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.

 Talys wrote:

david choe wrote:
I just wanted to add that creating 40k perfectly balance is not rocket science. It is a paper and pencil that anybody can do, but will take time....2 years time of 20 people like us gamers can do it. I mange if we have 2 or 3 professional designer in ther too? This is not rocket science...it is not a holy Grail quest....GW had 30 years with millions in it....they still can't do it is because they choose not to.

They choose not to because of incompetence or because new edition makes money?

Ther are only two reasons why we have so many editions.
1 GW is incompetence
2GW choose to do this to make new edition for more money

Look at how many editions there are for Dungeons and Dragons. People like new stuff, so I think even if units were all really well balanced, people would still buy the new editions.

Also, there is game escalation. Since you've been around for a while, you must remember that when 40k first started, the number of models on a table were fewer, and the number of non-infantry models were very few. In Rogue Trader, there weren't even official lists, per se -- people had to make them up themselves. In time, there were bigger and bigger models -- in 1990 we would not have imagined Thunderhawks, Flyrants, Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, and so on, on the same table as space marines and aspect warriors.

This isn't just 40k -- WMH just announced a bunch of Garguantuan models like large flyers. One way of getting people to open up their wallets is definitely, "bigger and better!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The manipulation in power levels of unit types could be considered a deliberate ploy (such as the swing in the power of MC from 5th-6th) but then how do you account for things like the Psychic Phase is barely playable RAW (because, RAW IC Psykers attached to a non psychic unit cease to be psykers) or how the Tzeentch Burning Chariot did not function as all but the most ardent contrarian would consider it was meant to?

There's manipulation of the rules to manipulate the players, and then there's writing rules that simply don't work properly, or have multiple, equally valid interpretations. That's not evil, it's just stupid.

Yes, I certainly won't disagree with that There is unit manipulation, internal balance issues, and escalation to manipulate people to buy more models, and in a separate category, rules that are weird or apparently stupid.

For sure you are correct. Model manipulation for greater sales is based on two main things, change basic rules or change the models rules. This goes back to my point of creating a "flaw" or i perfer to call it fluid system...so they can change here or there for the edition and bang...I need to buy three more rhinos and 20 more space marines for the new edition.

This is funny...but to proof my point...has there ever been an edition where you don't need to buy anything new... You have enough...to stay balance with the system, not power game. None.

My first 40k was in high school in the 80s ....10 orks was my army. Then in2000s was massive models count and vehicles. Then2015, Flyers and anti flyers.

david choe wrote:
I need to buy three more rhinos and 20 more space marines for the new edition.

Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that. If they were planning to buy three more Rhinos under the previous edition they still buy them. If they were planning to spend the equivalent amount of money on other units then they just change their purchases to Rhinos and GW has no net gain. If they weren't planning to spend anything under the old edition then they probably aren't going to make any major purchases when the new edition arrives. They'll just keep playing their current armies and upgrade at the rate allowed by their current budget, and if they can't keep up with the new edition they'll either stop playing or only play with people who share their opinion and don't use the new stuff.

If you want some examples just look at how many people resisted adding flyers in 6th or LoW in 7th. They didn't immediately run out and buy a new Stormraven or Baneblade, they just said "this is stupid" and imposed a "no flyers/LoW/etc" house rule.

My first 40k was in high school in the 80s ....10 orks was my army. Then in2000s was massive models count and vehicles. Then2015, Flyers and anti flyers.

And now you're confusing two very different things: expanding the game to include new stuff as new models are created, and deliberately writing bad rules so that people have to buy the next edition that "fixes" them. Adding flyers to the game is a legitimate thing to do and nobody would have had any problems with it if there hadn't been so many balance issues and the rules hadn't been so poorly designed. We'd all be happily using our Stormravens and Valkyries and talking about how awesome the game is now. But what you're talking about is something completely different.

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
I need to buy three more rhinos and 20 more space marines for the new edition.

Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that. If they were planning to buy three more Rhinos under the previous edition they still buy them. If they were planning to spend the equivalent amount of money on other units then they just change their purchases to Rhinos and GW has no net gain. If they weren't planning to spend anything under the old edition then they probably aren't going to make any major purchases when the new edition arrives. They'll just keep playing their current armies and upgrade at the rate allowed by their current budget, and if they can't keep up with the new edition they'll either stop playing or only play with people who share their opinion and don't use the new stuff.

If you want some examples just look at how many people resisted adding flyers in 6th or LoW in 7th. They didn't immediately run out and buy a new Stormraven or Baneblade, they just said "this is stupid" and imposed a "no flyers/LoW/etc" house rule.

Maybe in your gaming group. Almost everyone who played SM bought a Stormraven within the first year of release, and the occasional player has a baneblade. I haven't seen a local gaming group that says no flyers or no LoW, except at newbie tables.

 Peregrine wrote:

My first 40k was in high school in the 80s ....10 orks was my army. Then in2000s was massive models count and vehicles. Then2015, Flyers and anti flyers.

And now you're confusing two very different things: expanding the game to include new stuff as new models are created, and deliberately writing bad rules so that people have to buy the next edition that "fixes" them. Adding flyers to the game is a legitimate thing to do and nobody would have had any problems with it if there hadn't been so many balance issues and the rules hadn't been so poorly designed. We'd all be happily using our Stormravens and Valkyries and talking about how awesome the game is now. But what you're talking about is something completely different.

