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.

Back in 4 or 5 ed it was known, who made particular codex.
But, due some harsh backfire from playerbase (I heard there even was a rude personal mails), GW decided to hide the actual author's names.

So now we have no ideas who is making our armybooks. And I have a wierd feelings, that those who made it don't know the rules, or simply do not play the game. Actually I really don't know, maybe in 8ed with the "new GW" the authors is known again, and I just miss it somewhere.
But just look at the rules they made. It looks like they are throwing spaghetti on the wall. They have no idea how it should work and making pretty random rules. Some of them works good or ok, but really many of them make ones scratch the head with "whoa, wtf?".
It feels like they are made by some BL authors, who know the background, but not the actual game. Lets take the tau as example. The BL author will know, that the kroots a melee oriented xeno guys, so lets give them strategem to reroll charge with hound combo. Sounds good lore-wise, but anyone who actually play the game will say "hey, wtf, kroots are not hth unit, no way I'll charge with this guys, especially with CP burst". If I was told to make a strategem for melee kroots, it could be something that actually improve their hth abilities, like +1str, maybe some AP, something that will work.

Or pathfinder's "go recon". They are scouts lore-wise, so lets give them strategem for additional 1d6 run, for exchange of shooting. Fluffy, I guess, but those who play the game know, that pathfinders are stationary weapon platform, either markers/ion/railguns. They are not used to grab obj. They are not troops, have not obj sec, and have different role game-wise, they do not need this strategem, better give it to regular FW strike team. It's obvious to those who play the game, but not for the codex designer. There lots of other examples, just use those to make my idea clear. It's really easy to make good or useful strategems and rules, if you are at least familiar with game.

Have anyone similar feelings? Oh, and this is not about how bad the tau are(and if they), just use them as good example.

They tend to go with fluffy rules. These are then good or bad at random. Having an author who imagines the faction in a powerful way usually helps (although points mistakes can be sorted faster than once every four years now) but thats no guarantee they will make in game sense.

Given some of the comments made by the designers on streams from the GW GT heats I think it's pretty clear they're not exactly high-level players. What's more worrying is their attitude towards the sort of tactics used in tournament games is borderline disdainful, which isn't a healthy attitude to have when you're the one in control of the rules.

It's one thing to have tournament players on your playtest team but you need to have a robust mechanism for listening to feedback and acting on it as well. I don't think GW have that at all.

I've said this before but GW simply doesn't pay enough to attract and keep good rules designers.

Anyone they get that becomes good leaves for more money elsewhere.

Hopefully this will change now that management are starting to understand the importance of a quality ruleset.

Basically, GW designers have never been good at the game. Ever. Even back in 2nd and 3rd edition, they played the game in a very loose and relaxed manner, not serious business cutthroat competitive level. The difference then was that their designers seemed to actually understand that you have to strike a balance between "cool" and "good". The current crop of designers seem to be basically CAAC (I hate that term, but it's suitable) types who don't care how something plays as long as it looks good. This is fine for "cool" but doesn't help "good" when the people writing the rules really don't know how things end up, and basically refuse to acknowledge that good rules benefit both fluffy and competitive players because the fluffy players won't feel like they aren't able to play a fluffy army without getting their teeth kicked in, and the competitive players know that the codex rules are solid enough that maybe, just maybe, there is a chance for out-of-the-box thinking when creating a new list.

Look at basically any battle report they have done since 8th. The armies are all woefully inefficient. Every single battle report except one (Custodes vs. Necrons) used power level instead of points and were typically at least 150 PL or higher (the lowest was like 122 I think), with a difference of about 4 PL between the armies (exceptions: One had like 11 PL between, one had a whopping 20 something if I recall, and one was a planetstrike mission where the attacker specifically had 25 PL more than the defender). Even the custodes vs. Necrons battle report was some silly number like 3,400 points because as they stated in the article, that was what the studio Custodes army totaled up to and they wanted to use everything available.

That's not good design at all. The biggest problem is that the current designers operate in a bubble. They feel everyone plays the way they do (very loose/relaxed, no problem if your opponent wants to do something that sounds cool but isn't technically allowed, come up with ad-hoc scenarios on the fly, etc) and design for that. You didn't see this issue with the previous generation of designers; it is very telling that out of the "good" designers from GW's past (Chambers, Priestly, Cavatore, et all) they all work for companies that now compete with GW and, while they might not be at GW's level for miniatures (YMMV due to aesthetics) they blow GW out of the water when it comes to rules that are both thematic of the army and well-balanced.

