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.

There was an informal Q&A at the Seattle Open and after reaching out on Twitter I managed to get some info from it that I thought others would find it interesting.
 

There was some discussion about how GW functions on a company level, like the art department being entirely able to do their own thing without influence from the board, and that when they decide to make a thing it will have rules made after the design is finalized

Some questions were asked about upcoming changes or additions to current game systems, but they were very coy about answering those. They they did reinforce that they are listening and looking at the data a lot more than the company did in the past, so feedback is important

I got a great reply when I asked about the ancestor sigils on the Leagues of Votaan Kin, apparently there's going to be AI that are treated as Kin with equal standing as citizens, and that we'll see that on the tabletops as well

They mentioned that their app development team is pretty large (and growing) and that they are actively working on making the tech side of things a lot better, but they want to stay true to the legacy of the games and will strive to stoll have print media and analog tools as well

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

So it's a little bit of power creep, but they're doing their best to stay on top of it and it's not intentional. Sometimes a strategy is discovered that is really great but makes for a bad game experience, so they adjust for that sometimes too

There may be more but it was informal so people weren't exactly recording or taking notes so if I find anymore I'll add to this.

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

like the art department being entirely able to do their own thing without influence from the board

Wow. Um... I always assumed there was a certain amount of company interference with the art team. There are some art pieces that are just really awful, and if its really entirely up to the artists, I'm baffled at their decision making.

I knew the rules came after the model design, but not that the artists supposedly have free reign.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

One of the conversations people have had is if they should just unnerf the books but I'm not sure if anyone has tried the previously nerfed books against the newest stuff or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

like the art department being entirely able to do their own thing without influence from the board

Wow. Um... I always assumed there was a certain amount of company interference with the art team. There are some art pieces that are just really awful, and if its really entirely up to the artists, I'm baffled at their decision making.

I knew the rules came after the model design, but not that the artists supposedly have free reign.

Yup GW loves their top down design. It's got it's advantages because we get a lot of cool stuff, but it means if something doesn't get their interest (such as updating older kits) then it doesn't happen.

There was a WD article years ago where Jervis talked about game design and talked about (as a hypothetical only) giving a unit the ability to fly because they had a winged belt buckle that looked like it might be a magic item. Basically they write lore and rules with the intent of matching the models, not the other way around.

Damn, it's a real shame that they're forced to sequentially release print media to convey new rules and thereby create this situation of unintentional codex creep. Adopting a 21st-century digital distribution model wouldn't stay true to the legacy of the games, after all. Just no way to fix it.

 catbarf wrote:
Damn, it's a real shame that they're forced to sequentially release print media to convey new rules and thereby create this situation of unintentional codex creep. Adopting a 21st-century digital distribution model wouldn't stay true to the legacy of the games, after all. Just no way to fix it.

No lie there. I'd love it if they put a Wahpedia style rules resource on Warhammer+ at mimimum.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly? The concept is simple:

