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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Robin literally just confirmed that IK wasn't in the wild when they started working on CA.

The conspiracy stuff is really obnoxious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
, not when your pushing out codex after codex so fast.

And we have...two left now? Last year was pretty exceptional in terms of releases.

Oh no my dude, we have every book still to come because churning out the rules every 12-14 months makes them too much money not to do it.

They can't force you to update your models but they can force new rules upon you.

It's nothing new.

Edit: Never mind, thought I was on AoS board.

Those were your words man, not mine. The burden of the proof is on you.
Show us your GW statement where they say that those two weapons should have the same cost.
If you can do that, we can discuss about this mathematically illogical statement of yours. If not i don't see any merit in continuing this discussion. BTW we are off topic.

We've already won this debate about PK and PF because it will change like it always has and like how I won the last time I had this argument before CA 2017.

Also for people asking earlier I know from a friend who apparently spoke to guy called "Sam Pearson" that said he was the head writer or something for the Ork codex so you can add that to the list of devs if you need too.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Please provide this ‘proof’. I’d be interested to see it. Please also explain the logic as to why two identical weapons should be priced differently.

Please also explain why GW have themselves stated that equipment is priced separately from a unit by design?

Those things are not mutually exclusive and doesn't preclude making decisions in terms of balance. And in case you didn't notice ranged weapons already have a predetermined number of shots regardless of the model, which is quite different from melee.

Power Fist (as on a marine) - 2 S8 attacks - 9 points
Power Fist (as on a guard) - 2 S6 attacks - 8 points
Power Klaw (as on anything) - 3 S10 attacks - 13 points

Explain to me why GW though the IG fist should be cheaper? They're the same equipment!
Why are IG lascannons 20 points instead of 25? They're the same equipment!

A thunder hammer is the same equipment even if it's on a character - why the cost difference?

Huh that’s odd. I don’t see Sergeants paying for any of their extra stats. In any army. *Almost as if the cost of the sergeant model was already priced into the cost of the unit itself.*

I also find it strange that you believe you know more about how GW price models and their equipment than GW themselves. GW have stated that the price for models in a unit and their equipment is separate by design. They have also shown that identical equipment is priced identically. As you’ve said a PF costs the same regardless of the model that has equipped it. As a PK is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to a PF, their price should be too, according to GWs own, stated design philosophy.

I think you missed the nuance of their statements somewhere along the way. A PF in the same army is the same, because the single model in 10 with fewer attacks getting a discount isn't a big deal. That doesn't mean "identical" weapons across different armies are going to work the same.

Do you honestly the a Sx2 AP3 D3 weapon should be the same on any unit regardless of it's attacks or strength?

Like, say, a Tyrant Guard crushing claw (Sx2 AP3 D3) with S5 and 3 attacks at 12 points with no exploding attacks? If you go down...it's unlikely to be less than what the crushing claw is at.

The sooner you accept reality the happier you'll be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
We've already won this debate about PK and PF because it will change like it always has and like how I won the last time I had this argument before CA 2017.

Also for people asking earlier I know from a friend who apparently spoke to guy called "Sam Pearson" that said he was the head writer or something for the Ork codex so you can add that to the list of devs if you need too.

In your head you won. PK dropping from an insane point level in CA17 does not guarantee you a drop in the future.

And if you can't understand WHY a PK should be more then I really have to question your process in how you determine balance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:


Oh no my dude, we have every book still to come because churning out the rules every 12-14 months makes them too much money not to do it.

They can't force you to update your models but they can force new rules upon you.

It's nothing new.

Sure. We'll see.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
We've already won this debate about PK and PF because it will change like it always has and like how I won the last time I had this argument before CA 2017.

Also for people asking earlier I know from a friend who apparently spoke to guy called "Sam Pearson" that said he was the head writer or something for the Ork codex so you can add that to the list of devs if you need too.

In your head you won. PK dropping from an insane point level in CA17 does not guarantee you a drop in the future.