Silver144 wrote:
Back in 4 or 5 ed it was known, who made particular codex.
But, due some harsh backfire from playerbase (I heard there even was a rude personal mails), GW decided to hide the actual author's names.

So now we have no ideas who is making our armybooks. And I have a wierd feelings, that those who made it don't know the rules, or simply do not play the game. Actually I really don't know, maybe in 8ed with the "new GW" the authors is known again, and I just miss it somewhere.
But just look at the rules they made. It looks like they are throwing spaghetti on the wall. They have no idea how it should work and making pretty random rules. Some of them works good or ok, but really many of them make ones scratch the head with "whoa, wtf?".
It feels like they are made by some BL authors, who know the background, but not the actual game. Lets take the tau as example. The BL author will know, that the kroots a melee oriented xeno guys, so lets give them strategem to reroll charge with hound combo. Sounds good lore-wise, but anyone who actually play the game will say "hey, wtf, kroots are not hth unit, no way I'll charge with this guys, especially with CP burst". If I was told to make a strategem for melee kroots, it could be something that actually improve their hth abilities, like +1str, maybe some AP, something that will work.

Or pathfinder's "go recon". They are scouts lore-wise, so lets give them strategem for additional 1d6 run, for exchange of shooting. Fluffy, I guess, but those who play the game know, that pathfinders are stationary weapon platform, either markers/ion/railguns. They are not used to grab obj. They are not troops, have not obj sec, and have different role game-wise, they do not need this strategem, better give it to regular FW strike team. It's obvious to those who play the game, but not for the codex designer. There lots of other examples, just use those to make my idea clear. It's really easy to make good or useful strategems and rules, if you are at least familiar with game.

Have anyone similar feelings? Oh, and this is not about how bad the tau are(and if they), just use them as good example.

I wholly disagree with your examples.

Stratagems that allow a unit to do something that is not in line with it's role, are good stratagems.
Stratagems that make a unit straight up better at it's role, are bad stratagems.

I don't think this is something specific to Games Workshop. After all, the role of a games designer is not simply to play the game over and over again using the same army and ruleset. By the nature of the job, they're doing something new all the time.

Once a new codex is published, they're onto a new project, so it's not surprising that tournament players will have more experience using that army, as they're concentrating on that army, not having to remember what it does because they've not played it in months.

Wayniac, you're assuming the battle reports are supposed to be using equal forces. The game is pretty clear that unequal force levels are OK, and there are various rules that only kick in if the PL is different (the Ruse and Sudden Death cards in the Open War deck, for example). It's not that they tried and failed to demonstrate an equal-PL game, but that they deliberately showed off that an unequal game is possible. Even the "we used this many points because that's all we had" BR is a teaching tool - it shows that a game like that is perfectly acceptable for players starting out. I've played dozens of games like that across many systems; "let me know how many points you've got, and I'll match it".

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I don't think this is something specific to Games Workshop. After all, the role of a games designer is not simply to play the game over and over again using the same army and ruleset. By the nature of the job, they're doing something new all the time.

Once a new codex is published, they're onto a new project, so it's not surprising that tournament players will have more experience using that army, as they're concentrating on that army, not having to remember what it does because they've not played it in months.

The problem I mention is not about balance, but the rules itself. It seems like they just don't know how the game works and how the armys plays. Like I already said, they give pathfinders extra move, assuming this is scout unit, but in reality this is stationary heavy weaon unit, that punish you if you decide to move.

Silver144 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I don't think this is something specific to Games Workshop. After all, the role of a games designer is not simply to play the game over and over again using the same army and ruleset. By the nature of the job, they're doing something new all the time.

Once a new codex is published, they're onto a new project, so it's not surprising that tournament players will have more experience using that army, as they're concentrating on that army, not having to remember what it does because they've not played it in months.

The problem I mention is not about balance, but the rules itself. It seems like they just don't know how the game works and how the armys plays. Like I already said, they give pathfinders extra move, assuming this is scout unit, but in reality this is stationary heavy weaon unit, that punish you if you decide to move.

However, this brings up a question: Are they a stationary heavy weapon unit? Or are players just using them that way? Pathfinders have always been scouting (hell in my day they used to REQUIRE a Devilfish). I think this is part of that disconnect. GW decides Pathfinders should be a scouting unit. Players look at the stats/options and decide it's a heavy weapon unit and then gripe that the rules don't match that, when in fact they are using Pathfinders in a way GW didn't envision them.