1. Codex A, B, C, D, and E are written, designed, and playtested around eachother, excluding the existing meta based on previous editions books.
2. Codex A releases, then Codex B releases but is perceived as unbalanced relative to Codex A (due to the absence of Codex C, D, and E in the "live meta" which are needed to engender the necessary "meta balancing" concept of balance that GW seems to pursue) so it receives a balance adjustment.
3. Then Codex C releases, but Codex C releases "as is" without account for the changes made to A and B, Codex C is likewise perceived as unbalanced, so Codex A, B, and C again receive a balancing pass.
4. At this point Codex D and E have been playtested and adjusted versus the performance of Codexes F, G, and H without the moderating influence of A, B, and C. Its too late for Codexes D and E to be fully adjusted to account for live-meta balance passes (they may get some adjustments based on early feedback of A/B but thats it), so they release as is and end up overpowered relative to the post-live A, B, and C.
5. Books F, G, and H are farther behind in development so they capture some more of the adjustments made to A/B/C previously as well as the reaction that comes with books D/E, so release in a toned down state relative to the latter two. F releases and is not too much more capable than books A-C but is considered a dud relative to D and E as a result of capturing live-meta adjustments on A-C that D and E were too far along to catch.
6. Around this time they start playtesting G and H with I, J, and K which buffs out G and H - not quite to the levels of D and E because those are understood to be a mistake, but enough to make these books a problem relative to A, B, C, and F which are tame by comparison. They are a bit too deep into dev to be fully balanced against the emerging powerhouses that are books J and K, so G and H release and they have some powerful builds relative to A, B, C, and F - but D and E still remain powerhouses.
7. Book I has more time with books J and K, as well as the recently introduced playtest version of L, so it gets tuned up relative to them and releases in a state that is a bit more capable than the previously released books though not quite as broken as the still-anomalous D and E.
8. J is being finalized alongside books K, and L. Its a solid book when its finalized and fits in well with the all the other books having been released after books D and E.
9. Book K is a bit further behind and starts getting playtested alongside book M - once again without the benefit of the moderating influence of previously released books and many of the more recent post-release balance updates. This results in Book K being dialed up relative to book J which has not yet been released, at the very end of that process book N enters playtesting and results in the paniced perception that Book K is going to be a dud, necessitating last minute patches to the book.
10. Book L, M, and N are being playtested relative to eachother without the moderating influence of what came before...

Now put names to all of this:

A = Necrons - "Baseline"
B = Space Marines - minorly OP relative to Necrons, necessitating a tune-up to 'crons and a slight down-tuning of Marines.
C = Death Guard - minorly OP relative to both Necrons and Space Marines, necessitating another adjustment to Necrons and Marines, as well as a tune-down of Death Guard.
D = Drukhari - massively OP relative to everything that came before
E = Ad Mech - massively OP relative to everything that came before but slightly toned down relative to Drukhari due to more time to capture live-meta adjustments.
F = Adepta Sororitas - tuned down
G = Grey Knights - tuned up but not OP
H = Thousand Sons - tuned up but not OP
I = Orks - tuned up, borderline OP relative to all but D and E when taken in certain builds
J = Genestealer Cults - middle of the road book relative to books F-I, relatively well balanced.
K = Adeptus Custodes - OP lol, made worse by unnecessary day 1 balance pass
L = Tau Empire - more lol
M = Aeldari - even more lol
N = Tyranids - you're kidding right?

The pattern fits. This pretty handily explains codex/power creep. Its equal parts the result of ineptitude and bad process resulting from a hurried release schedule and production lead times.

So in short, GW is balancing Codexes on a shifting foundation.

Seems like they really need to get a solid foundation built and then balance against that foundation rather than new stuff against new stuff.

Well the worse place to be are the mid edition design philosophy change and the first non marine book of a new edtion, where GW is reacting to a meta of a prior edition, which may not even exist anymore. And this is on top of design teams likes or dislikes and knowing and not knowing how a faction should function.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly?

So GSC weren't tested against Custodes, Orks and Grey Knights weren't tested against Thousand Sons, Adepta Sororitas weren't tested against AdMech, Death Guard were not tested against Drukhari and Necrons? Same thing for SM 2.0 and the 8th edition Indexes, 7th edition was perhaps the only edition that wasn't scattershot but straight power creep.

GW doesn't finalize their rules before sending them to be tested by their competitive playtesting group in order to get points where they need to be and GW doesn't have a proper testing methodology for their competitive playtesters to follow. Despite what people claim it is really hard to see whether something is OP or not at a glance, competitive players did not instantly think "Harlequins gonna be too stronk" on seeing their rules, which is why the rules need to be finalized and then competitive players need to run every spammy list to see if anything is broken. Then rules need time to rest before getting a 10-20% bump every year without constantly flipping the rules on their head.