And if you can't understand WHY a PK should be more then I really have to question your process in how you determine balance.

Wouldn't them changing PKs to be a value that isn't equal actually lend credence to the idea that they are not supposed to be equal, at least in the eyes of GW? They had a chance to make them equal and chose not to. They can't be said to have just forgotten to change it, like with some aberrant points values.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Please provide this ‘proof’. I’d be interested to see it. Please also explain the logic as to why two identical weapons should be priced differently.

Please also explain why GW have themselves stated that equipment is priced separately from a unit by design?

Those things are not mutually exclusive and doesn't preclude making decisions in terms of balance. And in case you didn't notice ranged weapons already have a predetermined number of shots regardless of the model, which is quite different from melee.

Power Fist (as on a marine) - 2 S8 attacks - 9 points
Power Fist (as on a guard) - 2 S6 attacks - 8 points
Power Klaw (as on anything) - 3 S10 attacks - 13 points

Explain to me why GW though the IG fist should be cheaper? They're the same equipment!
Why are IG lascannons 20 points instead of 25? They're the same equipment!

A thunder hammer is the same equipment even if it's on a character - why the cost difference?

Huh that’s odd. I don’t see Sergeants paying for any of their extra stats. In any army. *Almost as if the cost of the sergeant model was already priced into the cost of the unit itself.*

I also find it strange that you believe you know more about how GW price models and their equipment than GW themselves. GW have stated that the price for models in a unit and their equipment is separate by design. They have also shown that identical equipment is priced identically. As you’ve said a PF costs the same regardless of the model that has equipped it. As a PK is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to a PF, their price should be too, according to GWs own, stated design philosophy.

I think you missed the nuance of their statements somewhere along the way. A PF in the same army is the same, because the single model in 10 with fewer attacks getting a discount isn't a big deal. That doesn't mean "identical" weapons across different armies are going to work the same.

Do you honestly the a Sx2 AP3 D3 weapon should be the same on any unit regardless of it's attacks or strength?

Like, say, a Tyrant Guard crushing claw (Sx2 AP3 D3) with S5 and 3 attacks at 12 points with no exploding attacks? If you go down...it's unlikely to be less than what the crushing claw is at.

The sooner you accept reality the happier you will be.

The funny thing is, as Lolman has already said the precedent has been set already in that the PK should cost as much as the PF. GW made that change in the previous CA and clearly it wasn’t an ‘insane point level’ because as far as I remember the meta wasn’t flooded by Ork PK spam lists.

Yes I believe an identical weapon should be the same across all armies. As I have already stated - the price of THE UNIT is what defines its attacks etc. If I’m paying more for the same weapon and I pay more for the extra attacks I have paid for the same thing twice. “But you get extra attacks at Str 10!!!!!” Yes, this has been paid for with the unit cost and it’s other stats. If I pay for it again in the equipment cost I have paid for this twice.

What you forgot to mention in your above analysis is that the PK wielding Nob has a worse save, worse movement, worse BS, worse leadership etc than the marine. They get no access to a 2 pt 3++. This is why he gets more attacks. This is what allows the cost of the PK/PF to be the same across all armies. Yes the Ork is better in melee, but he also has way worse stats in other areas to compensate. If I pay for the melee benefit in choosing a PK the benefit is lost.

Also, if this is the case, how come shooting weapons with the same profile are cheaper on marines who have better BS?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

The funny thing is, as Lolman has already said the precedent has been set already in that the PK should cost as much as the PF. GW made that change in the previous CA and clearly it wasn’t an ‘insane point level’ because as far as I remember the meta wasn’t flooded by Ork PK spam lists.

Yes I believe an identical weapon should be the same across all armies. As I have already stated - the price of THE UNIT is what defines its attacks etc. If I’m paying more for the same weapon and I pay more for the extra attacks I have paid for the same thing twice. “But you get extra attacks at Str 10!!!!!” Yes, this has been paid for with the unit cost and it’s other stats. If I pay for it again in the equipment cost I have paid for this twice.

