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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Honestly I don't know why you're so defensive on this. Like why are you so against the idea that GW do what any business in their position would do to drive sales?

E - sp

Because it creates an obnoxious false narrative that people use to argue both sides of the coin constantly.

- Points went up? It's to sell other units.
- Points when down? It's to sell that unit.
- Points didn't change? They didn't sell enough of that unit or they want to sell that range more.
- Points went down for an old unit? It wasn't that it was bad. They MUST have had more stock.
- Points went up for a new unit? It wasn't OP. They're just done selling that unit.

It is literally impossible for GW to do anything without someone making disingenuous comments about the intent of that change.

A myriad of units benefit from the same rules Centurions do. Aggressors just as much they're still used often. Centurions don't get anywhere on their own rules regardless of the current points. So, for GW to specifically target a unit with layered rules that can benefit other units is just so much a pants-on-head stupid strategy that it's actually implausible.

The end result is a bunch of people vomiting out the same crap and no one ever discusses the root issue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Honestly I don't know why you're so defensive on this. Like why are you so against the idea that GW do what any business in their position would do to drive sales?

E - sp

Because it creates an obnoxious false narrative that people use to argue both sides of the coin constantly.

It is literally impossible for GW to do anything without someone making disingenuous comments about the intent of that change.

If an ex-employee is telling us this happened, it isn't really a "false" narrative is it? Also isn't it ironic that you're now one of those people arguing one side of the coin constantly now? I even gave you an out that you refused.

I don't get the issue. Everything GW does is to drive sales. It's a business after all. This should be the first expectation of any change If GW believe that a truly balanced game will drive sales, they will make the game truly balanced. If not, well, they won't.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Honestly I don't know why you're so defensive on this. Like why are you so against the idea that GW do what any business in their position would do to drive sales?

E - sp

Because it creates an obnoxious false narrative that people use to argue both sides of the coin constantly.

It is literally impossible for GW to do anything without someone making disingenuous comments about the intent of that change.

If an ex-employee is telling us this happened, it isn't really a "false" narrative is it? Also isn't it ironic that you're now one of those people arguing one side of the coin constantly now? I even gave you an out that you refused.

I don't get the issue. Everything GW does is to drive sales. It's a business after all. This should be the first expectation of any change If GW believe that a truly balanced game will drive sales, they will make the game truly balanced. If not, well, they won't.

It's funny how two different people read the same thing and get a different outcome from it. It really depends on your world view, doesn't it?

The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs.

This statement is not synonymous with "drive sales with OP models".

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

This statement is ALSO not synonymous with "drive sales with OP models".

As I say, though those days are over

And we just totally ignore this sentence, right?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It's funny how two different people read the same thing and get a different outcome from it. It really depends on your world view, doesn't it?

The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs.

This statement is not synonymous with "drive sales with OP models".

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

This statement is ALSO not synonymous with "drive sales with OP models".

As I say, though those days are over

And we just totally ignore this sentence, right?

Context is a thing.

ex GW employee wrote:So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So as we can see, with the context of the rest of the damn post, quite obviously (like, it's insane how obvious it is) that the decision to keep the WK points as they were was absolutely used to DRIVE SALES. The "fewer models, see" means that GW seniority wanted multiple and many Wraithknights purchased. More than what would be purchased if their points was fair and balanced. I can't believe you are trying to claim otherwise.

And as for this;

As I say, though those days are over

It probably refers more to this;

The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs.

if recent releases are anything to go by. Or perhaps the guy just didn't want a lawsuit falling on his desk the following morning and thought perhaps it was best to cover his tracks......

Exactly, context. Let's look at some more of it.

Wraithknight came out in 2015. Let's look at their share price then versus now:



Let's look at finances :

2015
Revenue - 119M
Profit - 17M
14% GP

2019
Revenue - 256M
Profit - 81M
32% GP

In what universe would it even be necessary for GW to every worry about Centurions?

It probably refers more to this;

See, you're just making more assumptions. He even states a couple posts down:

Eesh, sorry to hear that :( At least things have improved now!

And a little further down:

I should stress that that sort of thing didn't happen very often, but when it did it was incredibly frustrating - especially if people find out you were the one who wrote the rules, because the internet has a belief that each codex is written by one person and one person alone with no outside interference whatsoever, and they take it to mean you're incompetent. I mean, not saying I'm perfect or anything! But that can be frustrating.

Thankfully, that was the old days. Things are very different now!

What now?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

What now?

Perhaps AAE can next tell us how the moon landing was faked?

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Exactly, context. Let's look at some more of it.

