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.

 warboss wrote:
Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.

There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.

 insaniak wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.

There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.

Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative. Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule. Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.

 warboss wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Yeah, that's a stretch. There likely is no corporate mandate to make completely impossible to fulfill rules. It is simply a matter of not caring enough to playtest or proofread on the part of the design team.

There's unlikely to be a mandate to write broken rules. There IS likely a mandate to complete a book within a very limited timeline and budget, with corporate caring more about that timeline than about allowing adequate time and resources for refining the product.

Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative. Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule. Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.

Do you work in a corporation mindset organization? There is a phenomenon that goes on in closed minded corporation culture called, Groupthink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink THIS is exactly what happened to GW. Not only because of the shlick shlock of... "We hire for attitude..." BUT because people who are independently thinking are pretty much shunned in large organizations, because, you know...; they rock the boat. It is not necessarily incompetence, its perceived pressure from corporation management, and in some cases because of the cultural vibe, tone, work environment, what have you that puts people to the boot, and pretty much craps on the QAQC process.

GW is a classic textbook Sigma Six example of how not to be. I asked the question in the beginning, because, well.... I do. AND.... the thought process is prevalent, but people IN the process do not nessesarily see it, and if they do, they keep their mouth shut in fear of their jobs....

EXAMPLES ofg why the founding fathers of GW left, are pretty much in line with my discussion points here, and There are numerous examples and discussions from them that have been posed in past threads that lead me to the conclusion that, there honestly needs to be a Sharholder meeting, and a real, no crap look at the books, and inquiry.

There is seriously something wrong in their books, BTW. Their numbers do not jive.

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

That's a bad example to use, considering Blizzard designed Star Craft, which is considered one of the most well balanced games of all time.

(At least, according to Koreans during my time spent in the country, as it's practically a national sport there).

I'm deleting my post because I don't want to get pulled into another one of these things!

Hugz. I love you all!

@Grot 6: You don't need to work for them to apparently catch the groupthink bug... the minis are apparently a vector for the pathogen as well. A minority (from the poll in the 40k general subforum) are afflicted with the contagion as well. Luckily, continued exposure seems to build up the immune system and at least half of the playerbase is immune to it currently.

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.

I'm actually curious as to when (or if) they will publish more FAQs. To be fair, the only things that aren't FAQed are the things that have just been published. January 2015 was their last set of FAQs, which includes titles published in 2014 such as Space Wolves and Dark Eldar (and core rules).

Personally, I would run a gaming company (video game or wargame) and test with both casual and extreme players. It's the nature of the beast, and many of your best customers in terms of play hours and folks who will evangelize your product will be extreme players.

The thing is, if they publish a FAQ, will it make you happy? Not to speak for you, but I doubt it very much.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

That's not really playtesting, that's just playing.
And even that doesn't explain some of the obviously terrible things in the game. Remember the deamon charriot that couldn't actually work? Even "casual" playing should have found that out.
But no one's perfect. Some things will slip by.
So they could just easily put out a FAQ....right?
Oh, that's right.
They don't do FAQ's anymore.
Not when they could just pump out another $60 book instead.

I'm actually curious as to when (or if) they will publish more FAQs. To be fair, the only things that aren't FAQed are the things that have just been published. January 2015 was their last set of FAQs, which includes titles published in 2014 such as Space Wolves and Dark Eldar (and core rules).

Personally, I would run a gaming company (video game or wargame) and test with both casual and extreme players. It's the nature of the beast, and many of your best customers in terms of play hours and folks who will evangelize your product will be extreme players.

The thing is, if they publish a FAQ, will it make you happy? Not to speak for you, but I doubt it very much.

Why wouldn't fixing something that sucks not make someone happy?
Or do you think I run off of pure emotion and my criticisms for GW come from some pent up nerd rage? Is that what you're saying. You've been accused of being passive aggressive and condescending before. Do you get where that's coming from yet?

I was unclear. My apologies.

Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.

I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.

I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being passive aggressive. But anyhow, I think you really don't like GW, and take pretty much every opportunity to attack them and their practices. I don't discount that maybe one day you'll like them again, of course. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that, free speech and all. I can still say that it's so, though, just as you're free to point out that I frequently defend GW (though I do criticize them for various things and point out their shortcomings, too).

 Talys wrote:

Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.

