at some point the game will become balanced?

**Savageconvoy**

But don't you remember? The unbalance of 40K lets you have so many amazing options provided you don't take the following units: Imperial Knights, Riptides, Wave Serpents, Inquisitors, Deamons of Tzeentch, Wraithknight, Wraithguard with D-scythes, Khorne dogs, anything with Mark of Nurgle, Broadsides, XV-8 Commanders, Anything in Codex: Tau Empire, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, or anything you decide on the spot that you don't want to bring in games of only 1k or less.

Look at all the options that leaves open!

**AnomanderRake**

Savageconvoy wrote:
SO what you're saying is that they are selling rules independent of model releases?

No. I'm saying "the rules exist to sell the models."

**Cladmir**

Fafnir wrote:
Cladmir wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
JubbJubbz wrote:
That being said, I'm glad that the design team doesn't seem to plan on making the game more balanced. I would probably be less interested in the game if it were. I won't argue the "why's" as I feel they've been covered above.

And none of those 'whys' even make sense.

Well, if the way they make the game more "balance" is to make it more like chess (less diversity and fewer options), that would be terrible!

Except that is not what anyone is suggesting. At all. There are plenty of games that are well balanced while offering a massive breadth of options. As it stands, 40k's current state is a greater cause of lower diversity and fewer options than anything else, simply because so many units are worthless, and a select few are so dominant.

If there are 10 codecies, and each codex has 10 units in it, we want all 10 codecies to be viable against one another, and we want all 10 units in each codex to have a function that makes them viable for use in an army.

Right now, if there were 10 codecies, about 1 or 2 would be worth using, and of those codecies, only 2 or 3 of those entries would be worth putting on the table. That is what is truly stale, and that is what is truly limiting player options.

I would also hate it if they have to "patch" the game every week/month the way starcraft did... re-learning rules/re-doing lists that often would be terrible.

Except no one ever asked for that. We want GW to playtest their rules before they release them, and we want them to be done to an extent that, although not perfect, is actually playable. Likewise, if changes to units are needed to balance them, they need not be massive to the extent of relearning the entire game.
As it stands now, you have GW releasing updates and erratas on the week a codex is released. How is that any better?

I would say that if Blizzard, a company known for extensive play testing and polish, has a hard time balancing three factions and still have part of those armies deemed as sub-optimal, I can have doubt any play testing can completely balance the game, although I conceded that GW can DEFINITELY DO BETTER than it is doing right now.

But the question remain: Is it ever possible to "balance" a game that is as large and diverse as WH40k?

**FirePainter**

Cladmir wrote:

I would say that if Blizzard, a company known for extensive play testing and polish, has a hard time balancing three factions and still have part of those armies deemed as sub-optimal, I can have doubt any play testing can completely balance the game, although I conceded that GW can DEFINITELY DO BETTER than it is doing right now.

But the question remain: Is it ever possible to "balance" a game that is as large and diverse as WH40k?

As a proponent of greater balance and a big starcraft fan I must question this. What unit in starcraft is sub-optimal? There are units that are situational or only used in one match-up but I believe every unit in starcraft has a purpose. Quite contrary to units in 40k which is why you do not see rough riders or rippers every talked about.

**Fafnir**

Cladmir wrote:

I would say that if Blizzard, a company known for extensive play testing and polish, has a hard time balancing three factions and still have part of those armies deemed as sub-optimal, I can have doubt any play testing can completely balance the game, although I conceded that GW can DEFINITELY DO BETTER than it is doing right now.

But the question remain: Is it ever possible to "balance" a game that is as large and diverse as WH40k?

No, at least not perfectly. In a game where there will be different factions that have (gameplay impacting) traits that are even slightly different, there will always be traits that are valued more, even if ever so slightly, by the current meta. For example, this is why white is considered to be the more advantageous side in chess, even though the only difference between the two factions is which one gets the first move. This becomes even more difficult when you consider that metagames are constantly changing. However, the goal of good game design is to bring this gap as close as possible, so that everyone who plays competently can play with what they want to an extent that is viable.

AnomanderRake wrote:
Savageconvoy wrote:
SO what you're saying is that they are selling rules independent of model releases?

No. I'm saying "the rules exist to sell the models."

And I look at the name of the company, and one word sticks in my mind, and it's not 'workshop.'

**Deadnight**

Cladmir wrote:
I've just looked up people's opinion on dakka about War Machine, and it seems that there's a general consensus that War Machine is "broken to the point of balance". I must admit I'm a bit confused by that statement. Does that mean that if GW continues the current trend of "brokenness" (as claimed), then at some point the game will become balanced?