Wraithknight came out in 2015. Let's look at their share price then versus now:



Let's look at finances :

2015
Revenue - 119M
Profit - 17M
14% GP

2019
Revenue - 256M
Profit - 81M
32% GP

In what universe would it even be necessary for GW to every worry about Centurions?

It probably refers more to this;

See, you're just making more assumptions. He even states a couple posts down:

Eesh, sorry to hear that :( At least things have improved now!

And a little further down:

I should stress that that sort of thing didn't happen very often, but when it did it was incredibly frustrating - especially if people find out you were the one who wrote the rules, because the internet has a belief that each codex is written by one person and one person alone with no outside interference whatsoever, and they take it to mean you're incompetent. I mean, not saying I'm perfect or anything! But that can be frustrating.

Thankfully, that was the old days. Things are very different now!

What now?

What now? What now is that there's direct proof of it still happening. Do you really want to pretend the Castellan was an accident for as long as it was? That's just being ignorant on purpose.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Honestly I don't know why you're so defensive on this. Like why are you so against the idea that GW do what any business in their position would do to drive sales?

E - sp

Because it creates an obnoxious false narrative that people use to argue both sides of the coin constantly.

- Points went up? It's to sell other units.
- Points when down? It's to sell that unit.
- Points didn't change? They didn't sell enough of that unit or they want to sell that range more.
- Points went down for an old unit? It wasn't that it was bad. They MUST have had more stock.
- Points went up for a new unit? It wasn't OP. They're just done selling that unit.

It is literally impossible for GW to do anything without someone making disingenuous comments about the intent of that change.

A myriad of units benefit from the same rules Centurions do. Aggressors just as much they're still used often. Centurions don't get anywhere on their own rules regardless of the current points. So, for GW to specifically target a unit with layered rules that can benefit other units is just so much a pants-on-head stupid strategy that it's actually implausible.

The end result is a bunch of people vomiting out the same crap and no one ever discusses the root issue.

QFT - well put and part of the problem with an internet wide community of fans. Can't please everyone.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What now? What now is that there's direct proof of it still happening. Do you really want to pretend the Castellan was an accident for as long as it was? That's just being ignorant on purpose.

It was a problem. Did it wreck the game like marines? Did they do nothing or did they make incremental changes? Did the community agree in the problem was points, soup, or both?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Exactly, context. Let's look at some more of it.

What now?

Well considering you argued in bad faith I feel like you've basically done my work for me. You've posted share prices for some reason I can't quite fathom and then ask "In what universe would it even be necessary for GW to every worry about Centurions?" The answer to that question is the universe in which they want to continue to grow. The universe in which they want to continue to be market leaders. I'm not sure in which universe you belong if you think that any business can afford to not consider stock levels and their markets. Again and for the what, third time now, it's not JUST CENTURIONS, GW will do this FOR EVERY PRODUCT in their competitive game portfolios (40k, AOS, Shadespire etc). Do you think Shadespire cards from older "seasons" are removed from competitive play for balance or is it to ensure players have to keep buying more decks?

I've quoted the entire relevant passage that literally states that senior people within GW manipulated demand through the rules of models to ensure players purchased more. Which *shock*, *horror* is exactly what I've been claiming throughout this discussion.

If you're naive enough to disbelieve what the employee said or to believe that GW aren't like that anymore then good for you, I guess. I disagree, but there's no convincing some people and I'll not waste any more time attempting to.

I’m sure the rules writers want to do the best they can, but they work for a company that is ultimately responsible to their shareholders.

That’s life, most things involve compromises. You still see a lot of good stuff to go with the bad -- I think GW knocked it out of the park with Sisters.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Well considering you argued in bad faith I feel like you've basically done my work for me. You've posted share prices for some reason I can't quite fathom and then ask "In what universe would it even be necessary for GW to every worry about Centurions?" The answer to that question is the universe in which they want to continue to grow. The universe in which they want to continue to be market leaders. I'm not sure in which universe you belong if you think that any business can afford to not consider stock levels and their markets. Again and for the what, third time now, it's not JUST CENTURIONS, GW will do this FOR EVERY PRODUCT in their competitive game portfolios (40k, AOS, Shadespire etc). Do you think Shadespire cards from older "seasons" are removed from competitive play for balance or is it to ensure players have to keep buying more decks?

Bad faith? Sure. Whatever. Meanwhile you'll push to goal posts to which ever end of the field benefits you most. Smasha Gun went up? Definitely not because it needed a nerf. Only because of some sales plot. Sure.

And Shadespire? Really? Did you just happen to hear someone say that in passing and took it on their word that it was true?

This is the pack for the 2020 Grand Clash. They have banned and restricted cards just like MtG. The horror.

