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.

On Warseer someone posted that they attended a "design seminar" at 40k Open Day (whatever that is) and supposedly this is how GW designs now:

First of all, the minis are king. The minis are the first element created with zero input from the background or rules guys. The mini is designed, created, painted up and then passed over to the rules and background guys. This will literally be the first time they'll have seen the mini, and then develop the rules and background off of it.

For rules and background they work off the mini (ie the special rule for the Stormsurge came about because the model has the stabilisation struts on it). It was specifically said that they work off the mini rather than develop something to fit a gap in an army from a rules perspective.

I'm not sure I believe that's true, but it sounds like something GW would do. If true, then it really puts into perspective how they think and operate. I remember when model design and rules went hand in hand.

That doesn't excuse them from not designing the units with internal and external balance in mind.

They've said that for years, actually.

There might be an example here or there, but I don't believe for one minute that "Hey, maynard! Looky here wut I dun made! I dunno wut it is, tho!" is how they operate.

When you remember that GW themselves say they are a model company first and foremost you can forgive them for being a bit slapdash with their rules making....Its how I learnt to stop twisting my mind round their crazy ideas.......

 Mr. Burning wrote:
When you remember that GW themselves say they are a model company first and foremost you can forgive them for being a bit slapdash with their rules making....Its how I learnt to stop twisting my mind round their crazy ideas.......

If they weren't so ridiculously expensive, that might hold some water. But if I'm going to pay out the arse for models for a game, then the game itself shouldn't be complete rubbish.

 kronk wrote:
They've said that for years, actually.

There might be an example here or there, but I don't believe for one minute that "Hey, maynard! Looky here wut I dun made! I dunno wut it is, tho!" is how they operate.

"look, look! Its a tau with a shotgun!"

"Hey why dont we send this up to the rule boys just to feth with them?"

Point in case: Centurions

 Accolade wrote:
Point in case: Centurions

No. Point case: Mutilators

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
When you remember that GW themselves say they are a model company first and foremost you can forgive them for being a bit slapdash with their rules making....Its how I learnt to stop twisting my mind round their crazy ideas.......

If they weren't so ridiculously expensive, that might hold some water. But if I'm going to pay out the arse for models for a game, then the game itself shouldn't be complete rubbish.

I agree with you. Haven't brought new GW in years. But I am content with their direction, meaning I can steer a course away from the epicentre of their clusterfethery and pick around the edges.

That right there is a fustercluck of bass ackwards.

Makes perfect sense to me.

They're a model company. They make models.

Despite retaining the name "Games Workshop", their corporate emblem is actually the Citadel.

That anyone would expect them to do otherwise baffles me.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me.

They're a model company. They make models.

They're not, and they don't.

Tamiya is a model company that makes models.

GW is a company that makes gaming minatures for use in a game of toy soldiers, that think of themselves as a model company.

Even ignoring the part about rules, how the feth do you expect to have a studio work without interacting with each other? That is not a creative process, that is an assembly line.

Even if the rules are completely disregarded the fluff writers should have input. Part of the creative process is creating a bunch of variations, asking other opinions, refining the idea, asking for more opinions and then coming out with the final product.

I LOVE using artbooks as inspiration for miniature painting, I borrow my friend's Mass Effect one all the time to get inspiration for my Infinity. It is always great to go through and look at the 20 different variations of outfits, weapons, anatomy, colour schemes and everything else they go through before selecting the final model that will be used in game.

The idea of handing an artist (in this case fluff writer) a finished product (such as a fully sculpted mini) and telling them to art is absurd when they should be able to look at the concept sketches and offer suggestions/insight, then look at the 3D renders and offer their opinions, then finally receive a model they had some input on to then write about.

This contradicts one of the (admittedly smaller) designer talks I attended, and makes me wonder whether one of us had the wrong end of the stick.
Guy I sat in on said that they're given features to include and then have to puzzle out the design around them. Sometimes it becomes a sticking point.

To me that would speak that there's a plan for at least some of the miniatures before they become flesh, so to speak.

Back in the day of VDR - we had the rule of: build the miniature first, THEN worry about the rules and points. We always built really fun cool looking things - then figured out the points, matched it with something simaler to get rules (I made a missile spewing lemun Russ that had a smart missile system on the sponsons, a high str short range rocket in the hull and a longer range medium power but lots of shots main gun. It also had a defense system simaler to smoke - but could be used every turn. (It gave a 5+ cover save, back when instead smoke caused only glances) it was about 300 pts or something all said and done, but was super fun to play with.

I'd imagine Gw would or could follow a simaler path. "We need a bigger suit for the tau!" Ok make a model. Then let's sort out the rules.

Seems legit.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The idea of handing an artist (in this case fluff writer) a finished product (such as a fully sculpted mini) and telling them to art is absurd when they should be able to look at the concept sketches and offer suggestions/insight, then look at the 3D renders and offer their opinions, then finally receive a model they had some input on to then write about.

Exactly. FFS, this is incredibly basic stuff that GW is failing at. The designers, sculptors, rule authors, etc, should all be involved in the process from the beginning. And GW needs to recognize that "army X needs a unit to fill role Y" is a perfectly legitimate starting point for a new product. In fact, since such a unit would likely be a popular purchase, it's just good business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthSpader wrote:
Back in the day of VDR - we had the rule of: build the miniature first, THEN worry about the rules and points.