No, the ethos in warmachine is that everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. All the factions are fairly balanced, and no one faction, or list dominates the game - as opposed to 40k where a handful of builds from a handful of codices utterly steamroll everything else. The 'broken' comment refers to the power level of the pieces becauae everything is powerful; if there is a threat on the board, you can deal with it. As in 'nothing is broken because everything is broken' - there are no screamerstar or taudar builds but alongside this, there are no shoddy factions like tyranids. How you play matters more than what faction you take.

If gw continues what ifs doing it will ruin the game further, gw don't playtest, pp do. And you misunderstand gw brokenness. Fir every good option, there are a dozen bad ones. The current releases continue the cycle, the models just happen to be bigger.

**Cladmir**

FirePainter wrote:
Cladmir wrote:

I would say that if Blizzard, a company known for extensive play testing and polish, has a hard time balancing three factions and still have part of those armies deemed as sub-optimal, I can have doubt any play testing can completely balance the game, although I conceded that GW can DEFINITELY DO BETTER than it is doing right now.

But the question remain: Is it ever possible to "balance" a game that is as large and diverse as WH40k?

As a proponent of greater balance and a big starcraft fan I must question this. What unit in starcraft is sub-optimal? There are units that are situational or only used in one match-up but I believe every unit in starcraft has a purpose. Quite contrary to units in 40k which is why you do not see rough riders or rippers every talked about.

But in SC2 you can (and often time must) be willing to "change" your "build" DURING the game if you want to be consistently successful, although some units/build are more flexible that others. In WH40k people come to a game with a pre-build list, and if it turns out that the "situation" units is completely worthless you're kinda stuck.

In the case of rough riders and rippers. Are they completely useless "all the time", as in, there are NO situations where they are useful, ever? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

**Kilkrazy**

Cladmir wrote:

Maybe I'm also missing something here... but can anyone please point out the fact that the rule book and/or codexes promised a "balance" game?

There are points values and a Force Org chart.

In earlier editions this was specifically stated to be for the purpose of making a balanced game. In 6th edition it isn't made so plain, though the logic is there.

That doesn't justify the change for people who have been playing for three or four editions.

**FirePainter**

Cladmir wrote:
FirePainter wrote:
Cladmir wrote:

I would say that if Blizzard, a company known for extensive play testing and polish, has a hard time balancing three factions and still have part of those armies deemed as sub-optimal, I can have doubt any play testing can completely balance the game, although I conceded that GW can DEFINITELY DO BETTER than it is doing right now.

But the question remain: Is it ever possible to "balance" a game that is as large and diverse as WH40k?

As a proponent of greater balance and a big starcraft fan I must question this. What unit in starcraft is sub-optimal? There are units that are situational or only used in one match-up but I believe every unit in starcraft has a purpose. Quite contrary to units in 40k which is why you do not see rough riders or rippers every talked about.

But in SC2 you can (and often time must) be willing to "change" your "build" DURING the game if you want to be consistently successful, although some units/build are more flexible that others. In WH40k people come to a game with a pre-build list, and if it turns out that the "situation" units is completely worthless you're kinda stuck.

In the case of rough riders and rippers. Are they completely useless "all the time", as in, there are NO situations where they are useful, ever? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

That is why the majority of list you see in the army section are TAC and are evaluated on the basis that they can handle or at least have some method of mitigating every type of opponent that you may come against (AA, AT, AI, Anit-horde, Anti-mech, deathstar, fortification, alphastrike, reserves, etc). Now this can lead to "hard-counter" list matchups in some cases but that shows a weakness of the list not poor balance. A true TAC list should be able to handle any opponent regardless of power level or opposing units. Will some matches be tougher? Yes. But this is where desicion making and tactics would give the win to the better general (dice rolls even of course)

And to your second point while I am not a very experinced tyranid player, as a 40k player I see no reason or matchup that would be even let alone favorable for rippers.

**Cladmir**

Deadnight wrote:
Cladmir wrote:
I've just looked up people's opinion on dakka about War Machine, and it seems that there's a general consensus that War Machine is "broken to the point of balance". I must admit I'm a bit confused by that statement. Does that mean that if GW continues the current trend of "brokenness" (as claimed), then at some point the game will become balanced?