What you forgot to mention in your above analysis is that the PK wielding Nob has a worse save, worse movement, worse BS, worse leadership etc than the marine. They get no access to a 2 pt 3++. This is why he gets more attacks. This is what allows the cost of the PK/PF to be the same across all armies. Yes the Ork is better in melee, but he also has way worse stats in other areas to compensate. If I pay for the melee benefit in choosing a PK the benefit is lost.

First, - the original PK was 25 points - that is an insane cost. The PF was 20 points and was not adjusted in CA17, because the codexes got to it first, mostly.

Let's make a hypothetical game and try to balance it.

Unit A has 2A.
Unit B has the same stats, but 3A. We've determined each extra attack is worth 1 point.

So Unit A is worth x and Unit B is worth X + 1. They each pay 9 points for a PF. We'll let x be 5.

(5 + 9) / 2 = 7 points per attack
(5 + 1 + 9) / 3 = 5 points per attack

So, clearly one unit is quite a lot better.

What if we made attacks 2 points each - make sure to update the base cost!

(7 + 9) / 2 = 8
(7 + 2 + 9) / 3 = 6

Still better!

Ok - 3 points!

(9 + 9) / 2 = 9
(9 + 3 + 9) / 3 = 7

Clearly this is a problem that a linear scale can not solve and I highly doubt GW would use a non-linear scale for such an issue. The other option is to make the weapon cost more for Unit B.

And on top of the Tryrant Guard we also have this one:

The Bullgryn Maul - it's the same stats as a Big Choppa. It should be the same cost, right? Nope - 7 points. The Bullgryn is WS3, S5, A3 so what could it possibly be? Maybe it's that Bullgryns get +1A on the charge.

Now, maybe GW missed both the Tyrant Guard and the Bullgryn, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if the base cost includes all considerations then we wouldn't see marines pay 25 for a LC where guard pay 20. It's not a stretch to think they'd make the same effort for melee weapons.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
Also, if this is the case, how come shooting weapons with the same profile are cheaper on marines who have better BS?

Other than flamer weapons what else is there that is directly comparable and grievously over costed?

Gitdakka wrote:
Yes chapter approved was just a marketing hoax. Regular Marines are the obvoious offenders. Collectors allready have loads of them.
Cries for some semblence of balance with points reduction or rules has been heard since day one of 8th. Such balance would not sell miniatures and therefore primaris was given a point drop instead.

It's barely about the game enjoyment at all. They are just trying to steer players into buying the new kits.

I like baseless conspiracy theories. If I may ask, do these "new kits" don't include primaris? Their rules were mediocre for a year, with no drops, only to get a very modest one, man, GW must really hate money. Ditto with new ork buggies, most of the custodes besides bikes, SM superheavy, new Calgar, do these 'collectors' have loads of them already?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yes I believe an identical weapon should be the same across all armies. As I have already stated - the price of THE UNIT is what defines its attacks etc. If I’m paying more for the same weapon and I pay more for the extra attacks I have paid for the same thing twice. “But you get extra attacks at Str 10!!!!!” Yes, this has been paid for with the unit cost and it’s other stats. If I pay for it again in the equipment cost I have paid for this twice.

The problem here is that means my Dual Pistol Captain is paying a penalty for being good with a Thunder Hammer when he doesn't have a Thunder Hammer. A Thunder Hammer will always be more effective on a WS2+ A4 model than a WS3+ A2 model, but the WS2+ A4 model shouldn't pay more for the chance he might have one. It's actually more fair for weapons to be cost adjusted for different profiles.

Okay, I'm going to try and discuss something other than the stupid PK argument because that's not the purpose of this thread. I want to drill down on this one fact:

HOW DOES GW ONLY HAVE 6 RULES WRITERS!?!?!? This is a company with literally a 1 billion pound market cap (well, maybe close to that; I haven't checked in a couple weeks). They dominate the industry. THEY CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER. I get frustrated with the rules writers they have sometimes and the decisions they make, but honestly, now that I know it's just 6 of them, it's more like pity.