I dunno. If guys in your group aren't having fun with the new units, and they were having fun before, then they should stop using the new units that are negative enjoyment. If they've never had fun playing the game, and for thirty years it's been awful, why not do something else?

In any case, I don't think GW writes bad rules to fix them in the next edition, though I do think they manipulate rules to encourage or discourage certain models. I'm not saying there aren't bad rules, just that GW doesn't go out of its way to make rules bad. I also reiterate that I don't think any rule or rule subset is so horrible and unfixable as to make the game just no fun anymore.

We leave that honor to ***hole players!

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
I need to buy three more rhinos and 20 more space marines for the new edition.

Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that. If they were planning to buy three more Rhinos under the previous edition they still buy them. If they were planning to spend the equivalent amount of money on other units then they just change their purchases to Rhinos and GW has no net gain. If they weren't planning to spend anything under the old edition then they probably aren't going to make any major purchases when the new edition arrives. They'll just keep playing their current armies and upgrade at the rate allowed by their current budget, and if they can't keep up with the new edition they'll either stop playing or only play with people who share their opinion and don't use the new stuff.

If you want some examples just look at how many people resisted adding flyers in 6th or LoW in 7th. They didn't immediately run out and buy a new Stormraven or Baneblade, they just said "this is stupid" and imposed a "no flyers/LoW/etc" house rule.

My first 40k was in high school in the 80s ....10 orks was my army. Then in2000s was massive models count and vehicles. Then2015, Flyers and anti flyers.

And now you're confusing two very different things: expanding the game to include new stuff as new models are created, and deliberately writing bad rules so that people have to buy the next edition that "fixes" them. Adding flyers to the game is a legitimate thing to do and nobody would have had any problems with it if there hadn't been so many balance issues and the rules hadn't been so poorly designed. We'd all be happily using our Stormravens and Valkyries and talking about how awesome the game is now. But what you're talking about is something completely different.

That is not true....if GW never manipulate the model count....my army of orks would be about 20 and maybe 3 trucks...fron 30 years back. Look at army size from edition to edition in 1500 pt. and you know it is larger and some models are deleted or so crappy game rules that you need new ones.example of this shooting Ed...now what do you do with all they cc troops...you shelf them and buy shorty. Next edition.... For sure..cc will be back and people will have to buy cc and shelf their shoots. It's been like this for Many edition.

GW create this system to add or delete unit to enforce or encourage modifying your army at the cost of about 30% of your old army.

david choe wrote:
That is not true....if GW never manipulate the model count....my army of orks would be about 20 and maybe 3 trucks...fron 30 years back. Look at army size from edition to edition in 1500 pt. and you know it is larger and some models are deleted or so crappy game rules that you need new ones.

Sigh. Once again, there's a difference between expanding the game and deliberately making bad rules. Increasing the model count to what it is today isn't deliberate sabotage, it's just a choice to make 40k a big game (and one of the few unique things it has to offer).

example of this shooting Ed...now what do you do with all they cc troops...you shelf them and buy shorty. Next edition.... For sure..cc will be back and people will have to buy cc and shelf their shoots. It's been like this for Many edition.

Except that:

1) 40k has been about shooting since 5th edition, so what you're saying isn't true.

2) This doesn't help GW very much. Sure, some people will replace their entire army when the new edition makes shooting useless but many more people will either ragequit and stop buying GW products entirely or keep playing 7th edition with their friends. And then on top of that GW loses sales every time a new potential customer expresses interest in 40k and someone tells them that the rules suck, melee armies can't win, and by the way here's a much better game you could play instead.

GW create this system to add or delete unit to enforce or encourage modifying your army at the cost of about 30% of your old army.

And this only works for the small minority of competitive players who are willing to spend huge amounts of money every time GW publishes new rules. Most people don't immediately spend 30% of the cost of their army like that, unless they were already in the process of expanding it and had 30% available in their budget. They just keep playing with the stuff they already have, and if they lose too much they stop playing.

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
That is not true....if GW never manipulate the model count....my army of orks would be about 20 and maybe 3 trucks...fron 30 years back. Look at army size from edition to edition in 1500 pt. and you know it is larger and some models are deleted or so crappy game rules that you need new ones.

Sigh. Once again, there's a difference between expanding the game and deliberately making bad rules. Increasing the model count to what it is today isn't deliberate sabotage, it's just a choice to make 40k a big game (and one of the few unique things it has to offer).

example of this shooting Ed...now what do you do with all they cc troops...you shelf them and buy shorty. Next edition.... For sure..cc will be back and people will have to buy cc and shelf their shoots. It's been like this for Many edition.

Except that:

1) 40k has been about shooting since 5th edition, so what you're saying isn't true.

2) This doesn't help GW very much. Sure, some people will replace their entire army when the new edition makes shooting useless but many more people will either ragequit and stop buying GW products entirely or keep playing 7th edition with their friends. And then on top of that GW loses sales every time a new potential customer expresses interest in 40k and someone tells them that the rules suck, melee armies can't win, and by the way here's a much better game you could play instead.