Another thing is laying a foundation as Alextroy mentions, GW should say a Grot is worth 5 points and then work from there changing points such that Gretchin are viable but not constantly spammed and every other Ork unit is viable but not spammed. Then balance the next faction against Orks making the army overall as good as Orks and every unit inside the codex be equally viable overall. Nerf everything more that is spammed more than Gretchin in tournaments and buff everything that is never taken in tournaments. Rules should not be changed to fit a current balance paradigm, rules should convey fluff and make for fun interactive gameplay. Ideally Space Marines Intercessors would be the foundation since they are the poster boys, but since GW insist on having a 5pt floor then it has to go up from the bottom.

 vict0988 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly?

So GSC weren't tested against Custodes, Orks and Grey Knights weren't tested against Thousand Sons, Adepta Sororitas weren't tested against AdMech, Death Guard were not tested against Drukhari and Necrons? Same thing for SM 2.0 and the 8th edition Indexes, 7th edition was perhaps the only edition that wasn't scattershot but straight power creep.

GW doesn't finalize their rules before sending them to be tested by their competitive playtesting group in order to get points where they need to be and GW doesn't have a proper testing methodology for their competitive playtesters to follow. Despite what people claim it is really hard to see whether something is OP or not at a glance, competitive players did not instantly think "Harlequins gonna be too stronk" on seeing their rules, which is why the rules need to be finalized and then competitive players need to run every spammy list to see if anything is broken. Then rules need time to rest before getting a 10-20% bump every year without constantly flipping the rules on their head.

Lol. Maybe the bottom tier competitive players, you know, the ones who get knocked out in the 1st & 2nd rounds, didn't think that. Everyone else though....

Haha, nice dig on Nanavati.

"Really quite impressive" - Auspex Tactics on Voidweavers.

"Roughly well pointed" - Tabletop Tactics on Harlequins.

Where are the people with flawless records on guessing power levels based purely on reading the rules? You need playtesting at the very least and it helps to have some spreadsheets as well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

One of the conversations people have had is if they should just unnerf the books but I'm not sure if anyone has tried the previously nerfed books against the newest stuff or not.

You can find a bunch of battle reports down that alley.

It probably would help some codices, but you still have toxic lists like any variant of indirect fire/plane spam that just needed the axe, plus other codices which have never really have been nerfed like necrons or marines.

I don't think its that hard to tell if something is mathhammmer overpowered at a glance. You just have to bother to work the numbers through. The competitive players put a lot of stock in their skill to somehow get around this (and so rightly prefer "movement tricks") - but they are reduced to crying hard to GW if these tricks just get annihilated by statistics. (See the reaction to Harlequins, Buggies and Ad Mech as compared with say DE, Custodes & Tau).

I mean I think the reaction to Tau Hammerheads are a good example. Initial Internet freakout based on feels. Then a more justified Mathammer freakout. Competitive players then went "lol noobs, they suck". Then much preening as it turns out they are not used so much, because buffed up Crisis/Broadside blobs with massed ignore LOS are just better. Flash forward to ignore LOS being a joke (and a few other pointed nerfs) and suddenly an awful lot of Tau lists seem to be running Longstrike+2 HHs. Because the mathhammer strength was always there.

 alextroy wrote:
So in short, GW is balancing Codexes on a shifting foundation.

Seems like they really need to get a solid foundation built and then balance against that foundation rather than new stuff against new stuff.

Very much this. They're introducing new concepts too often to keep a handle on things.

 vict0988 wrote:
Haha, nice dig on Nanavati.

If he's claiming he didn't realize that, then I simply don't believe him.

I will never forget him saying that he advocated for GK rules to be toned down, because they were too good for 8th ed.

Karol wrote:
I will never forget him saying that he advocated for GK rules to be toned down, because they were too good for 8th ed.

Did he REALLY say that? That would be pretty stupid.

He also said that 8th edition orks were broken because of gretchin and MANz - and then failed to reach a podium even once with orks, not for the lack of trying.

He is a good player and nice guy and all, but I wouldn't put any trust on his analytic skills.

 Jidmah wrote:
He also said that 8th edition orks were broken because of gretchin and MANz - and then failed to reach a podium even once with orks, not for the lack of trying.

