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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
"Army X needs a unit to fill role Y" probably is a conversation they have - but from a background point of view, not a rules one. The setting - be that the fiction, the models or the artwork - is absolutely the driving factor.

Which is a stupid way of doing things.

Why? It works, after all, for historical games, and I think that's the model they're going for. It's just that they have to make up the history first.

A historical game is an entierly different beast, you really can't compare the two.

And actually when designing a historical kit the sculptors would absolutely look at tons of reference images, actual design schematics and maybe even go see the item in question in person. Where GW apparently sculpt the thing out of thin air and then pass it on to have art made of it.

They mainly care about new customers. Seeing what people they can get in with starter boxes and branching in codexes because in those first couple years you buy the most. Eventually you just settle and don't need to get new stuff. So cooler models will excited a younger crowd for sure. (I honestly like how the models have been more dynamic recently)

A lot of companies do this sort of thing, for example if you go and listen to some of the design concepts from WotC about MtG there are times when they start with a story concept or artwork, and then design the rules for the card based on that. It's pretty basic top-down design.

The issue is, is that GW is trying to justify poor design with this. You can still be given a model and design rules for it that make sense both thematically and in the grand scheme of things, as opposed to just cobbling some nonsense together and hoping it works. It's not like they're even trying to simulate something, as they control all the fluff of their universe, and can easily create rules as they desire that are actually functional.

Back of the AoS box says it all really,"a great way to start your model collection"
or something to that affect

 Tinkrr wrote:
A lot of companies do this sort of thing, for example if you go and listen to some of the design concepts from WotC about MtG there are times when they start with a story concept or artwork, and then design the rules for the card based on that. It's pretty basic top-down design.

The key difference here is that when WOTC does top-down designs they involve the game developers from the beginning. The story team comes up with necessary character/event or a designer says "let's do a card that represents {iconic fantasy thing}", but then the card goes through the same cycles of design and development as any other card. And if it doesn't work for whatever reason then it's redesigned, or even cut from the set. They want those top-down designs to be part of the game, but making the game function properly is still the top priority. At no point does someone hand the rules people a finished design and say "this is part of the game now, like it or not".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Why? It works, after all, for historical games, and I think that's the model they're going for. It's just that they have to make up the history first.

Even in historical games good game design doesn't just create a finished model and say "make rules for this today". You might have to pick from existing historical designs, but you can still do things like recognize that the US faction needs a better AA unit and search the history books for something that might work. Or you can decide that the next wave of expansions is going to be about tanks, and pick appropriate tanks for each faction. That's not at all the same as having someone design the new model kit and say "make this work no matter what".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
A lot of companies do this sort of thing, for example if you go and listen to some of the design concepts from WotC about MtG there are times when they start with a story concept or artwork, and then design the rules for the card based on that. It's pretty basic top-down design.

The key difference here is that when WOTC does top-down designs they involve the game developers from the beginning. The story team comes up with necessary character/event or a designer says "let's do a card that represents {iconic fantasy thing}", but then the card goes through the same cycles of design and development as any other card. And if it doesn't work for whatever reason then it's redesigned, or even cut from the set. They want those top-down designs to be part of the game, but making the game function properly is still the top priority. At no point does someone hand the rules people a finished design and say "this is part of the game now, like it or not".

Actually the Magic design team has had times in the past where they were handed finished art work and told to make a card out of it. You can also easily be handed a model, and make a good set of rules for it.

The actual difference in the two companies is that when it comes to MtG they do a lot of work on the design, regardless where it originates from. They also learn from their mistakes, as they did with Homelands, which is a set that was basically designed using the methodology of GW where flavour came before the game, and it's a set that almost killed the game, along with one that you can still find unopened packs of for a dollar a piece. So really it's just a matter of how much effort one company puts into making sure that their game is good, compared to the other, as WotC can be provided with artwork and still figure out a way to make that artwork function within their game.

sometimes I wish there was a "delete" button.