GW create this system to add or delete unit to enforce or encourage modifying your army at the cost of about 30% of your old army.

And this only works for the small minority of competitive players who are willing to spend huge amounts of money every time GW publishes new rules. Most people don't immediately spend 30% of the cost of their army like that, unless they were already in the process of expanding it and had 30% available in their budget. They just keep playing with the stuff they already have, and if they lose too much they stop playing.

Sigh...you are providing proof for my argument... So I spent my army in 3rd and 4th chaos cc army then 5th came and I had to change from cc and pistol to Bolter. Rhino rush came out and people were buying transport...then nurf that...no more rhino crazy buy.

Somehow my theory of GW intentionally create fluid gaming system for them to delete or buff or nurf and manipulate the sales of their products seems to fit the pattern for the past 30 years.

You seems to not get this discussion.

You seems to be saying that GW is trying to make perfect game but fail.

I am saying they are trying to keep the system the way it is (with flawed).. Because it is easy for them to manipulate sales.

Their goal is to make fluid gaming system so they can manipulate sales wich create flawed games.
You are trying to give reason or explanation of how to fix or their method is flawed.

Actually, I don't even know what your point is...

Seems like you are saying that GW is an incompetence game designers, but is one of the most sucessful table top gaming company.

I'am saying that GW is intentionally being "incompetence" because it create more sales which is why they are one of the most successful table top gaming company.this is the practice mode that has made them bigger and richer than any other gaming company.

david choe wrote:
Somehow my theory of GW intentionally create fluid gaming system for them to delete or buff or nurf and manipulate the sales of their products seems to fix the pattern for the past 30 years.

Except it doesn't, for two reasons:

1) It completely ignores the fact that GW often publishes bad rules for new models. If the rules are designed to manipulate model sales then why would GW do things like giving the DA flyer awful rules and making the best units in the codex the bikes that everyone already owns? Why was 7th edition more of the same shooting dominance that defined 6th edition instead of a swing in favor of melee armies? You're focusing on the few examples that suit your argument and ignoring the places where GW's actions don't line up with your theory.

2) It doesn't explain why GW keeps breaking the game in ways that don't help model sales. Most of the rule issues in YMDC are cases of GW being unwilling or unable to write rules that function properly, not one unit/upgrade being too weak or too powerful. The only effect those issues have is to harm GW's sales because people get frustrated with the lack of clarity and move on to a different game.

The much more likely explanation is that GW is bad at writing rules, and the reason why new editions change is that it's the inevitable result of bad rule authors publishing whatever they happen to think is a good idea without testing it. Some of it is overpowered, some is underpowered, and some of it just doesn't function. And there's no real pattern to it because there's no plan, it's just the random outcome of incompetent authors.

I'am saying that GW is intentionally being "incompetence" because it create more sales which is why they are one of the most successful table top gaming company.this is the practice mode that has made them bigger and richer than any other gaming company.

And this is just wrong. GW is the biggest for three reasons:

1) They were one of the first tabletop wargaming companies to get into the scifi/fantasy genre (and the UK retail source for D&D, non-GW miniatures, etc), giving them a big advantage over all of the newer companies that are trying to catch up to GW. Even if you have a better product than GW and would win a "fair" head to head comparison the fact that GW already has the store chain, the customers who are invested in GW and reluctant to start a new game, etc, means you've got an uphill climb in front of you.

2) Their IP is very strong. Even when the rules suck people love the fluff and models, and they're willing to put up with bad rules to play with their space marines. And those people would still keep loving the fluff and models even if GW never published new rules.

3) GW has been able to use their advantages as an established business to drive their competition out of the market. For example, GW has an ugly history of opening their own retail stores near established independent stores, and then mysteriously the independent store starts having problems getting the new releases in on schedule. The independent store loses customers and eventually goes out of business, removing the source of non-GW games from the area and making everyone default to buying from the local GW. This model hasn't worked as well outside of the UK, where GW stores are much rarer, but it has certainly helped GW gain and maintain market share.

And yet despite these advantages we see, in GW's own mandatory financial reports, that GW is in serious trouble. Profit is down, sales volume is down, market share is down, and GW shows no signs of being able to stop the decline (or even understanding that there is a problem). Meanwhile GW's competition is thriving, so we can't blame this on a bad economy. The simple fact is that GW's business model is not working, and they're only still alive because they started with such a dominant position.

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
Somehow my theory of GW intentionally create fluid gaming system for them to delete or buff or nurf and manipulate the sales of their products seems to fix the pattern for the past 30 years.

Except it doesn't, for two reasons:

1) It completely ignores the fact that GW often publishes bad rules for new models. If the rules are designed to manipulate model sales then why would GW do things like giving the DA flyer awful rules and making the best units in the codex the bikes that everyone already owns? Why was 7th edition more of the same shooting dominance that defined 6th edition instead of a swing in favor of melee armies? You're focusing on the few examples that suit your argument and ignoring the places where GW's actions don't line up with your theory.

2) It doesn't explain why GW keeps breaking the game in ways that don't help model sales. Most of the rule issues in YMDC are cases of GW being unwilling or unable to write rules that function properly, not one unit/upgrade being too weak or too powerful. The only effect those issues have is to harm GW's sales because people get frustrated with the lack of clarity and move on to a different game.

