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.

Alow me for a moment to don a tinfoil hat...

Considering that the trend of recent codices is to have one or two "uber" builds - it seems possible that this move is in fact deliberate and an extension of GW's efforts to lower overheads. If manufacturing can easily predict which items will be the big sellers, GW can devoting the bulk of manufacturing/warehousing to those items alone. Underpowered choices would made that way by design in order to stealthily cut down on day-to-day production while maintaining the illusion of choice to its customers.

Then again, it could be as easily attributed to non-existent playtesting, though these two ideas are hardly mutually exclusive.

/tinfoil hat

Hi keezus.
Never atribute to malice what could be accounted for by incompetance!

GW game developers just play a few games with the army compositions they think are cool, (and therfore everyone will use these , )

And after this they adjust thier original estimations based on oppinion.(PV is set at appx 3/4 of the best result, according to G.T.)

But Jervis Johnson is ademant that no list would have a win/loose ratio more than 60/40.
Even though he states clearly they do not playtest 'uber competative' lists!
(So lack of playtesting and lack of intemate game knowledge is the reason for imballanced codex/army book development.)

(If you want a more ballanced game ,pick a rule set with all the armylists released with the rules. )

TTFN
Lanrak.

Then Jervis should play my Tau. They suck monkey ! I am luckY I beat my enemy into a draw. It is not the list, my playing or dice rolls, they just provide their own suction against most 5th ed codexs.

i'd like to see them playtest gunline tau with no broadsides / railheads against a nob biker list.

ohhhh, wouldnt that be fun? I'd bet good money that 99% of the time the tau doesn't kill a single nob biker

Its pretty clear with the new waves of Plastic kits being released with new ever more powerful codecies is clearly all greed and sales driven and has nothing to do with ensuring a continued balanced and competitive game. They need to stop with the massive scale of changes from one editions dex to the next. They force themselves to completely redo previous books because of how badly balanced each new release becomes.

It's due to poor play-testing. GW admits that they don't play test "extreme" builds, like Dual-lash and 9 Oblits with Plague Marines as Troops. They release a codex based on what 'feels right' based on their years of experience developing other codexes that are just as badly balanced.

The theory doesn't hold up since they release new kits that cost a lot of money to produce that have terrible, terrible rules.

Re: Chaos Possessed, Chaos Spawn, Burna Boyz, etc.

The power builds that result from Codices are just happy accidents. They don't plan that because they're not very good at writing rules. They write Codices and sometimes even units within vacuums without any real consideration as to how they work with other units or against other units.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The theory doesn't hold up since they release new kits that cost a lot of money to produce that have terrible, terrible rules.

Re: Burna Boyz

Que?

The Burnas in a Battlewagon I take out to play do all kinds of awesome killage, OT I know but why do you feel they're bad VB?

Whatever it is (and my admittedly cynical vote goes for general incompetence), it isn't supply driven.

Things get supply driven when a company has more stock of a particular product or can produce particular product(s) cheaper/easier than others.

For example, if it was a lot easier and/or cheaper for GW to manufacture Spase Marienz then they would be justified (from a business point of view) in ramming them down our throats because it maintains revenue at a reduced operating cost.

However, given that beyond the capital outlay for a new mould (which will also be approximately equal in each case), it cost the same per sprue for GW to produce Marienz and Dark Eldar.

Sadly, the only reason for unbalanced codices is that GW does not have the inclination to get their act together

It's not a very well thought out theory, is it. One point in addition to the others that have been raised is that there's not a lot of agreement on what these alleged 'uber' builds are. For a while we were hearing that Nob bikers were unstoppable. Setting aside the fact that there isn't a GW-produced Nobz biker set (although that pretty much demolishes the theory anyway), it seems that this particular build is already losing its dominace as opponents work out ways of beating it.

GW's approach to army lists has always been to assume that you're using them principally as an excuse to field a varied collection of models. They've stuck to this, despite creating lists which recognise that many players want to max out on certain units (I think that's more to do with facilititating sales of expensive vehicle models, although that doesn't make them 'greedy', just practical). They seem determined not to playtest their lists using more extreme builds.

The accountants have had their hands in rules development for quite some time now. With each new codex it becomes more and more obvious.

I would guess this is probably why so many of their quality designers have jumped ship.

No offense, but I don't think 40K has ever been about the game since I entered the hobby in 2005 or thereabouts. 40K is about the models and the fluff.

If you want a strategic and tactical wargame which is balanced you seriously need to go somewhere else. For many people 40K is the only viable wargaming option due to availability of opponents, which is the sad truth of it, and for those people I can only suggest that you re-set your thinking on 40K and accept it not as a flawed game but as a hobby with a game tacked onto it.

I think it's really, really important that wargamers try as many different wargames as they can. I started with 40K and BFG, then started FoW, and then had a brief interlude with AT-43. All these experiences taken as a whole have given me a new perspective on 40K which, ironically, is precisely the perspective that I was advised to adopt by former GW employees in my gaming club.