Seriously, I'd love to see a comparison to FFG or something. Or better yet, a comparison to Wizards of the Coast. I know Magic is a bigger game, but I suspect they employ dozens of people who are dedicated to the rules. 6 rules writers is unacceptable and GW should be ashamed of themselves after this year of raking in money hand over fist.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm not sure why these discussions always have an air of "conspiracy" about them, as if basic business principles are difficult to comprehend. There's nothing secretive about it.

1) GW has no vested interest in a perfectly balanced, and nuanced game. They need a game to be balanced "enough" to continue selling models - which is priority numero uno. While I don't doubt GW employees enthusiasm for the product, GW is smart enough as a business to realize that additional resources, time and investment in perfecting the game is wasted money and effort. The game needs to be "good enough", this is a point at which almost all successful companies eventually arrive at.

2) To this point...in order to sell models, likewise some models need rules balanced up or down to ensure these models keep selling. GW has access to their own sales numbers and are capable of looking at spreadsheets and saying "Damn, no one has purchased X in four months...". So again, this will mean they will consider balancing these models just enough to make them more appealing sales-wise. The bonus is that it may also slightly balance the game....but game balance is not the driving factor behind this.

In other words, GW wants both. They bump units to sell them, and by doing so also gain some favor with players and consumers. It's a double-win for them. They're not doing it for the "good of the game" they're doing it to stay in the business of selling models.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, because GW has made rules for units that are so poor that it's to their own detriment. Sure, it's true that they don't have a huge financial incentive to make a perfectly balanced game, but it's ALSO true that there IS a financial incentive to make units, at bare minimum, overpowered. But they can't even do that half the time.

If GW's motivation when designing the rules for units was just "let's make some money" then every new unit that's released would be Riptide/Wraithknight/Imperial Knight tier on release, but they almost never are. In fact I'd go so far as to say that 90% of new models have gak rules on release- just absolutely god awful rules that are only suitable for the most casual and fluffy of games. That's directly harmful to their bottom line. How many people are snatching up Sunshark bombers? Or those Space Marine anti-air vehicles?

My opinion on the motivations of GW has been pretty constant for years: when it comes to rules they're predominantly well meaning but just incompetent. It's not a matter of being ambivalent toward the idea of having a well-written ruleset, it's a matter of having literally no idea HOW to make a well-written ruleset.

Now, as for this...

Nobody should fault them for that, or complain or chide them for it. It's their job.

This is some corporate bootlicker stuff my dude. Unless you are a GW shareholder you have no stake in the future of GW, your only stake is in getting a good product. They aren't giving their models and rules away for free, so as a paying customer you have every right to hold expectations (and make those expectations known to everyone around you) for the product or service that's going after your money.

If your condition for GW getting your hard earned money is that the rules for their models and game have to be good, then GWs only options are to either ignore you and not get your money, or acquiesce to your demand. You aren't obligated to give them a dime for anything.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Okay, I'm going to try and discuss something other than the stupid PK argument because that's not the purpose of this thread. I want to drill down on this one fact:

HOW DOES GW ONLY HAVE 6 RULES WRITERS!?!?!? This is a company with literally a 1 billion pound market cap (well, maybe close to that; I haven't checked in a couple weeks). They dominate the industry. THEY CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER. I get frustrated with the rules writers they have sometimes and the decisions they make, but honestly, now that I know it's just 6 of them, it's more like pity.

Seriously, I'd love to see a comparison to FFG or something. Or better yet, a comparison to Wizards of the Coast. I know Magic is a bigger game, but I suspect they employ dozens of people who are dedicated to the rules. 6 rules writers is unacceptable and GW should be ashamed of themselves after this year of raking in money hand over fist.

6 writers are not as undersized as it looks, it's about the correct number for the task.