I've quoted the entire relevant passage that literally states that senior people within GW manipulated demand through the rules of models to ensure players purchased more. Which *shock*, *horror* is exactly what I've been claiming throughout this discussion.

And I quoted the part where he said it didn't happen often back then and it doesn't happen any more. We don't get to pick and choose the parts we like and don't like. That's bad faith.

AAE is flip-flopping between claiming that old interview is proof, and then using his assumptions and feelings to fill in the gaps when not backed up by it. The piece doesn’t prove his stance, and the Shadespire cards thing thrown in is silly - they expressly banned cards that unbalanced the game as it’s intended to be their tight, balanced, quick competitive game. Also, an example from a different game is irrelevant when discussing 40K, and as such should be ignored in this context (even if that particular hot take wasn’t so easily refuted).

Having said all this, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two polar opposite stances, as is usual for internet discussions. There may well be some decisions made to boost sales, sure, but that isn’t the majority reason for changes. If it were, Castellans would have been left untouched to shift more big, expensive kits. Centurions wouldn’t have been buffed and all the Eldar in the DOA Banshees boxset would have been. It’s more probably (oh look, supposition not facts but I’m not presenting as known fact lest anyone leap on me) that they’re doing what they believe is a good job balancing the game, and that unintended consequences arise, peppered with the occasional egregious drop to sell kits. There are probably mistakes being assumed to be deliberate sales-driving buffs. Whatever suits some people’s’ agendas is what they’ll highlight.

There are plenty of examples that don’t support a “new kits get best rules” view, like the Achilles Ridgerunner. And in a “CA just makes more kits sell” world they’d have made that competitive, right? Didn’t ever happen. But we’ve been over those with the same folk in other threads and still we see the same views barked despite actual proof.

We’re very probably just in a “don’t ascribe to malice what is actually due to incompetence” situation with a light seasoning of deliberate meddling. As usual. Somewhere in the middle of the to-and-fro of polar viewpoints. Try some nuance to things! The truth is usually in the grey area!

They are, to my mind, the single most underpointed unit in the game. I refuse to play them in my lists, they're that bad. (For context, I think the typo with blits points costs in the '2.0' CSM codex is the only other time I've refused to play with a unit in 8th for reasons of atrocious balance.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Bad faith? Sure. Whatever.

You quoted a few snippets from an ex employee completely out of context to try and show how they don't absolutely back up my stance. When its obvious the full statement does. This is bad faith mate. The smasha gun going up 2 pts is utterly meaningless. They might as well have done nothing. I can assure you it has a negligible impact on Ork lists.

This is the pack for the 2020 Grand Clash. They have banned and restricted cards just like MtG. The horror.

This statement here shows how little you understand my point. Yes MtG do this exact thing. I know this. Why do you think that is? Could it be to ensure profits and turnover?!

And I quoted the part where he said it didn't happen often back then and it doesn't happen any more. We don't get to pick and choose the parts we like and don't like. That's bad faith.

You literally took it out of context and tried to claim he wasn't stating exactly what I have claimed. Not sure what else you'd call that. As to his knowledge of 'what happens now' - since he no longer works for the company AND has a vested interest in not getting sued I don't think it takes a lot of thought on your part to see why he is so quick to defend GW. But you do you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
AAE is flip-flopping between claiming that old interview is proof, and then using his assumptions and feelings to fill in the gaps when not backed up by it.

And this is what happens when you join a discussion either having not read or not understood the rest of it. I suggest you read the rest of my posts Johnny, my stance doesn't 'flip flop' as it doesn't change. Yes, some critical thinking may be required on the part of the reader to consider if this practice still happens now but there is no denying that the quotation absolutely proves it did happen (on at least one occasion - I'm sure you can use your own intelligence to think of others) as I have said throughout this thread.

In terms of this discussion - no one outside of a few select employees at GW are going to know if this practice still takes place or not. So of course there is no proof one way or another. I have never claimed to have proof (excluding the actual proof of previous practices given prior) but unless I'm mistaken this board is a mechanism for me to express my opinion. I have done so and Dae has chosen to attack it. I'm merely defending my stance. Which is well within my rights. Hopefully that helps clear up why I'm still discussing something I believe to be blindingly obvious.

E - format.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What now? What now is that there's direct proof of it still happening. Do you really want to pretend the Castellan was an accident for as long as it was? That's just being ignorant on purpose.

It was a problem. Did it wreck the game like marines? Did they do nothing or did they make incremental changes? Did the community agree in the problem was points, soup, or both?

You mean the "incremental changes" that basically did nothing for the longest time, with GW not understanding how their own game works which leads to the said issues with the unit?

No that was strictly to keep selling the kits. They might as well have done absolutely nothing so they could be honest about it.