40K is a hobby and a fluff franchise. The game is just a small part of it, and quite possibly the least-important as far as GW is concerned. It ain't meant to be balanced. GW don't care that much, and as long as the Black Library keeps selling, as long as GW IP video games remain in production, and as long as there are a shiteload of modelers and painters just buying the models to convert and paint up all pretty, the game will never be balanced or a priority for GW.

It is a game that was meant to be played by a bunch of nerds-of-age drinking beers, eating pretzels, and slowly getting hammered while moving little army men around a table. It will always be precisely that at its heart, even if a sizeable portion of the customer base are children who aren't old enough to drink yet and who overcompensate for social failings elsewhere by becoming ultra-competitive with a game which isn't meant to be played competitively.

If you really want to protest, speak with your wallets. Suspend the purchase of GW products, just stick with what you have, proxy for new units, and start playing something else.

As you will not do so, just stop complaining. GW doesn't care. That's harsh, but it's true. The sooner you face reality the happier you'll be. If you want to try to turn 40K into a "competitive" game then you're stuck with the power builds, and just have to suck up the time and expense of buying the power list models for that particular Codex iteration.

I don't think it's a classic "we have new model X, let's give it good rules" case of supply driven. If a new model has good rules, I think that's a happy accident for them. However, I do think that they notice if a particular kit doesn't sell well, and on the next Codex revision, try to compensate it. For example, as Gav noted, the Dev team appears to have realized that Spawn, Possessed, and Chaos Dreads aren't that good. This is probably confirmed in two ways: 1) they don't seem them at the top tables very often, and 2) their sales lag behind what was expected. So, they probably will all get better rules in Codex:CSM 5th edition or CSM Legions or LatD or whatever they launch next. And it could very well set up the "why are Ultramarine CMLs better than DA ones" as "Why are Khorne Spawn better than CSM Spawn?"

keezus wrote:If manufacturing can easily predict which items will be the big sellers, GW can devoting the bulk of manufacturing/warehousing to those items alone.

Then why doesn't GW make Nob bikers? :S

edit: And why is it when you buy lootas, you get bits to make also burnaboyz? Why are there two different scout packs? WHY ARE MELTAGUNS STILL MADE OF METAL!?

/rant

Edit: Although, the 'new models' seem to grab awesome rules most of the time. New battlewagon kit (FIRST by GW btw) and it has amazing rules in the new ork codex, new carnifex model turns into a customizable monster, bunch of new leeman russ kits, awesome (and expensive) new Baneblade and Stompa kits for Appoc, Land Speeder storm with it's neat rules and sweet model. I could go on.

Maybe Space Pope and the Vespids will be absolute gangbusters in the next Tau codex.

I know its easy to dump on GW for being greedy but come on they are a business. Not only that, they wrote a rule set that encompasses 16 codices over 3 generations of the game. Not to mention you still see Necrons, Demonhunters, Darkangels, Witchhunters at tournaments. Granted those armies aren't necesarily "the most competetive" but they could still win. I think people need to focus on what GW has done for the gaming hobby as a whole. Where would this hobby be without GW? Think of the various rules that have copied GW's format (Flames of War, Warmachine) Now those rules are there own entity but GW was the first to come up with blister packs, put out a magazine to support their products, develop smaller games to bring people into the hobby ie. Space Hulk, Epic, Man o' war. Now is everything completely balanced, NO, is everything perfect, NO, but for god sakes what is the standard you want, who's model should they be copying. They are top dog, and for the most part things are balanced. That being said I dont know what they were thinking when they wrote the rules for the biovore, Jeesh.

keezus wrote:
Considering that the trend of recent codices is to have one or two "uber" builds - it seems possible that this move is in fact deliberate and an extension of GW's efforts to lower overheads. If manufacturing can easily predict which items will be the big sellers, GW can devoting the bulk of manufacturing/warehousing to those items alone. Underpowered choices would made that way by design in order to stealthily cut down on day-to-day production while maintaining the illusion of choice to its customers.

You think too highly of GW's game designers. It's more likely that they have no clue what will be the bomb once a codex is released. Most of the units and tactics they tout as awesome end up being mediocre at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe Space Pope and the Vespids will be absolute gangbusters in the next Tau codex.

I have been thinking precisely that. Thinking that they must have so much unsold stock of those items that their accountants will force the developers to make those units viable in the next codex.

Mattv may be a little to general there, but I DO remember reading something about them being blindsided by Nidzilla.

OT, I think GW does make attempts at generating artifical demand. Write the rules to generate interest in something they want to sell. The whole ethics thing I will leave to others.

One thing I DO love abotu these discussions when they pop up, is that there do not seem to be near as many people trying to empty their wallets into GW's coffers as Privateer Press. Wow, some of them folk appear to feel like they have a holy duty to sell their firstborn to get the cash to buy more models. Now, I feel that people should be recompensed for their work, but some of the things I have read spewing from their fingertips make me want to hide all the Kool-Aid I can find. So they won't, y'know; drink it?

Remember, the kool aid is only bad if it's already poisoned. If you have the ability to hide
the kool aid that probably means you're the one that put the poison in it to begin with.