Mind you, those are the rule "writers", behind them they have a team of editors who make things pretty.
They are also not the ones who personally playtest, they only receive the feedback and write rules accordingly. 6 persons at full time is actually more than i would allocate to an activity like that.

If you think about it, it means that each of them has about 3 or 4 codici to maintain, which is more akin to a part time job than a full time one.

No, 6 writers is more than fine.

The size of the playtest team, now that is a number that i'm eager to know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
First, - the original PK was 25 points - that is an insane cost. The PF was 20 points and was not adjusted in CA17, because the codexes got to it first, mostly.

Let's make a hypothetical game and try to balance it.

Unit A has 2A.
Unit B has the same stats, but 3A. We've determined each extra attack is worth 1 point.

So Unit A is worth x and Unit B is worth X + 1. They each pay 9 points for a PF. We'll let x be 5.

(5 + 9) / 2 = 7 points per attack
(5 + 1 + 9) / 3 = 5 points per attack

So, clearly one unit is quite a lot better.

What if we made attacks 2 points each - make sure to update the base cost!

(7 + 9) / 2 = 8
(7 + 2 + 9) / 3 = 6

Still better!

Ok - 3 points!

(9 + 9) / 2 = 9
(9 + 3 + 9) / 3 = 7

Clearly this is a problem that a linear scale can not solve and I highly doubt GW would use a non-linear scale for such an issue. The other option is to make the weapon cost more for Unit B.

And on top of the Tryrant Guard we also have this one:

The Bullgryn Maul - it's the same stats as a Big Choppa. It should be the same cost, right? Nope - 7 points. The Bullgryn is WS3, S5, A3 so what could it possibly be? Maybe it's that Bullgryns get +1A on the charge.

Now, maybe GW missed both the Tyrant Guard and the Bullgryn, but I doubt it.

Furthermore, if the base cost includes all considerations then we wouldn't see marines pay 25 for a LC where guard pay 20. It's not a stretch to think they'd make the same effort for melee weapons.

We don't need to do a hypothetical bit of maths focussing only on offensive output in melee because it misses entire swathes of a units' statline that also impact on balance. A PK on a unit with a 4+ save and no access to an invulnerable in melee isn't going to be around as long as a PF on a unit with an inbuilt/easily accessed invulnerable or with a much better save.

Which is why this all falls down. You're making massive assumptions with your maths that don't translate into real game scenarios.

Storm bolters are equivalent to Kustom Shootas. Rapid fire 2 24 range is roughly assault 4 18 range. How much are they on a BS3 model? How much do they cost Orks on BS5 model?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
6 rules writers is unacceptable and GW should be ashamed of themselves after this year of raking in money hand over fist.

How many do you seriously think they need?

I feel 6 main ruke writers is fine but there does need to be a 2nd level with more people. These are the in house play testers and I'd argue there needs to be just as much as an game testing company (if they still exist since game companies found out they couoe charge you for an Alpha).

Six rules writers sounds about right to me though they must have been very stretched over the past year or two. Too many more than that and you'll start to get cliques, conflicts and just plain the head not knowing what the tails doing (the latter already being a minor issue for them, ruleswise, at times.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
6 rules writers is unacceptable and GW should be ashamed of themselves after this year of raking in money hand over fist.

How many do you seriously think they need?

As somebody else said, you should probably literally double that number. I don't get how this is controversial. You have 6 people who are basically the intellectual engine for a billion pound company. They probably aren't paid that much, and obviously, as noted, I'm sure they've been stretched severely thin this release (and that's clear given some of the oversights, delays, and baffling choices). Doubling that number means you have twice the brains participating in codex development, which is where rules are written. That's how you make datasheets unique, interesting, and functional. Then you'd assign point values and have playtesters help with that.