The much more likely explanation is that GW is bad at writing rules, and the reason why new editions change is that it's the inevitable result of bad rule authors publishing whatever they happen to think is a good idea without testing it. Some of it is overpowered, some is underpowered, and some of it just doesn't function. And there's no real pattern to it because there's no plan, it's just the random outcome of incompetent authors.

I'am saying that GW is intentionally being "incompetence" because it create more sales which is why they are one of the most successful table top gaming company.this is the practice mode that has made them bigger and richer than any other gaming company.

And this is just wrong. GW is the biggest for three reasons:

1) They were one of the first tabletop wargaming companies to get into the scifi/fantasy genre (and the UK retail source for D&D, non-GW miniatures, etc), giving them a big advantage over all of the newer companies that are trying to catch up to GW. Even if you have a better product than GW and would win a "fair" head to head comparison the fact that GW already has the store chain, the customers who are invested in GW and reluctant to start a new game, etc, means you've got an uphill climb in front of you.

2) Their IP is very strong. Even when the rules suck people love the fluff and models, and they're willing to put up with bad rules to play with their space marines. And those people would still keep loving the fluff and models even if GW never published new rules.

3) GW has been able to use their advantages as an established business to drive their competition out of the market. For example, GW has an ugly history of opening their own retail stores near established independent stores, and then mysteriously the independent store starts having problems getting the new releases in on schedule. The independent store loses customers and eventually goes out of business, removing the source of non-GW games from the area and making everyone default to buying from the local GW. This model hasn't worked as well outside of the UK, where GW stores are much rarer, but it has certainly helped GW gain and maintain market share.

And yet despite these advantages we see, in GW's own mandatory financial reports, that GW is in serious trouble. Profit is down, sales volume is down, market share is down, and GW shows no signs of being able to stop the decline (or even understanding that there is a problem). Meanwhile GW's competition is thriving, so we can't blame this on a bad economy. The simple fact is that GW's business model is not working, and they're only still alive because they started with such a dominant position.

I kind of stop reading your disagreement rant when you have no position of your own. Everybody who read my posts knows where my position is.....


You don't have a position. Just arguing with everybody.

Oh, I disagree.

david choe wrote:
I kind of stop reading your disagreement rant when you have no position of your own.

Then clearly you haven't been reading anything I've posted, because I have said many times what my position is: GW's management and rule authors are incompetent in their own ways, the problems with the rules are the almost-inevitable result of this incompetence and not some bizarre plan to sabotage their own product, and we'd all be better off if GW fired everyone involved and started caring about the quality of their rules.

He does have one.

Even if it didn't, it would have no effect on the validity of his arguments.

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
I kind of stop reading your disagreement rant when you have no position of your own.

Then clearly you haven't been reading anything I've posted, because I have said many times what my position is: GW's management and rule authors are incompetent in their own ways, the problems with the rules are the almost-inevitable result of this incompetence and not some bizarre plan to sabotage their own product, and we'd all be better off if GW fired everyone involved and started caring about the quality of their rules.

Finally, I got you to write your point. I've ask it for like 3 post and all I gor was your disagreement with me.

I agree with most of what you stated ( once I know where you stand, I read your point)....we both are speculating our position. Unless the CEOS comes right out that we are screwing with you so we can sell more or we are incompetence, it is all speculation. Of course, GW stances is we are trying our best to give you the best.

I will try to explain your rebuttals,
I should have said GW intention is to make "flawed" to sell more.... But they are also incompetence at making flawed system to their benefit.


1 yes, sometime they make stupid rules that hurt the sale of that model as you pointed out. This is now my reverse of your argument...they are incompetence...they can't even make the model they should have buff it... But failed. Yes GW even act incompetence in trying to screw the customer.

2 every new edition, all 40k players who continue with this hobby spent more. Those who drop out, well they were not going to buy anything new if the edition didn't change...so they do not effect the company sale.

3 I go back to this ... They are so good at making money because it is intentional...it is not by chance that their rules are stupid or they are incompetence at making good rules. Everything is thought with profit in mind. If a good system they though off but expected sales from models and everything els is 10m and a flawed system with stupid buff for this or delete that so player must buy new unit = 12m, they go with the flawed.

For sure GW has protocol guideline in game design, such as this new edition... Current Space marines player need to spend x amount to update their army and we build the rules around this x amount. Do not make the x too high or some will drop space marines. This is their hard ass protocol and this protocol will make the game flawed.

We all know that GW can fix the rules or have free update rules... But it screw their bottom line. Most important of all, if you can fix it and most of us have theory on how to fix it...why don't GW? Because it pays to not be perfect.

If GW were really on their game, you would see 40k in a situation like Warmachine, which has only had two major rules editions with everything else being essentially supplemental material in the time 40k has had, what....4 editions? And both those editions are generally considered to be tight and balanced.

I would love to have the universe of 40k with the rules development of Warmachine/Hordes. That would definitely be something worth paying GW prices for. Except of course if it was more like PP the rules and codex books would be cheaper than GW.