Of course, you can't force people to play a certain way (not without severely limiting the options) but I think this is more a case of players coloring outside GW's admittedly narrow box.

Wayniac wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I don't think this is something specific to Games Workshop. After all, the role of a games designer is not simply to play the game over and over again using the same army and ruleset. By the nature of the job, they're doing something new all the time.

Once a new codex is published, they're onto a new project, so it's not surprising that tournament players will have more experience using that army, as they're concentrating on that army, not having to remember what it does because they've not played it in months.

The problem I mention is not about balance, but the rules itself. It seems like they just don't know how the game works and how the armys plays. Like I already said, they give pathfinders extra move, assuming this is scout unit, but in reality this is stationary heavy weaon unit, that punish you if you decide to move.

However, this brings up a question: Are they a stationary heavy weapon unit? Or are players just using them that way? Pathfinders have always been scouting (hell in my day they used to REQUIRE a Devilfish). I think this is part of that disconnect. GW decides Pathfinders should be a scouting unit. Players look at the stats/options and decide it's a heavy weapon unit and then gripe that the rules don't match that, when in fact they are using Pathfinders in a way GW didn't envision them.

Of course, you can't force people to play a certain way (not without severely limiting the options) but I think this is more a case of players coloring outside GW's admittedly narrow box.

No problem, GW could go that way. Then move them to troops (or just give them obsec), and allow them to NOT take markerlights, just carbins. Then no problem, they are scout units. But right now they have no obsec, forced to take heavy weapon. You are not supposed to ignore that. If they think, that pathfinders are scout unit, but still force players to buy heavy weapon for them, then this is bad game design. Especially when players have regular strike team, who can effectively grab objectives and you do not need extra overcosted unit for that role.

GW designers play a version of the game likely only played at GW HQ. I think they understand that game well enough. It's just not the game GW's customers want and thus not the game they sell.

Wayniac wrote:

Silver144 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I don't think this is something specific to Games Workshop. After all, the role of a games designer is not simply to play the game over and over again using the same army and ruleset. By the nature of the job, they're doing something new all the time.

Once a new codex is published, they're onto a new project, so it's not surprising that tournament players will have more experience using that army, as they're concentrating on that army, not having to remember what it does because they've not played it in months.

The problem I mention is not about balance, but the rules itself. It seems like they just don't know how the game works and how the armys plays. Like I already said, they give pathfinders extra move, assuming this is scout unit, but in reality this is stationary heavy weaon unit, that punish you if you decide to move.

However, this brings up a question: Are they a stationary heavy weapon unit? Or are players just using them that way? Pathfinders have always been scouting (hell in my day they used to REQUIRE a Devilfish). I think this is part of that disconnect. GW decides Pathfinders should be a scouting unit. Players look at the stats/options and decide it's a heavy weapon unit and then gripe that the rules don't match that, when in fact they are using Pathfinders in a way GW didn't envision them.

Of course, you can't force people to play a certain way (not without severely limiting the options) but I think this is more a case of players coloring outside GW's admittedly narrow box.

Pathfinders used to be effectively the only source of marker lights, which were heavy and thus move or shoot. Pathfinders have always been spotters, not scouts, and the inclusion of special weapons didn't change that. Pulse carbines used to be available to Fire Warriors as well, just like the Devilfish. One assumes GW envisioned a dual role for them, but never made the scouting side appealing enough to begin to compete with the utility of marker lights.

Slipspace wrote:
Given some of the comments made by the designers on streams from the GW GT heats I think it's pretty clear they're not exactly high-level players. What's more worrying is their attitude towards the sort of tactics used in tournament games is borderline disdainful, which isn't a healthy attitude to have when you're the one in control of the rules.

It's one thing to have tournament players on your playtest team but you need to have a robust mechanism for listening to feedback and acting on it as well. I don't think GW have that at all.

Why? The games was never designed for tournament play and tournament players use scummy tactics like min/maxing soup lists and spamming stormravens.

Their jobs is to make the game fun for the casual players who play games in their garage with their friends for an evening with models they like, not cater to the hardcore WAAC crowd who insist on using the most optimal lists possible.

There is only one constant among the GW designers: Phil Kelly gets to write Eldar and that's that.
The others scramble every edition for different codexes

A lot of people seems to forget pathfinders can pack some really nasty rapid-fire guns, have decent deployment options and a lot of utility tools. and they all pack a carbine by default, who may not be a pulse rifle, but its still pretty nice.

Yea, they CAN be pure marker support-but they really don't have to be.


But yes, the Tau codex defiantly feels like they don't know their own game somewhat.