I think that the creeping samey blandness of 8th can be directly tied to this lack of rules writers. A small number of writers means less time per codex, which means less time per datasheet, which means less time to come up with innovative rules and mechanics. So instead we fall back to "ZOMG let's add another d6 in here, players love wacky random dice rolls!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Six rules writers sounds about right to me though they must have been very stretched over the past year or two. Too many more than that and you'll start to get cliques, conflicts and just plain the head not knowing what the tails doing (the latter already being a minor issue for them, ruleswise, at times.

I don't know about that -- most of the teams I've worked on in my life have been 10-12 people with one manager, and that doesn't seem unreasonable.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
6 rules writers is unacceptable and GW should be ashamed of themselves after this year of raking in money hand over fist.

How many do you seriously think they need?

As somebody else said, you should probably literally double that number. I don't get how this is controversial. You have 6 people who are basically the intellectual engine for a billion pound company. They probably aren't paid that much, and obviously, as noted, I'm sure they've been stretched severely thin this release (and that's clear given some of the oversights, delays, and baffling choices). Doubling that number means you have twice the brains participating in codex development, which is where rules are written. That's how you make datasheets unique, interesting, and functional. Then you'd assign point values and have playtesters help with that.

I think that the creeping samey blandness of 8th can be directly tied to this lack of rules writers. A small number of writers means less time per codex, which means less time per datasheet, which means less time to come up with innovative rules and mechanics. So instead we fall back to "ZOMG let's add another d6 in here, players love wacky random dice rolls!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Six rules writers sounds about right to me though they must have been very stretched over the past year or two. Too many more than that and you'll start to get cliques, conflicts and just plain the head not knowing what the tails doing (the latter already being a minor issue for them, ruleswise, at times.

I don't know about that -- most of the teams I've worked on in my life have been 10-12 people with one manager, and that doesn't seem unreasonable.

Fair enough, you're right about general team size. I watched the Jervis Johnson interview on Warhammer TV and it seems he is the head rules honcho for AoS and 40k has their own guy for this. He didn't confirm specifics of company structure obviously but I inferred that there were a least one or two developers under these guys working solely on a system and then a bunch of developers working on both.

He suggested that they don't really consider balance and are more about the actual game design and rule writing and that the balance really comes later after external playtesters look at it.

Dai wrote:
Six rules writers sounds about right to me though they must have been very stretched over the past year or two. Too many more than that and you'll start to get cliques, conflicts and just plain the head not knowing what the tails doing (the latter already being a minor issue for them, ruleswise, at times.

Exsactly, look at the Matt Ward era of GW. You have a singular rule writer who pushes their codex to the point it caused the End Times. XD

However, doubling rules writers means GW is doubling the amount they pay out... XD Seriously though, from what I've heard (from former employees who left the comoany about 5 years ago) the pay itself is very low... I know one guy who left to work as standard Tesco's worker because they paid more. Obviously, he wasn't a head rule writer or anything so it's impossible to know but he said it was pretty much like this across the board.

What's suoer funny is that they basically have the inquisition in GW where if you even hint that you're unhappy with pay you'd get jumped on by all the other members who tell you how luck it is that they work for GW. XD said it was like a cult.

 lolman1c wrote:

Dai wrote:
Six rules writers sounds about right to me though they must have been very stretched over the past year or two. Too many more than that and you'll start to get cliques, conflicts and just plain the head not knowing what the tails doing (the latter already being a minor issue for them, ruleswise, at times.

Exsactly, look at the Matt Ward era of GW. You have a singular rule writer who pushes their codex to the point it caused the End Times. XD

However, doubling rules writers means GW is doubling the amount they pay out... XD Seriously though, from what I've heard (from former employees who left the comoany about 5 years ago) the pay itself is very low... I know one guy who left to work as standard Tesco's worker because they paid more. Obviously, he wasn't a head rule writer or anything so it's impossible to know but he said it was pretty much like this across the board.

Right! That's the astounding thing I've heard. I know it's the UK and things are different, but here in the US, a technical writer makes a decent enough (but not fantastic) salary, and I'd think GW rules writers should be comparable to that. GW's shelling out who-knows how much for factory expansion and investing in their manufacturing capital; they should invest a little more in their human and intellectual capital as well.