He is a good player and nice guy and all, but I wouldn't put any trust on his analytic skills.

yea, he is a great player, but its the same issue with Siegler. They look at the math side of the codex for the best ways to play (admittedly nick got it wrong on 8th orks) but when lookign at a codex its how will it play current mission specifics with a top tier player behind it, not at the level of middle tables and zero consideration for new and lesser skilled players or any form of game other than than what you will see a major tournaments.

Side note wow there are some misconceptions on playtesting... but i can't legally correct them

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
He also said that 8th edition orks were broken because of gretchin and MANz - and then failed to reach a podium even once with orks, not for the lack of trying.

He is a good player and nice guy and all, but I wouldn't put any trust on his analytic skills.

yea, he is a great player, but its the same issue with Siegler. They look at the math side of the codex for the best ways to play (admittedly nick got it wrong on 8th orks) but when lookign at a codex its how will it play current mission specifics with a top tier player behind it, not at the level of middle tables and zero consideration for new and lesser skilled players or any form of game other than than what you will see a major tournaments.

Side note wow there are some misconceptions on playtesting... but i can't legally correct them

If you mean you can't legally due to being involved in GW playtesting, please feed back that someone needs to explain the whole process. It'd solve a lot of misconceptions and teeth gnashing, it might also dispell some negative connotations.

 vict0988 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly?

So GSC weren't tested against Custodes, Orks and Grey Knights weren't tested against Thousand Sons, Adepta Sororitas weren't tested against AdMech, Death Guard were not tested against Drukhari and Necrons? Same thing for SM 2.0 and the 8th edition Indexes, 7th edition was perhaps the only edition that wasn't scattershot but straight power creep.

Did you read anything I wrote? Because your inference is pretty much the opposite of what I directly stated.

GW doesn't finalize their rules before sending them to be tested by their competitive playtesting group in order to get points where they need to be and GW doesn't have a proper testing methodology for their competitive playtesters to follow. Despite what people claim it is really hard to see whether something is OP or not at a glance, competitive players did not instantly think "Harlequins gonna be too stronk" on seeing their rules, which is why the rules need to be finalized and then competitive players need to run every spammy list to see if anything is broken. Then rules need time to rest before getting a 10-20% bump every year without constantly flipping the rules on their head.

GW has multiple playtest groups, I know of two which (in the past - I am not sure to what extent this is changing with the new Tournament circuit system that lets top-end competitive players get involved with playtesting and balance) revolve around "playtesting" codexes - one which receives draft rules and the other which receives basically final/slightly pre-final rules. Members of both of these groups have stated in the past that GW rarely, if ever, actually incorporates their balancing input/feedback into the codecies, and that their role is really more akin to that of an "editor" in that the purpose of their playtesting is to identify strange or uncertain rules interactions and poorly phrased/worded rules, etc. as well as doing a lot of testing against narrowly pre-defined criteria rather than general at-large balancing across the board. The third group that I know of (which might actually be multiple subgroups or even the same two groups from before, not really sure) does do "balance playtesting" - but not with in-dev codexes. Instead they are mainly sent non-finalized draft documents of things like balance dataslates chapter approved points adjustments, etc. but playtest these based on the codexes that exist in the live meta (i.e. when it comes to Chapter Approved, their playesting doesn't incorporate the next 3 months or so worth of codexes that will be released between the time they run playtests and CA releases. This is part of the reason for the shift towards balance dataslates, as it allows for more responsive "real time" adjustments based on the current meta).

Most if not all of GWs actual codex balancing work, in terms of the as-published state of any given codex, is basically done internally usuing their small in-house playtest group and the design studio itself, with minimal consideration to feedback received from external groups who have access to review documents. That internal process is what I was describing in my previous post.

Another thing is laying a foundation as Alextroy mentions, GW should say a Grot is worth 5 points and then work from there changing points such that Gretchin are viable but not constantly spammed and every other Ork unit is viable but not spammed. Then balance the next faction against Orks making the army overall as good as Orks and every unit inside the codex be equally viable overall. Nerf everything more that is spammed more than Gretchin in tournaments and buff everything that is never taken in tournaments. Rules should not be changed to fit a current balance paradigm, rules should convey fluff and make for fun interactive gameplay. Ideally Space Marines Intercessors would be the foundation since they are the poster boys, but since GW insist on having a 5pt floor then it has to go up from the bottom.

