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.

We all assume that they are nerfing the codexes and breaking them. Now this argument can be backed up by examples like the tyranids. But I noticed that while we all assume that GW is corparate monsters maybe they listen when we say that a certain race is OP, based on what I have seen with new codex realeases it appears that all codexes have a fair share of buffs and nerfs. It coud be possible that GW is actually going to make each army harder to play and more fluff consistent (example: Tyranids instinctive behaviour makes more sense now). On the other hand they could just be nerfing all the codexes except for the ones that are expensive to drive up sales. I would love to know what you think.

I think the Tyranid codex is poor because it was rushed to market and the new GW model is to release data slates and supplements to fill out the army. White Dwarf is being discontinued, so the previous avenue to get additional rules out/updated has been removed. Let's look at what I should be buying as a die-hard Chaos player.

Core Rules - $75 / $33 electronic
Chaos Space Marine Codex - $50
Black Legion supplement - $50 / $33 electronic
Chaos Demon Codex - $50
Dataslate: Cypher - $17 (which I have to print out)

Total: $242 for paper / $183 for electronic

The following could be argued to be needed as well:
Death from the Skies supplement - $33
Warhammer 40K: Escalation - $50 / $35 electronic
Warhammer 40K; Apocalypse - $75

Total: $400 for paper / $326 for electronic

While this content currently not required, yet, I does show how the pricing model is now being done. Compare this to 10 years ago when it looked more like this:

Rulebook: $50
Codex: $30
Whitedwarf or 2: $10

$90 in books that had everything. With inflation, it should now cost $105, not $242 and have less options.

I honestly believe they just don't care about power levels of the books, or OP lists, or nerfs or any of that.

They slap together whatever sounds good an them put a price tag on it.

You can't say "it's the new GW model" when this is the first time it's happened.

Also remember that "10 years ago", you had armies(Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar, the Codex: Armageddon lists) which were $10-$15 supplements which required you to own the $30 Codex as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You can't say "it's the new GW model" when this is the first time it's happened.

Also remember that "10 years ago", you had armies(Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar, the Codex: Armageddon lists) which were $10-$15 supplements which required you to own the $30 Codex as well.

True, I just lumped that in with the White Dwarf additions.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I honestly believe they just don't care about power levels of the books, or OP lists, or nerfs or any of that.

They slap together whatever sounds good an them put a price tag on it.

This is probably it, I don't see balance as being a problem at all myself though, unless its competitive games that are your bag, but then you would probably be better off with another game as 40k is not really intended to be a competitive game as far as I am concerned.
I think it adds to the realism too (even for a sci fi game ) Its not like all armies would be balanced anyway if they were real.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You can't say "it's the new GW model" when this is the first time it's happened.

Also remember that "10 years ago", you had armies(Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar, the Codex: Armageddon lists) which were $10-$15 supplements which required you to own the $30 Codex as well.

Weren't the codexes cheaper? I was looking at a WD circa 2002 when 3rd edition Orks were released and the Ork Codex was listed $14.99, and later they added Codex Armageddon (Speed Freeks) for like $9.99 I think. Even in 2nd edition I think the codex was $19.99 (been way too long for me to remember).

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You can't say "it's the new GW model" when this is the first time it's happened.

Also remember that "10 years ago", you had armies(Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Craftworld Eldar, the Codex: Armageddon lists) which were $10-$15 supplements which required you to own the $30 Codex as well.

Weren't the codexes cheaper? I was looking at a WD circa 2002 when 3rd edition Orks were released and the Ork Codex was listed $14.99, and later they added Codex Armageddon (Speed Freeks) for like $9.99 I think. Even in 2nd edition I think the codex was $19.99 (been way too long for me to remember).

I still have all of my books, I paid £12 for the space marine codex, and £4 for the blood angels suppliment.

Even together its less than two thirds of the cost of just the space marine book today ,£35. And half that book is cut and paste from the £12 paperback to begin with.

in considering codex and rules writing either:

GW listen to 'the internetz'- in which case we only have ourselves to blame for the state of the codexes.