It might be because the unhappyness is more than just skin deep for lots of people. I can't speak for anyone else but the days of just gently blowing on the boiling over pot to cool it down (aka FAQs and nothing else) are over. GW needs to make a real change that benefits fans and themselves (in that order) instead of just themselves in the very short term (like they've been doing for years).

 Talys wrote:
I was unclear. My apologies.

Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.

I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.

Are you aware of the substance behind your arguments, or just throwing out whatever occurs to you?

Those FAQs weren't worthy of the name.

There's a world of difference between a company using Errata and FAQs to actively try and maintain some semblance of balance (or in GW's case, functionality) and a half arsed attempt to answer a bunch of questions nobody was asking, or, in most cases, correcting an error on day 1 that should have been caught by an editor or proofreader, if they cared enough about the quality of the product to utilise one.

 warboss wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.

It might be because the unhappyness is more than just skin deep for lots of people. I can't speak for anyone else but the days of just gently blowing on the boiling over pot to cool it down (aka FAQs and nothing else) are over. GW needs to make a real change that benefits fans and themselves (in that order) instead of just themselves in the very short term (like they've been doing for years).

Right. This was really my point -- that FAQs are but a tiny part of what MWHistorian doesn't like about GW, and publishing FAQs (I don't think) would do the trick for him.

I think I can also safely say that for a huge percentage of the people who don't like GW, nothing that doesn't include cheaper products will make them happy. Since I don't think that will EVER happen, I don't think these people will ever be happy with GW again, unless their competition raises their prices to the point where GW's prices are no longer extraordinary, I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Are you aware of the substance behind your arguments, or just throwing out whatever occurs to you?

Those FAQs weren't worthy of the name.

There's a world of difference between a company using Errata and FAQs to actively try and maintain some semblance of balance (or in GW's case, functionality) and a half arsed attempt to answer a bunch of questions nobody was asking, or, in most cases, correcting an error on day 1 that should have been caught by an editor or proofreader, if they cared enough about the quality of the product to utilise one.

40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere. GW FAQs are about clarity of language where there is ambiguity; they have never been about rebalancing.

They are Frequently Asked Questions [to the language of the text]. They are not, "Patch 1.05".

 Talys wrote:


40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that when it really doesn't matter. It was never completely balanced; no game ever was except for rock paper scissors and even then only in the case of folks with equal numbers of fingers. What matters is that the company tries to do its best to keep the game balanced and that the effort shows through in the rules. Where there imbalances to varying degrees in every edition? Sure. It's the nature of the beast. From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game. What they're doing now is just seeing everything that MIGHT sell some figs and throwing it all on the wall without bothering to check it any of it sticks (is balanced or in some cases flat out even works). That is the litmus test for plenty of folks, not some mythical perfect balance. Better is NOT the opposite of perfect and plenty of folks subjectively feel that the game was BETTER balanced before they added all this crap.

 warboss wrote:

 Talys wrote:


40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that when it really doesn't matter. It was never completely balanced; no game ever was except for rock paper scissors and even then only in the case of folks with equal numbers of fingers. What matters is that the company tries to do its best to keep the game balanced and that the effort shows through in the rules. Where there imbalances to varying degrees in every edition? Sure. It's the nature of the beast. From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game. What they're doing now is just seeing everything that MIGHT sell some figs and throwing it all on the wall without bothering to check it any of it sticks (is balanced or in some cases flat out even works). That is the litmus test for plenty of folks, not some mythical perfect balance. Better is NOT the opposite of perfect and plenty of folks subjectively feel that the game was BETTER balanced before they added all this crap.

I sincerely disagree with you.

I think the game philosophy between 6.0-7.0 2014 was very consistent. In January 2015, the game philosophy changes significantly. All the factions before January 2015 were headed to a certain balance, and the ones after are balanced against each other in a much more dynamic, and more importantly, much more fluid and flexible way. Had they progressed and finished off all the codex books in this fashion, it would have been pretty balanced.

Instead, 7.5 came out with the Necron, and the 40k world turned upside down.

I think that the Post 2015 codex releases are excellent, and allow you to play fluffy armies that aren't stupidly powerless. Plus, they give you a brick ton of options. Most importantly, they are a ton of fun. Codex: Eldar Harlequins are something of an exception, but they just don't have enough models to be a full-fledged faction, IMO. Still, they're good rules. I can't speak for Khorne Daemonkin, because I don't know anyone that plays them, but it seems to be well-received.