The coldstar got buffed beyond all reason-meanwhile, commanders gets restricted?

Guns nobody bothers with for several editions now are still left behind, the go-to gun for two editions now gets buffed though.

A support system that was hardly ever taken gets nerfed AND increased costs.

A model can have "can advance and shoot without penalty" from five different sources at once if you dedicate yourself to it. (some only to assault weapons, but still).
At the same liue, a LOT of sources to reroll ones to hit in shooting, and a few to reroll all hits.
SO MUCH OVERLAP!

Shadowsun, a tiny sneaky girl with fusion blasters somehow has a warlord trait that let her reroll hits when standing still?
And one of her special abilities is another trigger of kayoun, who is ALSO rerolling hits when standing still. (though as a 6" aura this time)

Battlesuits can be made to be better at overwatch than at their regular shooting.


Etc, etc.
The codex is riddled with nonsense and overlaps.

 BoomWolf wrote:
A lot of people seems to forget pathfinders can pack some really nasty rapid-fire guns, have decent deployment options and a lot of utility tools. and they all pack a carbine by default, who may not be a pulse rifle, but its still pretty nice.

Sure, but they're still a shooting unit. There are very few situations where you would consider moving instead of shooting with them, and even fewer where you'd pay CP to do it. But stratagems were an idiotic idea in the first place, so I suppose having terrible ones is to be expected.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why? The games was never designed for tournament play and tournament players use scummy tactics like min/maxing soup lists and spamming stormravens.

Their jobs is to make the game fun for the casual players who play games in their garage with their friends for an evening with models they like, not cater to the hardcore WAAC crowd who insist on using the most optimal lists possible.

Are you saying that the game isn't for everyone? Is it just for those non-scummy, non-soup extra fluffy players only? GW's job is to sell models and games to as many people as they can. That means all types of players. I'd be willing to guess that those scummy WAAC tournament players spend as much, if not more, money then casual gamers. This is based on the WAAC guys all needing to have the latest "hot stuff".

Wayniac wrote:
while they might not be at GW's level for miniatures (YMMV due to aesthetics) they blow GW out of the water when it comes to rules that are both thematic of the army and well-balanced.

This myth needs to die a painful death. Name me one game right now that doesn't suffer from that at all. Chess? GO?

My five year old can play 8th edition. We played last night. Dropfleet? Nope. Dropzone? Hahaha. X-wing? Don't get me started. Armada? Death by tokens. Dreadball? yawn.

Games live and die by fluff and rules. It takes a fantastic amount of work to balance both.

This stupid rage that people have over the Tau and Necrons codices is getting out of hand, the game isn't supposed to get broke by new codices remember? Your codex should NOT be overpowered. Maybe the way YOU want to use the unit you bought is not the way the game designer wants you to use it.

The game is more balanced then it's ever been, yet people still find a way to complain. Boo hoo, go play another game system and let me know how that works out for you when you find out it's not perfect either.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why? The games was never designed for tournament play and tournament players use scummy tactics like min/maxing soup lists and spamming stormravens.

Ah yes, the classic "if you don't have fun the same way that I have fun you're a bad person" argument. It's still a terrible argument.

Their jobs is to make the game fun for the casual players who play games in their garage with their friends for an evening with models they like, not cater to the hardcore WAAC crowd who insist on using the most optimal lists possible.

No, their job is to make the game fun for everyone. It just happens to be a fortunate coincidence that the same balance improvements that make the game fun for tournament players also make it better for everyone else. "Casual" and "competitive" design are only opposed because of CAAC ideology and virtue signalling about how "casual" certain players are because they love poor design.

 BoomWolf wrote:
A lot of people seems to forget pathfinders can pack some really nasty rapid-fire guns, have decent deployment options and a lot of utility tools. and they all pack a carbine by default, who may not be a pulse rifle, but its still pretty nice.

Yea, they CAN be pure marker support-but they really don't have to be.

But this strategem restrict you from shooting this turn. So if you spend point on nasty guns, then there are even less reasons to use it.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Their jobs is to make the game fun for the casual players who play games in their garage with their friends for an evening with models they like, not cater to the hardcore WAAC crowd who insist on using the most optimal lists possible.

Are you suggesting that well written and well balanced rules are somehow bad for those players? A tight ruleset benefits everybody.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Given some of the comments made by the designers on streams from the GW GT heats I think it's pretty clear they're not exactly high-level players. What's more worrying is their attitude towards the sort of tactics used in tournament games is borderline disdainful, which isn't a healthy attitude to have when you're the one in control of the rules.