Peregrine wrote:Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, some people will replace their entire army when the new edition makes shooting useless but many more people will either ragequit and stop buying GW products entirely or keep playing 7th edition with their friends.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to try and define what "most" or "many more" people do other than outside of anecdotal evidence of individual groups. I'm always surprised when I hear about people buying stuff to keep up with the game. There seemed to be plenty of people buying 3x Crones/Harpies and multiple Flyrants because of the Skyblight formation and overall efficiency of a Flyrant.

That said, I reckon GW's poor rules writing mostly comes down to not giving a damn, not playtesting enough and either not having decent editors or not listening to them. I don't really think it's incompetence simply because there's so many things wrong that only require a tiny amount of competence to realise are wrong and fix. I reckon they don't give a damn because they think good rules wouldn't make them any more sales.

david choe wrote:
Finally, I got you to write your point. I've ask it for like 3 post and all I gor was your disagreement with me.

I've already said all of that here, so if you didn't see my position then you just weren't looking very hard.

Unless the CEOS comes right out that we are screwing with you so we can sell more or we are incompetence, it is all speculation.

Of course there's a degree of speculation, but that doesn't prevent us from having pretty good confidence in an answer. You just have to ask what it would look like if GW was doing X, and then compare the hypothetical situation to the real one. If we suggest that GW is deliberately sabotaging their own product to generate sales then we should expect to see consistency in new stuff being overpowered, major changes that require buying new models every time a codex is updated, etc. And when there are bad rules we should expect them to be limited to situations where a profit motive exists, not randomly scattered all over the rulebook in areas that don't really influence model sales. But what we see is exactly the opposite: there's no consistent trend of new releases being overpowered, and the bad rules aren't focused to things that could influence sales.

Now let's look at my hypothetical explanation: that the rule problems are purely the result of incompetence, not deliberate sabotage. If that is true we would expect the problems to be fairly random. Some would help sales, some would hurt sales (or at least fail to increase sales). Some would involve new releases, some would be random interactions in obscure corners of the rulebook that don't have model sales attached. And that's exactly what we see in the rules: random problems that have no real correlation with sales goals. So it's fairly likely that my explanation is an accurate one.

1 yes, sometime they make stupid rules that hurt the sale of that model as you pointed out. This is now my reverse of your argument...they are incompetence...they can't even make the model they should have buff it... But failed. Yes GW even act incompetence in trying to screw the customer.

Except this isn't plausible. Even a really stupid rule author can make something overpowered if they're deliberately trying to make it overpowered. So if it's a deliberate attempt to make things overpowered we should expect nearly every new release to be overpowered. But instead what we see is a trend that looks like the author thinks "this would be really cool" and doesn't playtest sufficiently to balance the new thing. And so some of the new releases are overpowered, while some are underpowered.

2 every new edition, all 40k players who continue with this hobby spent more. Those who drop out, well they were not going to buy anything new if the edition didn't change...so they do not effect the company sale.

And this is simply wrong. Many players who quit because they are frustrated with the state of the game would have continued to buy stuff if the rules hadn't changed. For example, I was planning to expand my abandoned Tau army significantly when the new codex arrived, but since I hated the new codex so much I canceled those plans. GW's bad rules directly resulted in lost sales.

Because it pays to not be perfect.

So why doesn't it work that way for other companies? Why are other companies making much better games without the kind of flaws that GW has, and having a lot of success with those games? Why is GW in a major financial crisis with their current strategy while the rest of the industry is growing? If it pays to publish broken rules then we should see the exact opposite. GW's competition should be going out of business because their attempt at perfection isn't profitable, while GW should be making tons of money. But instead it seems like the only thing keeping GW in business is the fact that it takes a while for their self-inflicted damage to kill a company with such a dominant starting position.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, some people will replace their entire army when the new edition makes shooting useless but many more people will either ragequit and stop buying GW products entirely or keep playing 7th edition with their friends.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to try and define what "most" or "many more" people do other than outside of anecdotal evidence of individual groups. I'm always surprised when I hear about people buying stuff to keep up with the game. There seemed to be plenty of people buying 3x Crones/Harpies and multiple Flyrants because of the Skyblight formation and overall efficiency of a Flyrant.

That said, I reckon GW's poor rules writing mostly comes down to not giving a damn, not playtesting enough and either not having decent editors or not listening to them. I don't really think it's incompetence simply because there's so many things wrong that only require a tiny amount of competence to realise are wrong and fix. I reckon they don't give a damn because they think good rules wouldn't make them any more sales.

I used to thought of this too, but if they have resources and some or all GW game designers are gamers too, they must have passion to make good rules. You would, I would...all of us here would. Who is stoping this progress? Not the designer incompetence...it must be the suites giving them protocols to make more sales with x rules that will create this new market, etc...

It is a company and I am sure that it was intentional. How many decade does it take to get this right?

david choe wrote:
I used to thought of this too, but if they have resources and some or all GW game designers are gamers too, they must have passion to make good rules.

Not necessarily. GW's rule authors have proudly declared in the past, even before the current management took over, that this is supposed to be a "beer and pretzels" game, the rules are supposed to be just a general framework for creating your own game, and you should never care too much about silly things like "what the rulebook says" when you're having fun. That's an attitude that is almost guaranteed to produce bad rules because there's no motivation to go back and fix mistakes, or to test thoroughly with the goal of finding every possible flaw instead of saying "well, we had fun, so it's finished".