I have voiced before a criticism of GW, that the single most annoying thing for players is probably GW's willingness to just up and change game philosophies, mid-cycle, essentially screwing some players.

Personally, I think Space Marines, Dark Angels, Craftworld Eldar, Necron, Imperial Knights, and Adeptus Mechanicus can all go head to head with each other in a fair fight, and they all have many options, with the exception of Imperial Knights (because they have 1 model). Can the other factions compete? I think most can; as an example, Orks have been making a lot of noise in the tournament scene. Space Wolves are still pretty tough, Grey Knights have nifty tricks, and Blood Angels are the Imperium taxi service. But they have a LOT less options, and require that you be awfully creative with your tricks to win.

If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.

 Talys wrote:


If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.

Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.

warboss wrote:Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative... Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name?

'GW design studio' - wargaming's 'Alan Smithee'. I'd say they could almost be grateful for the anonymity.

warboss wrote:From 3rd to 5th edition, it still felt like GW was trying to put together a balanced and polished game.

I remember when they put out the 3.5 assault rules in Chapter Approved, to try and get them sorted for 4th ed. Seems so long ago, and not just because it was. Imagine that now?

 warboss wrote:

 Talys wrote:


If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.

Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.

Compared to blood angels or dark eldar, yea, these suck.

But to my point, IK, Distortion, and SM 7e are all very well balanced against each other. We've been playing quite a bit of 40k recently, using all new stuff, and none of these factions are lopsided against each other.

They're only balanced if you consider power builds.

Most, if not all, of those codices still have plenty of internal balance issues, either between the formations or the basic units.

 Talys wrote:


40k has never been balanced. Not since Rogue Trader. If this is your litmus test for a game you wish to play, look elsewhere. GW FAQs are about clarity of language where there is ambiguity; they have never been about rebalancing.

They are Frequently Asked Questions [to the language of the text]. They are not, "Patch 1.05".

Actually, I disagree.

I have an FAQ for Dark Elves from quite a way back. It was put together as a collaborative effort between Druchii.net (a Dark Elf fansite), feedback from events and GW (in this case Gav Thorpe who wrote the army book) in order to update the Dark Elf army book to alter units and so improve internal balance. GW released the FAQ and Errata on their website for players who already owned the book and released a new version of the book with the changes included.

Some of these changes included:
- The introduction of the Eternal Hatred rule for Black Guard
- Executioners having Heavy Armour instead of Light Armour
- A leadership increase for Knights
- Increase of Cauldron of Blood range
- A points decrease for Dark Elf spearmen
- Extra wargear options for Beastmasters

Which goes a long way beyond simple clarification of rules.

So, GW did once care about fan feedback of its products and would work with them to solve issues not just in wording but also in balance. It would try to balance its products, even in post and for free rather than make players have to wait years for a new book.

 Vermis wrote:


I remember when they put out the 3.5 assault rules in Chapter Approved, to try and get them sorted for 4th ed. Seems so long ago, and not just because it was. Imagine that now?

I think a lot of it is nostalgia and different expectations from a different time. Plus, back then, the internet was less ubiquitous, and exploits were not as quickly abused.

I am happy to agree that in many ways, GW is writing the perfect game for 20 years ago. I just happen to disagree with many here in thinking that it's also a great game for 2015 (not to say that it couldn't be better).

@Malus - your point is well taken, though I wasn't trying to imply that there shouldn't be patches to the game midcycle, or that GW hasn't ever done it. I'm just saying that's what it is now (clarified language, not game adjustments). One must remember that the argument against game rebalancing is, "but I bought 7 wave serpents based on the book".

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Actually, I disagree.

I have an FAQ for Dark Elves from quite a way back. It was put together as a collaborative effort between Druchii.net (a Dark Elf fansite), feedback from events and GW (in this case Gav Thorpe who wrote the army book) in order to update the Dark Elf army book to alter units and so improve internal balance. GW released the FAQ and Errata on their website for players who already owned the book and released a new version of the book with the changes included.

Then there was the 5th edition Space Wolf faq that occasional adjectives or words like "a" and "the" every once in a while was lifted straight off of a mega-TFG rules lawyer's fan FAQ thread here on dakka (Gwar!). To his credit, he was very thorough in trying to find the loopholes and it was one of the best codex FAQs they came out with mainly because THEY didn't come out with it.

 Talys wrote:
I was unclear. My apologies.

Even if GW wrote another set of FAQs, I don't think you'd be happy with GW and their products.