It's one thing to have tournament players on your playtest team but you need to have a robust mechanism for listening to feedback and acting on it as well. I don't think GW have that at all.

Why? The games was never designed for tournament play and tournament players use scummy tactics like min/maxing soup lists and spamming stormravens.

Their jobs is to make the game fun for the casual players who play games in their garage with their friends for an evening with models they like, not cater to the hardcore WAAC crowd who insist on using the most optimal lists possible.

Good designers can and should make games that are balanced for competitive play without reducing the ability of players to play fun, casual, narrative games. That's their job. Having well-written, balanced rules benefits everyone. Ignoring that in favour of making stuff "fun" has a detrimental effect on people who want a more competitive style of game. If GW had come out and said "40k is not a competitive game, we only designed it to enable narrative-style or casual gaming" then I wouldn't have so much of a problem. But they're running tournaments and have a section of the rules dedicated to Matched Play so they need to actually create rules that enable that style of play.

If you as a game designer think soup lists and spamming units are scummy you write rules that prevent those options. It's unprofessional to sit there and criticise people for using the options you provided in ways you hadn't expected.

I also play X-Wing and their World Championships are streamed each year, with commentary from the designers. The level of knowledge those designers show, both of the rules of the game and the state of the meta-game (as well as their attitude towards that meta-game), is night and day compared to GW. X-Wing is by no means perfect, and there have been plenty of mis-steps in the design but the designers at least show a level of professionalism and knowledge that gives you some faith in their skills and ability to fix things.

Most other game designers seem to know their game in a way that they can commentate on competitive games and not sound silly. GW is, as usual, the exception. Now I agree that metagame things like "bubblewrap" and "daisychaining" feels wrong in 40k, but I also get why those things are valid tactics. GW designers seem to dislike/hate that sort of thing, yet they allow it in the rules. That's where the disconnect is. However I notice the AOS team (even if there is some overlap) seems to have more modern/competitive minded players, which might explain why the AOS rules seem more straightforward for tournament play (they still have issues, but those issues are not nearly as prevalent as in 40k). However none of the current crop of 40k designers seem to know or care about tournament play, just laid back "Sure mate that sounds good" type of lackadaisical play with friends, which is fine, but clouds their design.

If they want the game to be taken seriously as a competitive game, they need to understand competitive play and know what is needed for competitive play, while also making sure the rules are balanced enough to facilitate casual and narrative play.

Even when pathfinders had to pay the devilfish tax no-one used them the way GW assumed you would. Giving a scout a heavy weapon markerlight made them static scouts. If they want them to feel more scout like give them infiltrate.
The problem is something that has been said over and over on dakka fluff vrs crunch and untill GW starts designing crunch to mimic fluff units will always be played the way that is most beneficial to the player to heck with how GW thinks.
Also IRCC one of the play testers said the play testing wasn't done with here is a codex find the broken stuff it was here is two fixed army lists do they sort of feel about the same power.

Ice_can wrote:
Even when pathfinders had to pay the devilfish tax no-one used them the way GW assumed you would. Giving a scout a heavy weapon markerlight made them static scouts. If they want them to feel more scout like give them infiltrate.

Or, they could just make them faster, lower range and make markerlights assault weapons. That way they would have to act like scouts to provide their benefit to the army.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way advocating that this is actually good for tau on the tabletop, just for the "feel" of a unit.

You get my point though, your building rules that match the way you believe the unit should be played. So the players are much more likely to play the unit that way.

Something that GW designers seam confused about when they watch players. Much like why don't you have X unit? becuase Y can do kill Z anyway aswell as A,B&C. Example reapers.

Silver144 wrote:
But, due some harsh backfire from playerbase (I heard there even was a rude personal mails)

"rude personal mails" - no, there were death threats.

And, almost a year old but still relevant:

Who is this person or who is this a response from/by?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Who is this person or who is this a response from/by?

Aaron Dembski-Bowden is a BL author, and has held several other positions at GW.

Which makes it even funnier that he typed that because up until very recently GW has done 0 market research on its own customer base so has had no knowledge of the make-up of competitive vs. basement group players. So effectively he was (like nearly everything he writes) inserting his own headcannon into the situation.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Which makes it even funnier that he typed that because up until very recently GW has done 0 market research on its own customer base so has had no knowledge of the make-up of competitive vs. basement group players. So effectively he was (like nearly everything he writes) inserting his own headcannon into the situation.

Very recently... How long ago do you think Kirby was in charge?