 AegisGrimm wrote:
If GW were really on their game, you would see 40k in a situation like Warmachine, which has only had two major rules editions with everything else being essentially supplemental material in the time 40k has had, what....4 editions? And both those editions are generally considered to be tight and balanced.

I would love to have the universe of 40k with the rules development of Warmachine/Hordes. That would definitely be something worth paying GW prices for. Except of course if it was more like PP the rules and codex books would be cheaper than GW.

If 40k followed PP pricing, the rules cost would be low, but the cost of models would be astronomical -- totally unaffordable for most.

Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
Finally, I got you to write your point. I've ask it for like 3 post and all I gor was your disagreement with me.

I've already said all of that here, so if you didn't see my position then you just weren't looking very hard.

Unless the CEOS comes right out that we are screwing with you so we can sell more or we are incompetence, it is all speculation.

Of course there's a degree of speculation, but that doesn't prevent us from having pretty good confidence in an answer. You just have to ask what it would look like if GW was doing X, and then compare the hypothetical situation to the real one. If we suggest that GW is deliberately sabotaging their own product to generate sales then we should expect to see consistency in new stuff being overpowered, major changes that require buying new models every time a codex is updated, etc. And when there are bad rules we should expect them to be limited to situations where a profit motive exists, not randomly scattered all over the rulebook in areas that don't really influence model sales. But what we see is exactly the opposite: there's no consistent trend of new releases being overpowered, and the bad rules aren't focused to things that could influence sales.

Now let's look at my hypothetical explanation: that the rule problems are purely the result of incompetence, not deliberate sabotage. If that is true we would expect the problems to be fairly random. Some would help sales, some would hurt sales (or at least fail to increase sales). Some would involve new releases, some would be random interactions in obscure corners of the rulebook that don't have model sales attached. And that's exactly what we see in the rules: random problems that have no real correlation with sales goals. So it's fairly likely that my explanation is an accurate one.

1 yes, sometime they make stupid rules that hurt the sale of that model as you pointed out. This is now my reverse of your argument...they are incompetence...they can't even make the model they should have buff it... But failed. Yes GW even act incompetence in trying to screw the customer.

Except this isn't plausible. Even a really stupid rule author can make something overpowered if they're deliberately trying to make it overpowered. So if it's a deliberate attempt to make things overpowered we should expect nearly every new release to be overpowered. But instead what we see is a trend that looks like the author thinks "this would be really cool" and doesn't playtest sufficiently to balance the new thing. And so some of the new releases are overpowered, while some are underpowered.

2 every new edition, all 40k players who continue with this hobby spent more. Those who drop out, well they were not going to buy anything new if the edition didn't change...so they do not effect the company sale.

And this is simply wrong. Many players who quit because they are frustrated with the state of the game would have continued to buy stuff if the rules hadn't changed. For example, I was planning to expand my abandoned Tau army significantly when the new codex arrived, but since I hated the new codex so much I canceled those plans. GW's bad rules directly resulted in lost sales.

Because it pays to not be perfect.

So why doesn't it work that way for other companies? Why are other companies making much better games without the kind of flaws that GW has, and having a lot of success with those games? Why is GW in a major financial crisis with their current strategy while the rest of the industry is growing? If it pays to publish broken rules then we should see the exact opposite. GW's competition should be going out of business because their attempt at perfection isn't profitable, while GW should be making tons of money. But instead it seems like the only thing keeping GW in business is the fact that it takes a while for their self-inflicted damage to kill a company with such a dominant starting position.

First you point of incompetency works both ways you know. They can be incompentance at trying to make the models sell more too...bad planning and not double checking their new rules that was suppose to buff this model...just bad gak.

GW empire was built on broken rules....nobody came close to them.

If you think the company is failing and their compititors is catching up...they become competence and their rules is perfected? That will prove my point that they could have done this years ago but choose not to because their empire was built on a broken system and it worked for GW.

Oh, now they got their gak together because of warmachine.

You know...it would be interesting if an ex GW game designer would tell us the inside story with the truth. He would have to admit that he was incompetence or the suites gave him protocol to go by.

 Talys wrote:


If 40k followed PP pricing, the rules cost would be low, but the cost of models would be astronomical -- totally unaffordable for most.

As opposed to current 40k pricing?

Yeah, PP isn't the cheapest around, but if you expand your views to beyond GW and PP, you'll find everything is significantly cheaper, from models to rules.

Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

If you look past just GW/PP, you'll find plenty of companies that can add to their games without creating some sort of escalation/power creep. Even then, my understanding of PP's colossal's is that they're fairly balanced, which is a far cry from what you could call 40k's equivalents.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

Certainly, and that much we can agree on.

david choe wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Except, as I keep telling you, most people don't do that.

Peregrine wrote:Sure, some people will replace their entire army when the new edition makes shooting useless but many more people will either ragequit and stop buying GW products entirely or keep playing 7th edition with their friends.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to try and define what "most" or "many more" people do other than outside of anecdotal evidence of individual groups. I'm always surprised when I hear about people buying stuff to keep up with the game. There seemed to be plenty of people buying 3x Crones/Harpies and multiple Flyrants because of the Skyblight formation and overall efficiency of a Flyrant.