No, the ethos in warmachine is that everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. All the factions are fairly balanced, and no one faction, or list dominates the game - as opposed to 40k where a handful of builds from a handful of codices utterly steamroll everything else. The 'broken' comment refers to the power level of the pieces becauae everything is powerful; if there is a threat on the board, you can deal with it. As in 'nothing is broken because everything is broken' - there are no screamerstar or taudar builds but alongside this, there are no shoddy factions like tyranids. How you play matters more than what faction you take.

If gw continues what ifs doing it will ruin the game further, gw don't playtest, pp do. And you misunderstand gw brokenness. Fir every good option, there are a dozen bad ones. The current releases continue the cycle, the models just happen to be bigger.

Please forgive my noob-ness here. But when you say "everything is powerful; if there is a threat on the board, you can deal with it", are you saying that it's not the same as having powerful stuff like screamerstar of serpent-spam? If everything is powerful doesn't that mean that everything is on the same level and therefore nothing is powerful? Or are you saying that 40k would be better if every armies can build a super-powerful build?

If every option is good, then nothing is bad, and every option just degenerates to "average", isn't that right?

And there really that many things that are "bad"? Or are they just "not good enough", which, in a game that can be very competitive, can easily make things that are "not good enough" labeled as "bad"? I would say that, for me, it's not "For every good option, there are a dozen bad ones" but rather "For every good option, there are a dozen less-good ones that will make winning [far] harder than if I picked the good option".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Cladmir wrote:

Maybe I'm also missing something here... but can anyone please point out the fact that the rule book and/or codexes promised a "balance" game?

There are points values and a Force Org chart.

In earlier editions this was specifically stated to be for the purpose of making a balanced game. In 6th edition it isn't made so plain, though the logic is there.

That doesn't justify the change for people who have been playing for three or four editions.

Ah... being new to the game I did not know that the intended value of the points was to actually "balance" instead of simply setting a guideline / boundary of reasonable comparison. In that case, I must agree that how the points are distributed there is much left to be desired if one has the expectation that a balance match can be achieved with point level alone.

Thanks for all the insightful comments!

**Hunam0001**

Play at 1500 points, with a 500 point sideboard (sideboard must consist of full squads), single standard FOC (no allies, fortifications, lords of war etc), best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 games.

**Ventus**

Rules do sell models. But if GW were only interested in selling models then wouldn't new models/recut kits be good units in the rules they do provide to encourage sales?

Look at tyranids. GW made a pyrovore model. But the rules last dex were lousy and still are so probably haven't sold many. GW recut the tyranid warrior sprue apparently putting in all the options but made them mediocre.

But then some kits are also messed up. The new plastic hive tyrant doesn't have even one set of devourers in it when GW made 2 sets practically the goto option. And because the wings take up an arm slot if I want to build a flyrant with bonesword/lashwhip and ranged biomorph I have to convert the model out of the box. Not a great model kit for the cost in my opinion.

I would say GW might use the "model company" argument to cover for poor rules but that doesn't wash. GW just botches all sorts of things - models and rules. They make models to use in their game. The game has rules to play out against someone else.

On balance - balance may not be able to to perfect but a serious attempt can be made but GW wont do it. That is the problem. Decent effort at the rules done with vigorous playtesting and time to fix issues would sell more models. I would buy a pyrovore if the rules were decent (a serious attempt was made to fix it as well).

GW doesn't get/deserve a free ride here. As others have said, many people want to play/like the game because it has so much potential that GW keeps botching.

**Savageconvoy**

Hunam0001 wrote:
Play at 1500 points, with a 500 point sideboard (sideboard must consist of full squads), single standard FOC (no allies, fortifications, lords of war etc), best 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 games.

This wouldn't work out as easily as you think. Most squads aren't just interchangeable. For example I couldn't swap out a Riptide, Crisis suit squad, or Stealth suit squad with one of the others if they were properly kitted out. The points just don't match up that easily. Same thing with Broadsides and the vehicles in Heavy support. You could try a 1,000 point list with multiple 500 point allies available, but even then it's tough to work out on the fly like a side board.

I still don't understand how someone can claim GW is a model company. I don't remember them making a limited edition Riptide with a special dust cover. Even with Imperial Knights they sold both the regular codex and the special edition. It is a game company. You can't have one without the other. Rules and models go hand in hand. You can't honestly look at the new Astra Militarium Taurox Soccer Van and say that it excuses every one of the numerous mistakes and errors in the rules.

**Fafnir**

Savageconvoy wrote:
You can't honestly look at the new Astra Militarium Taurox Soccer Van

They need the all-tread drive for when mom needs to go to the grocery store.