Or;
GW just slap the rules together, because 'toys and collectors first' or whatever.

Personally I am more happy with the latter.

Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
in considering codex and rules writing either:

GW listen to 'the internetz'- in which case we only have ourselves to blame for the state of the codexes.

Or;
GW just slap the rules together, because 'toys and collectors first' or whatever.

Personally I am more happy with the latter.

Warmachine released their V2 rules online and took feedback prior to publish. I think that went pretty well from what I remember.

One Nerfed codex does not equal. No other codex has been significantly nerfed. Chaos always sucked, DA are So and So, gained some lost some. Can be good if you are smart. Tau and eldar are big. Space Marines dont have a crap unit in the book

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

That's a canard, IMO. I mistrust at least 95% of the feedback and advice given on public internet forums. Don't you? It's a poor signal-to-noise ratio unless you know who's advice to listen to.

That's why I think a better approach is to use trusted groups that you know will give you clear and valuable data and feedback. They used to do this. And I suspect that they still might, even if they publicly claim that all playtesting is done in-house to help prevent the nasty tendency codices used to have with leaking onto the internet.

Also note that games can be playtested well, but still have problems because the designer disagrees with the playtesters, or has other considerations that the playtesters don't see.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

That's a canard, IMO. I mistrust at least 95% of the feedback and advice given on public internet forums. Don't you? It's a poor signal-to-noise ratio unless you know who's advice to listen to.

That's why I think a better approach is to use trusted groups that you know will give you clear and valuable data and feedback. They used to do this. And I suspect that they still might, even if they publicly claim that all playtesting is done in-house to help prevent the nasty tendency codices used to have with leaking onto the internet.

Also note that games can be playtested well, but still have problems because the designer disagrees with the playtesters, or has other considerations that the playtesters don't see.

Warmachine MK 2. Generally considered to be one of thew best current games rule-wise.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

That's a canard, IMO. I mistrust at least 95% of the feedback and advice given on public internet forums. Don't you? It's a poor signal-to-noise ratio unless you know who's advice to listen to.

That's why I think a better approach is to use trusted groups that you know will give you clear and valuable data and feedback. They used to do this. And I suspect that they still might, even if they publicly claim that all playtesting is done in-house to help prevent the nasty tendency codices used to have with leaking onto the internet.

Also note that games can be playtested well, but still have problems because the designer disagrees with the playtesters, or has other considerations that the playtesters don't see.

Even if 95% if useless, that 5% might have HUGE value which costs the company... nothing. Releasing beta rules only helps the game and it is completely absurd that GW doesn't do that. There are NO other companys that produce Warhammer 40k and thus there is no downside to releasing the rules.

Even if you ignore 100% of what the customers want, AT LEAST those players can drum up enthusiasm for the game.

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

GW games woudl be perfect if it wasn't for those pesky players breaking things all the time!

 jonolikespie wrote:
I honestly believe they just don't care about power levels of the books, or OP lists, or nerfs or any of that.

They slap together whatever sounds good an them put a price tag on it.

^ this. Their design decisions don't make sense in any other context.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I honestly believe they just don't care about power levels of the books, or OP lists, or nerfs or any of that.

They slap together whatever sounds good an them put a price tag on it.

This. GW has no intent with their books. They just don't think about it that much.

The new Tyranid Instinctive Behaviour rules "make sense" from the point of view of how such creatures might behave if they existed in real life, but they are a serious nerf to the tabletop army in game.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

That's a canard, IMO. I mistrust at least 95% of the feedback and advice given on public internet forums. Don't you? It's a poor signal-to-noise ratio unless you know who's advice to listen to.

That's why I think a better approach is to use trusted groups that you know will give you clear and valuable data and feedback. They used to do this. And I suspect that they still might, even if they publicly claim that all playtesting is done in-house to help prevent the nasty tendency codices used to have with leaking onto the internet.

Also note that games can be playtested well, but still have problems because the designer disagrees with the playtesters, or has other considerations that the playtesters don't see.

Warmachine MK 2. Generally considered to be one of thew best current games rule-wise.

This. Have an exalt for that.