That said, I reckon GW's poor rules writing mostly comes down to not giving a damn, not playtesting enough and either not having decent editors or not listening to them. I don't really think it's incompetence simply because there's so many things wrong that only require a tiny amount of competence to realise are wrong and fix. I reckon they don't give a damn because they think good rules wouldn't make them any more sales.

I used to thought of this too, but if they have resources and some or all GW game designers are gamers too, they must have passion to make good rules. You would, I would...all of us here would. Who is stoping this progress? Not the designer incompetence...it must be the suites giving them protocols to make more sales with x rules that will create this new market, etc...

It is a company and I am sure that it was intentional. How many decade does it take to get this right?

Maybe the designers are the type of gamers who just like to line up their models and throw dice and don't care about balance or clarity. There are definitely gamers like that, I don't think it's a stretch to think there might be designers like that as well. I don't think the read and/or absorb any community feedback.

The big hole in the "they do it on purpose" argument is there's too many flaws that aren't going to help them. Things like units that have been crap for multiple editions, longer than many players would have been playing or brand new units that suck right from the moment they're released. There's ambiguous rules that have slipped through from 6th to 7th and still remain. That's a sign of either incompetence or just not giving a crap and I tend to err on the side of the latter because in some cases I genuinely don't think someone could be that incompetent.

If the core rules were solid but the balance was wonky but shifts in balance were more consistent then I might believe they were doing it intentionally. If they're doing it intentionally then they're doing a really bad job of it.

Now obviously the reason they change rules frequently is to drum up more sales, but we're talking specifically about "how broken they make the game".

david choe wrote:
First you point of incompetency works both ways you know. They can be incompentance at trying to make the models sell more too...bad planning and not double checking their new rules that was suppose to buff this model...just bad gak.

Again, it's very easy to make units overpowered if you want them to be deliberately overpowered. That new DA flyer? The bolt cannon is STR 10 AP 1, and it costs 10 points per model. Buy them or lose every game you play. The only way anyone with enough of a working brain to write rules at all could publish the actual rules is if there was no deliberate intent to make it overpowered. It only makes sense if you assume that the designer's thought process was something like "it has a cool gatling gun, so it should be a better bolter with lots of shots" and never bothered to do the math on how much damage it does to its intended targets.

GW empire was built on broken rules....nobody came close to them.

No it wasn't. GW's empire was built on a strong IP and early success in a market that had little or no competition for a long time. Their broken rules contributed nothing to their success, and in fact have probably hindered it significantly.

If you think the company is failing and their compititors is catching up...they become competence and their rules is perfected? That will prove my point that they could have done this years ago but choose not to because their empire was built on a broken system and it worked for GW.

Err, what? GW have always had broken rules. This isn't some new thing that GW just started doing, it's been a problem as long as GW has existed.

Oh, now they got their gak together because of warmachine.

Yeah, it makes so much sense that they're suddenly concerned about what PP is doing, and instead of looking at why PP is succeeding their response is "we'd better make our rules suck so that people will buy them more frequently".

 Talys wrote:
Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

I wonder if the folks complaining are actually paying attention to the rules? Colossals and Gargantuans are big and expensive but you don't need to have a Colossal to come to the table the way you need the new stuff in 40k; they're different, and they make for a different game, but they're not more or less powerful.

 Peregrine wrote:

david choe wrote:
I used to thought of this too, but if they have resources and some or all GW game designers are gamers too, they must have passion to make good rules.

Not necessarily. GW's rule authors have proudly declared in the past, even before the current management took over, that this is supposed to be a "beer and pretzels" game, the rules are supposed to be just a general framework for creating your own game, and you should never care too much about silly things like "what the rulebook says" when you're having fun. That's an attitude that is almost guaranteed to produce bad rules because there's no motivation to go back and fix mistakes, or to test thoroughly with the goal of finding every possible flaw instead of saying "well, we had fun, so it's finished".

As suppose to what? Yeah... We create this game with flawed stuff so you have to pay for new models, etc... Or. Like what you claim...we are idiots and incompentance sorry guys.

That statement of beer and chips is the biggest insurance for all their career ever. I joined Blizzard...emmmmm my WHFB days as designer were beer and chips game...give me a job.

You're making this broad assertion that GW are engineering the game to manipulate the customers into buying more/different models, but you've not really produced any compelling examples, in fact, I'd go so far to say for every one example you could suggest, there'd be at least two which were flat out mistakes.

We have evidence such as Jervis' WD column where his attitude is clearly that 40K is less wargame and more collaborative RPG battle story telling device. We have people claiming to have spoken to designers which have acknowledged that the Eldar and Tau books were mistakes, but they had no intention of addressing those errors, we have units which have been relentlessly bad for multiple editions and codex updates while others are randomly buffed despite there being no new kit.

There is ample evidence to suggest a lack of care, interest or ability. There's plenty to suggest that they're making a game for themselves and not for the people they expect to buy it, there's little to support the idea they're some sort of Machiavellian rules geniuses embedding deliberate flaws and built in obsolescence into every thing they produce.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

I wonder if the folks complaining are actually paying attention to the rules? Colossals and Gargantuans are big and expensive but you don't need to have a Colossal to come to the table the way you need the new stuff in 40k; they're different, and they make for a different game, but they're not more or less powerful.