The difference here is that "build the model then write the rules" is a way of compensating for how broken the VDR system was. If you just let people use whatever VDR stuff they want then it's very easy to build game-breaking cheese that exists for the sole purpose of letting you win games. But GW doesn't have to worry about that. They aren't designing units for their own personal armies and therefore have no incentive to make those units unbalanced.

"Army X needs a unit to fill role Y" is the kind of thing that stops Space Marines from having 4 or 5 different (redundant) troop transport/gunships, we can't possibly have that!



(Seriously a plastic thunderhawk would have been amazing and fit the fluff beautifully instead of forcing stormraven/firehawk/that space wolf one into the fluff.)

"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.

They're not making a game to be played as an abstract competitive exercise. They're making a setting, then giving you a way to re-enact battles in it. From that point of view, of course the modesl must come first; how could it be otherwise?

 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. Some units should be driven by the setting, but if the rules need a certain kind of unit then GW should invent fluff for it to make it work.

They're not making a game to be played as an abstract competitive exercise. They're making a setting, then giving you a way to re-enact battles in it. From that point of view, of course the modesl must come first; how could it be otherwise?

The same way that MTG is a game with a strong theme and setting despite having many cards that were created for rules-related reasons.

AGP, If GW's models were about the setting, then we would've heard about them for years instead of having new releases retconned into the background

Of course. That is certainly the way it is done.

New Eldar Jetbikes all got heavy weapons, including scatterlasers, because the sprues came with one for each. No way the rule writers got out of this.

The decision on whether or not new close combat oriented models get grenades is made on whether or not there is something grenade-like-looking on the model/sprue.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
When you remember that GW themselves say they are a model company first and foremost you can forgive them for being a bit slapdash with their rules making....Its how I learnt to stop twisting my mind round their crazy ideas.......

We can only hope that one day they outsource their rules to a company like FFG, and just stick to making models then

Sad Panda wrote:
New Eldar Jetbikes all got heavy weapons, including scatterlasers, because the sprues came with one for each. No way the rule writers got out of this.

And this is just an unbelievably stupid way of doing things. The model designer, sprue designer, rules author, etc, should all have been communicating before the final sprues were set. The rule author should have said "this is too powerful" and changed the kit contents to only include one upgrade gun per three models, and the sprue designer should have changed the sprue layout and maybe included some decorative bits to fill the extra space. There should never be a situation where someone comes up to a rule author and says "you're locked into these decisions for the new unit, now put them on paper whether you like it or not".

If that were true, then Riptides wouldn't be MC's but walkers.

Sure there might be SOME truth to it. I think they'll sculpt a model before writing rules but that's more of a prototype.
The sprues are made after the fact and what it contains is influenced by the rules to some extent (for example how many specialy weapons are on the sprue).

Have a look at the GW homepage.
In former years, there was a button ''Gaming''
It has been replaced by ''Modeling and Painting''.
Says it all.

 insaniak wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Makes perfect sense to me.

They're a model company. They make models.

They're not, and they don't.

Tamiya is a model company that makes models.

GW is a company that makes gaming minatures for use in a game of toy soldiers, that think of themselves as a model company.

Exactly. To be even more precise (and anal) about it:

GW is a company that makes gaming minatures for use in their own games of toy soldiers - games that have seen a series of changes designed for maximum IP protection - from Faction names (Astra Militarum - you so funny, you, GW) to paint colour names and now are even going to lengths as to take steps to devise their own specific scale.

They just happen to also have delusions of being a model company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look at the GW homepage.
In former years, there was a button ''Gaming''
It has been replaced by ''Modeling and Painting''.
Says it all.

It says that they are trying to con people into buying into their delusion, true enough


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
They're not making a game to be played as an abstract competitive exercise. They're making a setting, then giving you a way to re-enact battles in it. From that point of view, of course the modesl must come first; how could it be otherwise?

The thing is, having a very good setting for a game and making good rules for said game while respecting the setting aren't mutually exclusive.

 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.

I imagine the conversations to be much more along the lines of "Yo dawg, we heard you like space marines..."

 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. Some units should be driven by the setting, but if the rules need a certain kind of unit then GW should invent fluff for it to make it work.

Surely if a unit is needed to fill a role on the tabletop, then a unit is needed to fill that role in the fluff as well?

 Abadabadoobaddon 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.

I imagine the conversations to be much more along the lines of "Yo dawg, we heard you like space marines..."

More likely, "Yo dawg, we heard you like skulls..."

 Furyou Miko wrote:

 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. Some units should be driven by the setting, but if the rules need a certain kind of unit then GW should invent fluff for it to make it work.

Surely if a unit is needed to fill a role on the tabletop, then a unit is needed to fill that role in the fluff as well?

Not necessarily (for armies of the imperium at least) as armies can ally with each other, and indeed after the Horus Heresy the imperial armies were split up with the intention of making them co-dependant and not able to be individually too powerful. Furthermore, the scope of some armies means their missions wouldn't need to deal with certain situations (or in those situations they would get support from other armies).