I have a friend whom plays Nids, and i have told him i am fine with him using the old codex, and bringing any new units from the new one into the old one. IMO, the nids lost two things that made them strong: Flexibility and Mobility. The F&M as i like to call it, was the massive strength of the Tyranid hoarde, as you never new what you would be facing. Sure, its a Tervigon, but what upgrades does it have? Will it rape infantry or eat armour? You dont know till its to late. And sure, there was some slow stuff. But the fast stuff was FAST. Gribblies could cover the board in a couple of turns.

That sai, i dont think we can quite accuse GW of your theory until the next Codex/Army Book is released.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One Nerfed codex does not equal. No other codex has been significantly nerfed. Chaos always sucked, DA are So and So, gained some lost some. Can be good if you are smart. Tau and eldar are big. Space Marines dont have a crap unit in the book

Just based on the bolded section of your quote, I have to assume you have not been playing very long. It's not that long ago that CSM had a codex that had no fewer than four different builds in it that routinely won large, national sized events.

Saldiven wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One Nerfed codex does not equal. No other codex has been significantly nerfed. Chaos always sucked, DA are So and So, gained some lost some. Can be good if you are smart. Tau and eldar are big. Space Marines dont have a crap unit in the book

Just based on the bolded section of your quote, I have to assume you have not been playing very long. It's not that long ago that CSM had a codex that had no fewer than four different builds in it that routinely won large, national sized events.

Which, knowing GW, is probably why it was nerfed. If you play an army that regularly wins, you won't spend money on buying a new army for the next edition, will you?

 Kirasu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Or they could adopt a PROPER game design model which includes alpha and public beta testing instead of locking themselves in their echo chamber to create an awful set of rules.

That's a canard, IMO. I mistrust at least 95% of the feedback and advice given on public internet forums. Don't you? It's a poor signal-to-noise ratio unless you know who's advice to listen to.

That's why I think a better approach is to use trusted groups that you know will give you clear and valuable data and feedback. They used to do this. And I suspect that they still might, even if they publicly claim that all playtesting is done in-house to help prevent the nasty tendency codices used to have with leaking onto the internet.

Also note that games can be playtested well, but still have problems because the designer disagrees with the playtesters, or has other considerations that the playtesters don't see.

Even if 95% if useless, that 5% might have HUGE value which costs the company... nothing. Releasing beta rules only helps the game and it is completely absurd that GW doesn't do that. There are NO other companys that produce Warhammer 40k and thus there is no downside to releasing the rules.

Even if you ignore 100% of what the customers want, AT LEAST those players can drum up enthusiasm for the game.

In GW's eyes, it almost certainly costs the company some of the splash they want to make with a new codex release. It may also cost them if customer opinions form based on incomplete information.

And just so I'm 100% clear, I'm not arguing against playtesting. I'm arguing that effective public playtesting is more difficult than people assume, and that there's nothing wrong with non-public playtesting. There are plenty of well-balanced games out there that never saw a public beta release.

Everything GW does - heck, everything ALL publicly-held corporations do - makes perfect sense when you look at it from one viewpoint.

How do we generate the biggest profit THIS QUARTER?

Beyond that, they have no interest. It doesn't matter if the policy will destroy the company in two years, or collapse the entire world's economy next year. If it maximizes profit NOW, do it!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
One Nerfed codex does not equal. No other codex has been significantly nerfed. Chaos always sucked, DA are So and So, gained some lost some. Can be good if you are smart. Tau and eldar are big. Space Marines dont have a crap unit in the book

Assault Centurions would like a word with you.

There's no plan. There's nobody at the wheel.

Honestly it's just that the GW writers are t very good rules writers. The codices vary considerably internally and externally, and it's pretty much a crap shoot weather your new book will be OP, good, or crap. Within that it's a crap shoot which units will be useful, OP, or trash. Sometimes the new kits are amazing (riptides) and sometimes not (mandrakes). Sometimes old units end up very good. There really is no rhyme or reason, and I think it all boils down to sub par rules writers who have different design philosophies and who don't play-test enough or with enough people.