I say this because you've been pretty negative about GW for a pretty long time. In January 2015, and for all the time before that, they published FAQs, and you were still not happy with GW, so empirically, I can only assume that this trend would not reverse itself if/when they do another round.

I don't think I've ever accused anyone of being passive aggressive. But anyhow, I think you really don't like GW, and take pretty much every opportunity to attack them and their practices. I don't discount that maybe one day you'll like them again, of course. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. Not that there's anything wrong with that, free speech and all. I can still say that it's so, though, just as you're free to point out that I frequently defend GW (though I do criticize them for various things and point out their shortcomings, too).

no, you were clear. You were attacking me and not my arguments

 MWHistorian wrote:
no, you were clear. You were attacking me and not my arguments

I thought that I was stating the obvious. Since I'm wrong, I'll happily make a retraction, apologize for presuming something untrue, and look forward to you being full of cheer (or at least, fuller of cheer!) when GW finally releases a new round of FAQs

However, I will say that I believe MOST people dissatisfied by GW wont be made full of cheer by any number of FAQs. Even if they were the world's greatest FAQs, winch they won't be. I'll say it again too (and don't mistake this at targeting YOU), a plurality of the disaffected have no chance of being happy unless GW significantly reduces their prices.

Deadnight wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Very few. It's irrelevant though. They were with gw. They learned through gw. And yet, they are all capable of making very solid wargames. Which goes directly against the notion that 'gw designers are incompetent', as was asserted. The current crop of designers could just as likely bethe next generation of independent game designers with their own companies making the next generation of good games.

That is just nonsensical. The fact that there used to be designers in a company who could make good wargames means nothing when we're talking about the current design team.

The current designers have shown, time and again, an inability to write clear, concise rules and often failed at even understanding the rules they did write. Hence why the current Dark Angels book has a formation with 3 HQ slots where only a single HQ option is available who also happens to be a special character.

Except it does.

Like I said, promotions department in a toy company. They arent the shot callers. They do what they're told, otherwise they're out on their ass, and it's a small enough industry thst they can't just March up and start elsewhere with no problems. 'Sell the new tyranid monstrous creatures'. Nerf the old ones. 'Design and Sell giant centrepiece models like riptides'. So... You do it. Remember, thryre not necessarily the ones behind the rules writing. It's very much a secondary concern within the company, and the protestations of the game designers mean vEry little. All it takes is one middle management aching to show how big his balls are and he'lol push the studio to do x and y and z. And if they don't, they can walk. That's the reality.

Get them to work in pp, corvus beli etc and you'll probably see a different set of results from them altogether.

I'm curious, does it not occur to you that the current absence of many of those former GW designers you name checked might be directly related to both the design direction the rest of the studio wanted to pursue and a corporate desire to gut the design studio of any shot calling ability? As in many of them left directly as a result of these issues? Often explicitly so, by their own admission?

And as much as I would normally be happy to cynically accept that the rules writing has gotten so bad in the post 5th era as a result of the sales department being the shot callers, that would then imply that the sales department knew the rules well enough or gave a damn about them enough to engineer the deep and abiding hostility the rules writing has had towards competitive players since the heady days of 5th edition. I'm not sure that he sales department would have been so eager to try and drive away competitive players by utterly gutting any semblance of rules structure or balance, nor to engage in what often appears to be deliberate trolling of the player base (such as making popular special characters LoW once the playerbase overwhelming reacted to LoWs by saying "NOPE!").

To me it seems like there's too much of an overall design direction for it to just be sales driving rules.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Errrrr... How many of those GW designers are actually still with GW, Deadnight?

Also, the reason that Hail Caesar and many other historical systems don't have points costs is because they are designed to recreate historical battles, where the numbers on each side were known. Hannibal doesn't suddenly have 500 Elephants when facing Scipio etc.

That doesn't work with GW games. They don't have that rigidity in the armies.

Ironically, the idea of points in 40K came from Ancients wargames, specifically the WRG rules in which each army had a defined list with a range of options within it, allowing the player to have more heavy cavalry, or less light infantry, or whatever, within the minimum-maximum limits of the list and the chosen points for the battle.

The old FOC system in 40K imitated the Ancients army list and points to quite a marked degree.

 warboss wrote:

 Talys wrote:


If you disagree, please say which 2015 codex you don't like or is terribly unbalanced, and why.