What does this have to do with the larger discussion? Probably nothing.

Branded tabletop wargames are built on artificial demand

Really?

grizgrin wrote:Mattv may be a little to general there, but I DO remember reading something about them being blindsided by Nidzilla.

OT, I think GW does make attempts at generating artifical demand. Write the rules to generate interest in something they want to sell. The whole ethics thing I will leave to others.

One thing I DO love abotu these discussions when they pop up, is that there do not seem to be near as many people trying to empty their wallets into GW's coffers as Privateer Press. Wow, some of them folk appear to feel like they have a holy duty to sell their firstborn to get the cash to buy more models. Now, I feel that people should be recompensed for their work, but some of the things I have read spewing from their fingertips make me want to hide all the Kool-Aid I can find. So they won't, y'know; drink it?

I'm actually curious about this now grizgrin, do you have any examples?

grizgrin wrote:OT, I think GW does make attempts at generating artifical demand. Write the rules to generate interest in something they want to sell. The whole ethics thing I will leave to others.

Er, last time I looked that was called capitalism. You're living in a society where pretty much everything is run on the basis of generating artificial demand amongst consumers, then selling stuff to them. There's nothing revelatory about it, and I'm surprised how many people still express surprise/anger/outrage at the fact that GW operates along capitalistic principles (for the most part - sometimes it's not clear what's motivating them). Isn't it time the discussion moved past that?

I'm really not sure what Malfred's talking about, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense somewhere

I don't think any of this is new. There were uber armies back as far as 20 years ago too. Man, I hated the combo of two words that every Depeche Mode luvin' Eldar player used to say between sips of diet Sprite, "Guide, Doom". Kiss your most beast unit/guy/vehicle good-bye. The analogy back then was that GW created an arms race where they were the only supplier. It still rings true today.

Ah,

I think that individual models have pendulum swings more often (Think Thunder hammer Terminators and Assault Cannons) but whole codecies I am not so convinced,

Space Wolves looks over powered at the moment,
but give it a little time (and it will be even stronger ahahahaha!!!)

It's also been suspected for years that GW deliberately power up and/or undercost units they want to sell.

However, Space Pope and the Vespids are obvious examples where they screwed up because both units are rubbish, despite being expensive models, and no Tau players ever use them as far as I know.

I am as happy to believe the cock-up theory of design as the conspiracy theory.

Their aim is to make new units better - I truly believe this is the case, not because of some sort of evil conspiracy theory, but simply because that's business - they want to sell new stuff, so make the new stuff good.

It's quite impressive then just how often they screw that up. If GW can be said to be really good at one thing, it's fething up their own MO time and time again.

Cairnius wrote:No offense, but I don't think 40K has ever been about the game since I entered the hobby in 2005 or thereabouts. 40K is about the models and the fluff.

If you want a strategic and tactical wargame which is balanced you seriously need to go somewhere else. For many people 40K is the only viable wargaming option due to availability of opponents, which is the sad truth of it, and for those people I can only suggest that you re-set your thinking on 40K and accept it not as a flawed game but as a hobby with a game tacked onto it.

I think it's really, really important that wargamers try as many different wargames as they can. I started with 40K and BFG, then started FoW, and then had a brief interlude with AT-43. All these experiences taken as a whole have given me a new perspective on 40K which, ironically, is precisely the perspective that I was advised to adopt by former GW employees in my gaming club.

40K is a hobby and a fluff franchise. The game is just a small part of it, and quite possibly the least-important as far as GW is concerned. It ain't meant to be balanced. GW don't care that much, and as long as the Black Library keeps selling, as long as GW IP video games remain in production, and as long as there are a shiteload of modelers and painters just buying the models to convert and paint up all pretty, the game will never be balanced or a priority for GW.

It is a game that was meant to be played by a bunch of nerds-of-age drinking beers, eating pretzels, and slowly getting hammered while moving little army men around a table. It will always be precisely that at its heart, even if a sizeable portion of the customer base are children who aren't old enough to drink yet and who overcompensate for social failings elsewhere by becoming ultra-competitive with a game which isn't meant to be played competitively.

If you really want to protest, speak with your wallets. Suspend the purchase of GW products, just stick with what you have, proxy for new units, and start playing something else.

As you will not do so, just stop complaining. GW doesn't care. That's harsh, but it's true. The sooner you face reality the happier you'll be. If you want to try to turn 40K into a "competitive" game then you're stuck with the power builds, and just have to suck up the time and expense of buying the power list models for that particular Codex iteration.

plus one, sir.

Bravo.

Space Marines make up 60 percent of their sales; yeah they are going to keep releasing Space Marine stuff.


It's in their itinerary that every year has 1 space marine major release. Possibly 2.


Next year before I say June we will see another Space Marine based codex.

Cairnius wrote:As you will not do so, just stop complaining.

Then what the hell am I going to do with the rest of my week? Blaming Jervis and bitching about the Chaos Codex is just as much a hobby as 40K is, y'know.