Do they just completely make it up as they go along?

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.

**SemperMortis**

Does GW just make this up as they go along... Yes.

If the CA2022 leaks are correct they just "Buffed" lootas by dropping them 2ppm. For comparison, that means that 150pts of Lootas would now put out 16 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn at 24-48' range and 24 at 1-24' range. That equates to 5.33 hits and 8 hits respectively. That is 1 hit per 28.14pts and 1 hit per 18pts.

An AdMech chickenwalker, which has been nerfed twice this edition would, for 150pts, get 12 shots, and 10 hits. Thats 1 hit per 15pts. If it chooses not to get BS2+ and go for a durability or speed boost instead its 8 hits. So at worst the chickenwalker is hitting as hard as the best the lootas can do, and at best the chickenwalker is smoke checking the Lootas by almost 100%.

So does GW just invent this stuff as they go along? yep. There is no other reason for their ridiculous decision making.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
One thing that needs to happen to all GW games though is complete removal of fluff from the rules section.
Take the current 9th core rulebook. How many people actually read the entire paragraph on how something works instead of the paraphrased bullet points at the bottom. I'm surprised people haven't given them backlash for not being "green" enough by writing like a college student padding their term paper to make the word limit.

Its worse than that. They need to just go digital entirely and occasionally release new fluff books for the factions because right now its something like 1/5th of the codex is actually useful, the rest is just rehashed garbage.

**vict0988**

17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.

**Mariongodspeed**

If youre going to arbitrarily assume the Ironstrider in your example is benefitting from using his 1 round per game Doctrina to increase army-wide BS by 1 and decrease his WS by one, you should run your numbers assuming the Lootas are under the benefit of their 1 use per game army wide Waaaagh! as well.

**Tyran**

Or are Freebooterz for that easy access to +1 to hit.

**vict0988**

Besides, you don't need to be able to draw 1-1 comparisons between armies, theoretical balance is impossible to calculate because characteristics are not always equally important, T5 is only better than T4 against S4, 5, 8 and 9, but it is better. A 10% drop seems sensible for Lootas, 20% should be reserved for the worst units in the game and more than that is too dangerous to meddle with IMO. AdMech aren't dominating anymore and have never really used the autocannon chickens much, the only reason to nerf them is theoretical at this point as far as I know.

I still think Semper is right that GW is making things up as they go and haven't done the underlying math for damage output and survivability, like we know, has been done for the LOTR battle game at one point according to the author of the original rules for that game. Semper's ire at having to include Spanners in his Lootas is totally understandable as well, I'd be annoyed if I had to include a Hexmark Destroyer in all my Lokhust Destroyer units all of a sudden.

**Blackie**

Mariongodspeed wrote:
If youre going to arbitrarily assume the Ironstrider in your example is benefitting from using his 1 round per game Doctrina to increase army-wide BS by 1 and decrease his WS by one, you should run your numbers assuming the Lootas are under the benefit of their 1 use per game army wide Waaaagh! as well.

Lootas don't benefit from army wide Waaaagh, unless you think than being able to assault and charge and +1A for a pure shooting unit is a bonus. When was the last time you saw lootas charging enemy units?

Speedwaaagh buffs shooting units, but only vehicles and bikers benefit from it.

Freebooterz +1 to hit and Bad Moons extended range are basically the only buffs a unit of lootas can get for free, and also stratagems don't really add anything to them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyran wrote:
Or are Freebooterz for that easy access to +1 to hit.

Not that easy if you start including units like lootas

**Backspacehacker**

Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.

Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.

**Ordana**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.

Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.

And yet Pyrovores are still crap and have been crap since the day they were introduced.
Yet strangely this GW that makes rules to push model sales never bothered to try and sell a Pyrovore.

GW is incompetent, much more then it is malicious. And if you believe they act malicious then they are incompetent in that to, because damn were Primaris not the absolute best thing ever when they were introduced in order to sell them to the community... oh wait, they weren't.

**Unit1126PLL**

It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it

**Backspacehacker**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it

Oh 100% yes. I dont think GW is capable of writing good rules anymore if they wanted to. I have said for the longest time, they should just outsource their rules to another company that actually can write rules.

**ERJAK**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.

Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.

Explain ALL of the following then:

Gladiators
Storm Speeders
Servo Turret
Invader ATV
Hammerfall Bunker
Sister's of Battle Castigator
Immolator
Exorcists
Paragon Warsuits (not bad, just not at all pushed)
Anything in Phobos armor
Most of the new Necron stuff.

People say this stuff all the time but there's just as much evidence that GW just straight up has no idea what they're doing a lot of the time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's possible for GW to both be malicious AND incompetent, in that:

they try to make rules to sell models and then they fail at it

Is making a rule to sell a model inherently malicious?

If so, why are we even here?

**Unit1126PLL**

It is malicious if you are claiming you are doing otherwise.