Eldar: strength D and gargantuan creature spam. Imperial Knights: Superheavy spam. Space marines/Dark Angels: get free stuff when you trade in your $$ for points like a freemium game spam. Those are pretty much right off the top of my head for this year specifically for those codex books and isn't a complete list nor does it take into account the changes in rulebook 2014 that continue to be (ab)used in 2015.

Have you even read the new Eldar 'dex? Eldar D-spam isn't all that scary anymore because all of their Strength D rolls for D-weapons (Except the one on the WK) take their D-table test at -1 to their roll. Meaning they can never roll a 6 to instant-remove a model. Wave Serpents have also been seriously nerfed - no more laser-lock and Serpent Shield took a hit in damage and are one-use. So, Eldar are relatively balanced now.

Imperial Knights still suffer from the same weaknesses they always do - low model count. When was the last time an AdLance won a tourney? Space Marines/Dark Angels - don't be ridiculous, those datasheets are pretty much available anywhere online, let's be real. And no tourney will ever be stupid enough to require you to have the original formation sheet from the web-store purchase. We're slowly getting to a point where there's no "spam all and win" options anymore in 7th (I will stop short of saying that every new 'dex has an answer to any spammable formation)

 warboss wrote:

Then as a team you put your foot down as your name (at least in the past, not currently) would be permanently attached to that product as a creative.

And then 'there's the door'. There's a hundred more people thst will do your job for less pay. Gw is a hire and fire company and this level of insubordination will not be accepted by them, or any other corporation. What has more value? You talk about attaching your name to a product? Well, how about Attaching the terms 'troublesome, quarrelsome, uncooperative, not a team player, insubordinate' to your employment file from your employers thst would be the end result of 'putting your foot down' or getting on with it and completing your projects on time and within budget, keeping your employers happy and eventually leaving the company on cordial terms? Which looks better on a cv?

 warboss wrote:

Or you simply cut that which you have no time to actually properly add in instead of letting half baked ideas out into the wild which then 2-3 years later will be removed to the detriment of players who bought models specifically to use that half baked rule.

When you've got deadlines,schedules and lots of projects on tgr go, and you've been specifically directed to add those half baked ideas by management in accordance with the intended corporate 'direction', and put them out then that's what you produce on demand and that's what you put out. You don't have the luxury of 'cutting'. Otherwise you're sacked. Or someone else will be asked to do it. An you'll look bad, or incompetent. Or both. and this will be remembered. At best. Say goodbye to a good reference, or getting your contract renewed.or getting a promotion. Worst case scenario? you're still probsbly sacked. And blacklisted in a niche industry where all the 'names' know each other.
You don't really get a say in it. In any case if people want to use stuff for two to three years, let them? It's par for the course for gw games really. Certain builds work for a while and then the rules are shuffled around.

 warboss wrote:
Does that require actual integrity to do so? Sure. Are GW designers officially expendable cogs in the team now that they're not even credited by name? Sure. Might doing the former cost you the latter? Possibly because you're not displaying the correct "attitude" corporate wants on top of the lack of "skill" the community wants... but that doesn't excuse putting out shoddy products.

Integrity? Big meaningless word for someone with a mortgage and kids thst are going to college. Or for some twenty something at the start of his career in a very niche industry where rocking the boat and pissing off the management gets you fired or blacklisted, neither of which looks great on a cv. You do your job, get your pay check and if you play games, you play them in a way that works for you. Most employees from what I hear (from a former professional painter) have one or two year contracts and then are let go. You do your job, you earn your money, you get your experience and then you move on with your life. Economic mercenary 101.

And they'll just say if you don't like the rules, then sort it out amongst your friends and opponents. They're not exactly 'shoddy' if you approach them the right way (ie be willing to ignore the poop as you rummage through it looking for diamonds), and modify the rules to suit you and your group? That'd how gw want the game played, thsts how they push it, and that's how a lot of people do play z(especially those historicals), and it's not exactly a wrong way of playing either.

From a post by pete haines from a while back on the interwebs. It gives an interesting insight into the company and the thoughts of one of tge main designers from a few years ago. Still annoyed with his 3.5chaos codex, but by all accounts he had a very professional attitude towards project management and was apparently a swell guy. :

It has been over 5 years since me and the studio parted ways. It came as a bit of a surprise to me when a colleague at my current company told me that I had come in for a kicking on-line. Frankly when I left GW I wanted as much seperation as possible so I did not make any effort to keep up to date. Now, with a lot more water under the bridge and an approaching bit of christmas induced nostalgia I decided to at least post something.