**Savageconvoy**

And with more than enough space for an Imperial Mommisar and her entire squad to fit comfortably along with all the groceries.

**loki old fart**

Cladmir wrote:

I also spied another thread about speculation on why GW employee doesn't want to point people to this website, and if that is true, I just have to site this thread as a reason why.

I,m sure GW would prefer everybody to only visit sites that don't criticize shoddy rules or models. Lowers their need to produce quality merchandise. Just drink the cool aid, and carry on.

**Galorian**

Ventus wrote:
Rules do sell models. But if GW were only interested in selling models then wouldn't new models/recut kits be good units in the rules they do provide to encourage sales?

Look at tyranids. GW made a pyrovore model. But the rules last dex were lousy and still are so probably haven't sold many. GW recut the tyranid warrior sprue apparently putting in all the options but made them mediocre.

But then some kits are also messed up. The new plastic hive tyrant doesn't have even one set of devourers in it when GW made 2 sets practically the goto option. And because the wings take up an arm slot if I want to build a flyrant with bonesword/lashwhip and ranged biomorph I have to convert the model out of the box. Not a great model kit for the cost in my opinion.

It's been claimed that GW writes these rules to sell models, but I don't think anyone ever claimed they were particularly competent at it...

Moreover, there is the distinct possibility that they may be doing it intentionally and adjusting their production of kits to capitalize on it- codex comes out with two new kits, one terrible and one super-awesome-must-take, so they produce smaller numbers of the less attractive product and focus their efforts on the awesome one. It's a stupid move, but one that might sound like a good idea to a management that's obsessed about control and minimizing risk (the production line for the less popular kit could then be converted to other kits as sales figures show them which ones are flying off the shelves faster without much risk of it running out of stock anytime soon).

Under this hypothesis lame models are a sacrificial lamb on the altar of market control and risk management as well as a kind of smokescreen against the claim that they're butchering balance to sell new kits.

**Deadnight**

Cladmir wrote:

Please forgive my noob-ness here. But when you say "everything is powerful; if there is a threat on the board, you can deal with it", are you saying that it's not the same as having powerful stuff like screamerstar of serpent-spam? If everything is powerful doesn't that mean that everything is on the same level and therefore nothing is powerful? Or are you saying that 40k would be better if every armies can build a super-powerful build?

If every option is good, then nothing is bad, and every option just degenerates to "average", isn't that right?

!

Indeed, I'm saying precisely that. Which is better - everything being a valid option, or one/a handful of builds dominating to the exclusion of all else? The former offers huge variety, the latter offers a very stale game. Ive seen the latter in every edition of 40k since third ed, and it was there before then too.

It goes back to the oft quoted comment regarding warmachine - 'if everything is broken, nothing is'.

The difference is with 40k, some things are broken. Some things are better than others. Due to sales considerations, lack of playtesting, and designer bias, some things are really good, others aren't. The result is a huge swing in terns of power levels both within a codex, and between codices. This is not a good thing for a healthy game.

Would 40k be better if every faction had a deathstar unit. No, it wouldn't. It doesn't solve the 80% of other options not being good enough.

**AnomanderRake**

Fafnir wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Savageconvoy wrote:
SO what you're saying is that they are selling rules independent of model releases?

No. I'm saying "the rules exist to sell the models."

And I look at the name of the company, and one word sticks in my mind, and it's not 'workshop.'

BioWare was founded by doctors around medical technology. What does the name have to do with what they do now?

**Fafnir**

BioWare also doesn't sell medical equipment anymore (Actually, I don't think they ever did. The company was just started by a bunch of medical doctors who had all happened to have learned programming during their education). GW still sells games, and has always sold games (before they even sold miniatures).

**Kilkrazy**

I think we've gone a bit too far if we are arguing the semantics of company names and their original objectives. (Eidos started as a video compression firm and got into computer games.)

The fact is that Games Workshop core business is to publish wargame rules and make wargame figures and kits for the rules it publishes. It has a side business in licensing the background stories from the game for books and spin-off games.

Let's confine the discussion to the primary elements.

**Savageconvoy**

Okay, here's something. Even if we conceded that GW is a model company first and that rules are just there to sell models... Then how does that justify a complete mess of a rule system?
If I sold pen and paper, but claimed I'm just a paper salesman and that the pens are just complimenting the paper. How can I justify leaky pens that make messes and dry up too quickly? How could I justify selling deluxe limited edition pens while still offering only the basic paper?