If GW did this, nothing would ever get released. GWs business model is built around slinging plastic miniatures. The rulebooks and other published materials exist to support that plastic, and as such their development and release schedules are dictated 100% by the release date of the plastic kit. When it comes time for "pencils down" on balancing, then that means pencils down. It doesn't matter if half the codex is an unplayable underpowered mess and the other half is top-tier OP, that book is releasing when it needs to release in order to help push sales of plastic toy soldiers - GW is *never* (sans a complete restrucuring of its business model and release schedule) going to shift to a process in which they hold plastic kits back from release in order to give the design studio the time it needs to adequately balance a rulebook.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
So in short, GW is balancing Codexes on a shifting foundation.

Seems like they really need to get a solid foundation built and then balance against that foundation rather than new stuff against new stuff.

Very much this. They're introducing new concepts too often to keep a handle on things.

Well its important to keep in mind the concept of "lead time" here. The mid-edition design paradigm change exists because thats the point at which the "next edition" of the game is beginning to take its near-final shape and the designers are attempting to incorporate elements of the next editions design paradigm into the rules in order to try to keep codexes relevant through the next edition of the rules cycle as well as to produce a smoother transition into the next edition of the game. In prior editions of the game this process was less noticeable because there was a longer period between editions and the release schedule oeprated at a slower pace, which meant those "designed with the next edition in mind" type codecies were usually only the last 2-3 books released 4 years into an edition, rather than the last 8-9 books released 2.5-3 years in. The fact that the rules team back when (from ~4th ed to ~6th ed) also tended to be more conservative in their approach probably also made things a bit less noticeable, whereas today the studio seems to be a little bit more agressive and daring in terms of their willingness to upend or rewrite established concepts, which is resulting in more dramatic shifts from edition to edition.

The only way this changes, realistically, IMO is if the rules release model is disconnected from model release model, so that the rules team can produce, playtest, balance, and release an entire editions worth of codecies all at once rather than spacing them out over the lifetime of an edition. Index 8th might have been somewhat bland, but if they could take that approach to rules dev every edition and simultaneously rework every existing faction in one batch like that they would likely get a much better result than drip feeding rules out on a rolling basis over the course of 3 years.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
So in short, GW is balancing Codexes on a shifting foundation.

Seems like they really need to get a solid foundation built and then balance against that foundation rather than new stuff against new stuff.

Very much this. They're introducing new concepts too often to keep a handle on things.

Well its important to keep in mind the concept of "lead time" here. The mid-edition design paradigm change exists because thats the point at which the "next edition" of the game is beginning to take its near-final shape and the designers are attempting to incorporate elements of the next editions design paradigm into the rules in order to try to keep codexes relevant through the next edition of the rules cycle as well as to produce a smoother transition into the next edition of the game. In prior editions of the game this process was less noticeable because there was a longer period between editions and the release schedule oeprated at a slower pace, which meant those "designed with the next edition in mind" type codecies were usually only the last 2-3 books released 4 years into an edition, rather than the last 8-9 books released 2.5-3 years in. The fact that the rules team back when (from ~4th ed to ~6th ed) also tended to be more conservative in their approach probably also made things a bit less noticeable, whereas today the studio seems to be a little bit more agressive and daring in terms of their willingness to upend or rewrite established concepts, which is resulting in more dramatic shifts from edition to edition.

The only way this changes, realistically, IMO is if the rules release model is disconnected from model release model, so that the rules team can produce, playtest, balance, and release an entire editions worth of codecies all at once rather than spacing them out over the lifetime of an edition. Index 8th might have been somewhat bland, but if they could take that approach to rules dev every edition and simultaneously rework every existing faction in one batch like that they would likely get a much better result than drip feeding rules out on a rolling basis over the course of 3 years.