Generally speaking, the people who make such sweeping statements about WM/H do so from complete ignorance and have likely never played the game, their assumptions being based on what is true of GW games (big models being OP). Never mind facts like my $200 Cryx army that's comprised of a starter and add-ons can take out an opposing army that includes a Colossal. Yeah, we definitely can't have facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

Eh. My experience with Warmachine wasn't that it was some kind of bastion of balance either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Eh. My experience with Warmachine wasn't that it was some kind of bastion of balance either.

Not hard to be a bastion of balance if you're comparing it to 40k.

david choe wrote:


As suppose to what? Yeah... We create this game with flawed stuff so you have to pay for new models, etc... Or. Like what you claim...we are idiots and incompentance sorry guys.

That statement of beer and chips is the biggest insurance for all their career ever. I joined Blizzard...emmmmm my WHFB days as designer were beer and chips game...give me a job.

There is an important distinction with any pen & paper game that ought to remain: they are inherently loose in mechanics. Anytime a designer forgets this, they will tend toward a direction reminiscent of rock, paper, scissors [balancing] and thus, become more of a 'board game'. I'm not insisting 40k should just up and chuck forget about balance, rather, balance should first be consistent with what the lore says, not the other way around.

My .02¢

To add to that, 40k lore is awesome because it's big enough to create your own stuff. There aren't other games where I can have my very own force that operates in a very specific way. You're shorehorned into a build by rules usually.

Like, for example, Infinity with it's AVAlability scores, or Warmachine with it's Unit Allowance.

 agnosto wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Anyways, given time, when WMH has ten times as many models, I think there will be internal balance and escalation issues, too. There are now plenty of WMH players that are hoping that PP will slow down with escalation, what with all new Gargantuans being released. You begin to see similar things at WMH tables, complaining that they dont want to spend more money and such.

Shrug... the more companies that make cool models and war games, the happier I am

I wonder if the folks complaining are actually paying attention to the rules? Colossals and Gargantuans are big and expensive but you don't need to have a Colossal to come to the table the way you need the new stuff in 40k; they're different, and they make for a different game, but they're not more or less powerful.

Generally speaking, the people who make such sweeping statements about WM/H do so from complete ignorance and have likely never played the game, their assumptions being based on what is true of GW games (big models being OP). Never mind facts like my $200 Cryx army that's comprised of a starter and add-ons can take out an opposing army that includes a Colossal. Yeah, we definitely can't have facts get in the way of good hyperbole.

That isn't really my point. You don't NEED a Colossal. You don't NEED an Imperial Knight, Riptide, Dreadknight, or Wraithlord either. The prevailing wisdom at various game tables in stores is that you must buy big units. If, for no other reason than peer pressure. Nobody in the wargaming world wants to show up with just a bunch of starter box units and without any of the new cool stuff.

As other people have pointed out, you can't randomly pick an army that just happens to add up to whatever point total you want to play in WM/H and have it work, and there are cheesy lists, and the starter armies won't get you anywhere (without adding on to it) when playing a game with someone who has invested some money into units for the game.

By the way, the 2-faction starter box units are not very good. The single-faction battle boxes are much better, but you could say the same thing about single-faction battleforce boxes in 40k -- every single unit in the Necron box, for instance, has play value, and most units in most of the single faction starter boxes are decent. It's only really DV that sucks.

Anyways, my entire point is that WM/H games have escalated since the launch of the game, and in 20 years, I suspect it will escalate even further. At some point, when the company needs money, it will push out some units that are better to incentivize people to buy them. I don't even see a problem with this.

And it's great that you can enjoy WM/H with a $200 army, but think of the FLGS -- it isn't going to stay in business if there's a horde of players all just investing $200 into a game. Unless you're buying a few games a year, you're not even paying for one guy's salary for 2 days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kveldulf wrote:

david choe wrote:


As suppose to what? Yeah... We create this game with flawed stuff so you have to pay for new models, etc... Or. Like what you claim...we are idiots and incompentance sorry guys.

That statement of beer and chips is the biggest insurance for all their career ever. I joined Blizzard...emmmmm my WHFB days as designer were beer and chips game...give me a job.

There is an important distinction with any pen & paper game that ought to remain: they are inherently loose in mechanics. Anytime a designer forgets this, they will tend toward a direction reminiscent of rock, paper, scissors [balancing] and thus, become more of a 'board game'. I'm not insisting 40k should just up and chuck forget about balance, rather, balance should first be consistent with what the lore says, not the other way around.

My .02¢

There is an inherrent danager to that, though. In theory, Necron and Eldar should be able to just obliterate all the other races

The Eldar could snuff out suns, terraform planets, and all that, right? And all that knowledge is still in the Black Library. I mean, it's reminiscent of the Mimbari-Human wars in Babylon 5 -- the humans really didn't have a chance at all. There is also the problem that the whole concept of WH40k is inherrently flawed, because space faring races would not be slogging it out with infantry, tanks, and jetbikes on the ground... they would, you know, fight it out in space

But it's all good -- I love that 40k is a space-ification of the fantasy races (humans, elves, ogres, halflings, dwarves, undead, all that) and that there are cool models that duke it out on a tabletop with futuristic weapons in a totally unrealistic fashion.