As I have no personal agenda any more - I am not even a GW hobbyist these days - what follows is as near the truth as I can remember.

The reason I left GW is that I was made redundant. At the time I was told that as the strategy was to recycle rather than create new material then senior developers were not needed. My feeling was that outrageous claims had been made commercially that the passing of the LOTR movies would not affect the growth of sales. When this was proved as ridiculous an assertion as everyone might have guessed the share price fell. GW's customary response to falling share price was always to cut headcount. For every developer in the studio there are 1000 fans willing to do the job for less money so they can do this with impunity. I was actually quite ambivalent about it. On one level I knew what I was getting into when I joined GW - they were a hire and fire company with job security being the private preserve of those above a glass ceiling in the company. As joining the company was analagous to a mid life crisis (some people buy high powerered motorbikes and crash them, some people run off with unsuitable blondes, I ran off and joined the circus) then I didn't really give it that much advanced thought.

The main thing that studio outsiders need to understand is that the games developers in the studio are small fish with negligible say. They may get their faces in WD a lot but that is pure marketing. Worse, the fact that it happens makes doing the job harder because being in the public eye attracts the bitter jealousy of many managers. Thus the developer is in a position with no authority, taking lumps for projects that they are not responsible for scoping and subject to summary dismissal so a suit can show how big his balls are. It's not great, mostly you can focus beyond it because you are working with your hobby and that is a bit like the key to the sweet shop but I always felt uneasy there.

For myself, I was always torn between trying to make 40K a role playing wargame where lists encouraged outrageous conversions forming part of highly personalised armies and, on the other hand, a competitive game that had to be properly balanced. As the Index Astartes series had already begun doing rules for chaos chapters when I started then I pursued the role playing approach for the chaos codex. In retrospect I should have thought it through more but I was still primarily an enthusiast at that time so it was easy to get carried away and I had found the previous (Jervis) codex to be bland to the point of tedium. The problem was always going to be that an ideal codex had 15 to 25 product codes. By the time Index Astartes had run its course the chaos codex would have needed two to three times that many. I really tried to keep as many of the options as I could because that was what I beleived people wanted. The end result was unbalanced but then with so much variation possible it was kind of inevitable. Al I can say to the people who have piled into me for it is sorry, I was actually trying to be true to the enthusiasts, rather than the bean counters. Later I managed to achieve something similar with traits etc without the balance issues but thats life.

Anyway I am now back working in IT and look back on my GW time fondly despite the constant worry and stress that came with it. I still have my armies but have returned to my original interest - playing historical ancients - and am thoroughly enjoying it.
So - to the people who have said courteous things, cheers, to the rest, well, if your world view is such that you spew vitriol at people for what they do in the context of a game of toy soldiers then you really ought to get out more. There are many things in the world worthy of opposing far more than a bit of codex creep.

 Talys wrote:
I personally think it's playtested in the same way Blizzard playtests stuff -- by people who are representative of relatively casual gamers, in it for the 'fun factor', rather than hardcore min/maxer's dedicated to breaking the game.

If I remember how Andy Chambers once described GW's playtesting.... it is all done in house, with studio armies - the same armies that were shown in the battle reports.

They made no attempt to simulate what will happen when the game hits the wild hordes of beardy fans.

Which is not a good way to do playtesting at all.

It left them wondering why nobody bought the Knights of the White Wolf - after all, they were more expensive, even though they didn't work as well as the Knights Panther, what's not to love?

I somehow doubt that their playtesting has gotten more comprehensive since then.

Mantic, a much smaller company, is doing a much more comprehensive series of playtests than GW ever did.

With one of GW's folks in charge, and another GW old timer writing the rules.

The folks who leave GW, pretty much universally, look back at GW and say 'let's not do it that way, eh?'

The Auld Grump

It would be interesting to hear directly from former or current GW employees on this site what the view and present thinking is on the inside of the beast with all the changes in the last 5 years

My apologies if this has already been going on in this thread, i am not familiar with everyone and alot of what is written is good and from outsiders perspective (from what i can gather).

What is the view, mindset and problems diagnosis from GW employees or former employees?

How do employees or former employees interpret the financial releases or figures the past 5 years in the face of overall model gaming market growth?

Whats the view from the other side of the fence?