I don't think the evidence supports that. GW like to say things like "the SoB Codex was designed with 9th edition in mind" but I don't think I've ever seen that borne out in practice, in either 40k or WHFB. We also see shifts in direction far too early in the life cycle of an edition for this to make sense. Combine that with general inconsistency in things clearly developed around the same time and it's pretty clear GW's balance problems are not down to lead time and features being brought in for an unreleased new edition. It's because they simply have no foundational principles for their design work. Additionally, if you have that solid foundation you avoid these exact issues even if they are the reason for imbalance, because the design of your Codices is still based around the principles that were set out at the beginning of the edition.

Yea SOB codex had rules that literally did nothing when 9e came out. So much for being 9e in mind...

It's marketing speech to make people think they didn't waste money with the book. "It was designed new edition in mind!"

Yep, its happened in 40k, in WHFB and in AoS. Books coming out just before a new edition not working in said edition.

There is no such thing as "written for the next edition".

Necrons in 5th, 6th was made to make the Necron codex OP.

 Ordana wrote:
Yep, its happened in 40k, in WHFB and in AoS. Books coming out just before a new edition not working in said edition.

There is no such thing as "written for the next edition".

Deepkin were "written with the next edition in mind" but that mostly meant that they changed all the auras to "wholly within".

Really all it seems to mean is that the codex was written around the same time they were writing the next edition's rules.

chaos0xomega wrote:
It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly? The concept is simple...

Simple you say? Well ok...

chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Codex A, B, C, D, and E are written, designed, and playtested around eachother, excluding the existing meta based on previous editions books.
...

10. Book L, M, and N are being playtested relative to eachother without the moderating influence of what came before...

So, in other words...


What you've described isn't a pattern, nor is it a system of balancing Codices as they are written simultenously. What you've described is how GW lurches from one paradigm to another, where they get obsessed with one new rule and give it to everyone, until they find something else to grab onto and give that to every new Codex, and on and on, with no consistency and certainly not levels of parallel design.

Now I can believe that the Marine and Necron books were put together at the same time, but idea that they write all or even a large group of their Codices at once and balance/test them all out against one another simply does not hold up to real-world scrutiny. Even the most forgiving of GW often bring up the endless rules creep, how most new Codices appears vastly superior to the last, note when it's weird that a new Codex isn't the super hotness when it arrives, and laments the state of the game where multiple FAQs and "balance" patches can't fix the nonsense that GW has wrought.

There's no great pattern. There's no great plan. They get given models and told to make 'em fit. Balance and nuanced design cannot thrive in that environment.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

This runs counter to observed results.

It runs pretty well consistent with observed results and is something I have been trying to explain to people for a while now. Are you sure you understood it correctly?

So GSC weren't tested against Custodes, Orks and Grey Knights weren't tested against Thousand Sons, Adepta Sororitas weren't tested against AdMech, Death Guard were not tested against Drukhari and Necrons? Same thing for SM 2.0 and the 8th edition Indexes, 7th edition was perhaps the only edition that wasn't scattershot but straight power creep.

Did you read anything I wrote? Because your inference is pretty much the opposite of what I directly stated.

What I am saying is that your beliefs don't make sense because GSC should have been tested against Custodes which should reveal that one or both of them needed to be changed, same thing for Sororitas against AdMech and so on. It's not like the codexes are internally balanced either, internal balance hasn't been terrible either though.

GW has multiple playtest groups...

All you really need to know is that GW said that dark lances were D6 damage and asked a competitive playtesting group whether the points were okay and then they changed dark lances to D3+3 damage without consulting the same group again to see if they still thought points for dark lances were okay.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Side note wow there are some misconceptions on playtesting... but i can't legally correct them

Saying "I know a something you don't nana nana" is childish and silly... That is something I can legally tell you. If you can't talk about something you keep your mouth shut or refer to a public source that corrects wrongful impressions people might have.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


There's no great pattern. There's no great plan. They get given models and told to make 'em fit. Balance and nuanced design cannot thrive in that environment.

Bruv, thats pretty much exactly what I said.