You can't say "we support narrative play and balance matched play!" and then write rules that have balance and lore anchoring as a second fiddle to model sales. That lie is what is malicious.

If they just wrote an article that said "balancing 40k isn't a priority compared to selling models, so don't expect a balanced game" it would be more honest. You could even spin it Tom Kirby style.

**Voss**

Backspacehacker wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

I am just starting to doubt that they have any plan whatsoever regarding their codex design-process and philosophy. I would argue it's all completely reactionary and solely driven by time and budget restraints.

The new Stormsurge weapon previewed on Warcom is a good example of this in my opinion. I do not believe that gun to be too strong or that it will break the game. The damage is impressive, but it's likely very expensive, shorter range and does not ignore invulns.
But my point is that the comparison with that thing and the heaviest weapons Necron get access to for example, is just jarring.

What I don't understand is this: GW was able to grow their IP since 8th and especially since the pandemic in quite an impressive fashion. Yet they are seemingly unable to have a cohesive design philosophy through even one edition cycle.
I am not even talking about balance here, but starting out the edition with mostly D6 damage anti tank weapons, even on heavy platforms, and ending up with something that does flat 12 damage just seems so illogical.

Now again, I'm not arguing that the new Stormsurge gun is too powerful, that's not the point....but necrons having something like a tachyon arrow (which they can only shoot once per battle mind you) that does D6 damage, is ridiculous from a design standpoint.

Because you are assuming that GW is designing their rules under the philosophy of making a game, or balance. They are not, they are designing rules that push models. Case and point tau. The hammer head and Stormsurge were not really popular in 7th and 8th (A bit in 7th with the storm surge but nothing compaired to rip tides.) So everyone bought riptides. Now come the new codex updates, what models end up having bonkers rules? Why, storm surges and rip tides, the things no one really has a bunch of, and suddenly everyone starting buying more models.
GWs codex and rules make perfect sense when you realize they are making them to make money not balance or logical sense.
GWs MO is currently put out new rules, have them be broken for 3 months, FAQ them, then repeat 3 months later.

Do you not remember the primaris on release? The new headliners for the focal faction for the entire game that basically props up the entire company? They were _bad_. Just absolutely rubbish in terms of points value and capability.
After updating, they were still bad.
Another 8th edition codex happened and they were barely fine. The problems turned up in stupid secondary (traits and strats and such) rules writing in specific supplements, not general rules for units.

They're currently OK (some units, anyway), but they don't stand out, and SM armies are generally middle of the road, not bonkers or broken.

New tanks to sell with the 9th edition codex? Awful. Old tanks? Also awful. Speeders were kind of meh.
The ATVs were a little broken with how apothecaries worked, but they were fixed in a way that screamed 'Crap, we didn't notice that worked' rather than 'let's make this broken.' And that's pretty much how the codex worked- anything OP pretty much snuck through on accident, and only seemed broken until the rest of edition's army designs started to unfold.

**ccs**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
It is malicious if you are claiming you are doing otherwise.

You can't say "we support narrative play and balance matched play!" and then write rules that have balance and lore anchoring as a second fiddle to model sales. That lie is what is malicious.

Right. Because it can only be all-in on one or the other, not some percentage of both....

Unit1126PLL wrote:
If they just wrote an article that said "balancing 40k isn't a priority compared to selling models, so don't expect a balanced game" it would be more honest. You could even spin it Tom Kirby style.

Sure, it might be more honest. But they don't need to say such a thing. Just keep making models & rules and leave it to the customers to decide what they will.

**SemperMortis**

vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.

You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.

There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

**vict0988**

SemperMortis wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.

You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.

There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

Chickenwalkers also need Belisarius Cawl and a Dominus to heal 2 vehicles each turn that's 400 pts for 2 Chickenwalkers and 2 vehicle healings each turn OMG Chickenwalkers are bad *bork bork boooork*

**SemperMortis**

vict0988 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
17-2=15. 150/15=10. 10 Lootas get 7 or 10 hits. If you think Spanners are overpriced above 13 PPM say that instead.

You are required to take 1 Spanner for every 4 Lootas. You have to factor their price into this because they are REQUIRED. And 2 Big shootas aren't even stripping a wound off a Marine every 2 turns. I think Lootas would be over priced at 13ppm let alone 15 or 17 where they used to be.

And if you don't want the Ironstrider getting its +1BS than screw it, 12 shots, 8 hits. Still better than lootas except when Lootas are in half range which is when they draw even. Lets give them -1 to hit thanks to a hundred different things. Now those lootas are getting 2.6 and 4 hits (4 at half range) while those chickenwalkers are netting 6.

What about durability? 10 lootas (including the 2 spanners) are 10 wounds at T5 6+ save. 2 chickenwalkers are 12 wounds at T6 3+ save. Oh, and it gets a 6+ invuln.

To keep those lootas alive past turn 1 you need to put them in a trukk which means you are dumping 70pts more into them to make them somewhat survivable and at that point the chickenwalkers can basically afford an entire other chicken.

There is no comparison here, even at 15ppm Lootas suck compared to Chickenwalkers while having basically the same job. I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

Chickenwalkers also need Belisarius Cawl and a Dominus to heal 2 vehicles each turn that's 400 pts for 2 Chickenwalkers and 2 vehicle healings each turn OMG Chickenwalkers are bad *bork bork boooork*

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstood. Lootas are REQUIRED by the rulebook to take 1 spanner for every 4 lootas. The spanner is part of the lootas unit. You have no option not to take them. I understand the confusion, you wouldn't assume it would be a requirement since it makes no sense and is patently stupid. But sadly, thats how GW writes Ork rules.

**Voss**

Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.

**SemperMortis**

Voss wrote:
Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.

except that isn't really true. Boyz mobz aren't required to take 1 Nob per 10 Boyz, nor are we required to take 1 Runtherd per 10 grots. This was artificially done for whatever reason.

**GhostKnight31**

The death guard points changes feels like GW just hate DG in general

**Aenar**

Nothing in this update even comes close to the -1 point on the Riptide last year.
One point and basically no other changes to Tau, when the faction was already bottom of the trash tier.

**Dysartes**

True, that really should've been a +1 instead.

**Toofast**

Ordana wrote:
And even if they had all that, Warhammers single greatest feature is its market penetration. a game like 40k, Bolt Action, Warmachine or X-wing lives or dies by your ability to find someone else to play it with.

Even if a better games comes along and 40k feels bad the fact that you can find a club or store to play with complete strangers in probably every major town in the US or Europe is what will make 40k the more attractive choice.

This. I would much rather play Adeptus Titanicus, Necromunda, BFG, or any number of games from other companies. However I have moved states several times and everywhere I go, 40k is the only thing consistently being played. Consequently I mostly build/paint 40k armies

**Voss**

SemperMortis wrote:
Voss wrote:
Well, that's how the kit is designed, and it wasn't a problem for many editions. But now kit contents dictate unit organization and options.

(Except for factions that get a pass on that... however temporarily)

I can't wait for chaos/imperial guard to get their codex and we can compare those auto-cannon units.

I fear for havocs (even though that unit makes no sense to me now anyway), but given the way guard kits are laid out, I don't think it will be a problem for them.

except that isn't really true. Boyz mobz aren't required to take 1 Nob per 10 Boyz, nor are we required to take 1 Runtherd per 10 grots. This was artificially done for whatever reason.

Things can still be a pattern without applying to every single kit.

Besides, when this happens, its mostly about weapons in the box. Boys are now two kits, so defaulting just to the layout of one doesn't work as well. Its why I'm not particularly concerned about basic chaos marines, because while the autocannon isn't an option in the box, it is an option in the start collecting CSM squad.

**FabricatorGeneralMike**

Sim-Life wrote:
Jayden63 wrote:
As the old saying goes... Follow the money. GW makes its money by selling plastic crack, not paperback. The new models defiantly get the better rules.

Given the amount of books they've been throwing out I'm not sure thats true anymore. Also the "GW makes new models good" is demonstrably false, I don't know how people can still think that? Even just recently the two big releases from the Sisters second wave (Castigator tank and Paragon war suits) are both rubbish.

No, GW still makes most of its money on model sales. The profit margin on plastic models is insane. Most GW games come down to the same thing rock, scissor, paper.

I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.

**auticus**

I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.

Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.

**jeff white**

auticus wrote:
I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.

Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.

This ^^

Back in the day, we would talk about how to interpret the poorly written rules in a way that furthered everyone’s interests, houseruling mostly for fairness, with the idea being not winning at the expense of others but all winning with friendly interpretations. Blast templates and so on worked fine in such an atmosphere… One exception was a guy who ended up in law school and he would, well, interpret to his advantage. When that happened, I found other things to do with other people.

**Backspacehacker**

auticus wrote:
I don't think most people realize how many people just buy the models to paint or collect and not really play the games.

Or play the game as an excuse to hang out with their friends and not care about balance or the end state of the game, just as long as they are socializing that is the end goal.

This reminds me of a particular web comic that is so often frowned upon but the core idea behind it is true.

When the game turns into just "an excuse to socialize" and rules and the health of the game gets thrown to the wayside, you can't really blame the people who got into the hobby for the game being upset that people are just taking over the hobby to socialize and screw up the game they originally fell in love with.

**Tokhuah**

The low hanging fruit would be periodic updates based on the meta. But GW cannot even do that without creating another money grab with Chapter Approved. But the financial part is just the ugly, not the bad. The bad is, choosing to tie rule fixes to a production schedule, including physical copies to distribute, means that every Chapter Approved is dated at release. Failing on this simple thing shows me there is no hope... so stop hoping. But why not buy the cool models for other games? The problem with GW is their rules and accessories, that you do not even need to buy to enjoy the models.

**Backspacehacker**

I mean you want the answer to this problem?