GW isn't a rule making company. It is a model making company, which uses rules to market and promote the selling of models.

Gitdakka wrote:
.
It's barely about the game enjoyment at all. They are just trying to steer players into buying the new kits.

So what's new?

 Trickstick wrote:
GW isn't a rule making company. It is a model making company, which uses rules to market and promote the selling of models.

They can repeat this lie until the End Times, it doesn't make it any truer. The fact they produce a game makes them a game company whether they like it or not, and comes with certain obligations.

Anyways the issue with their rules team is the 40k team seems to be the same guys (mostly?) as in the 6th and 7th edition "Forge the Narrative!" days; that is, they are the people who don't care as much about balance but more for throwing down kewl models and having a kewl game with your mates at your flat after a pint at the pub. As a result, they listen to people like the ITC tournament organizers who it's already been shown have forked the game since their house rules change the game fundamentally. Also as I already said, it's the fact GW insists on print instead of digital for 40k so they can't/won't update things a lot faster than twice a year. They should really have quarterly at best updates/tweaks to the game, which are delivered as actual errata and for free like the FAQs, but where they tweak actual datasheets. For instance, if Chaos Marines are lackluster, they would have a review of that (and other units) and then have an update on Warhammer Community that's like hey we reviewed these units and found they aren't where we want them, so here are updated datasheets with point adjustments that are effective immediately.

The AOS team has tournament players helping to design the rules, so they have a vested interest in things at least somewhat balanced (although AOS still has a lot of issues) while the 40k team still seems to be the people who aren't interested in competitive play but are giving a bone because they know it's a popular thing.

Wayniac wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
GW isn't a rule making company. It is a model making company, which uses rules to market and promote the selling of models.

They can repeat this lie until the End Times, it doesn't make it any truer. The fact they produce a game makes them a game company whether they like it or not, and comes with certain obligations.

Anyways the issue with their rules team is the 40k team seems to be the same guys (mostly?) as in the 6th and 7th edition "Forge the Narrative!" days; that is, they are the people who don't care as much about balance but more for throwing down kewl models and having a kewl game with your mates at your flat after a pint at the pub. As a result, they listen to people like the ITC tournament organizers who it's already been shown have forked the game since their house rules change the game fundamentally. Also as I already said, it's the fact GW insists on print instead of digital for 40k so they can't/won't update things a lot faster than twice a year. They should really have quarterly at best updates/tweaks to the game, which are delivered as actual errata and for free like the FAQs, but where they tweak actual datasheets. For instance, if Chaos Marines are lackluster, they would have a review of that (and other units) and then have an update on Warhammer Community that's like hey we reviewed these units and found they aren't where we want them, so here are updated datasheets with point adjustments that are effective immediately.

The AOS team has tournament players helping to design the rules, so they have a vested interest in things at least somewhat balanced (although AOS still has a lot of issues) while the 40k team still seems to be the people who aren't interested in competitive play but are giving a bone because they know it's a popular thing.

They kinda did repeat this until The End Times then stopped producing a bunch of models and made big changes that got you to buy lots of new models. XD But yes, from my AoS friends I've heard nothing but good from that game. Armies that seem terible still have a chance in causal, and that's what I like to hear.

GW need to hire a legal/technical writer to make sure their rules actually work, for once.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW need to hire a legal/technical writer to make sure their rules actually work, for once.

They could do this... but why would they? GW only came this far in 8th edition because they left it until the last second until their company was about to collapse in on itself... They've dragged themselves out of their grave by just slightly doing what the customer might want and their stocks show that. The recent stock drops is likely because of t CA (lots of people are selling their shares now in case there is a drop in model sales). Once that is over and summer hits their stocks will rise again and they'll balance out. Right now GW is in a good state... I will always be critical of them as I believe that's the right thing to do (I do enjoy 40k, etc...) but as long as they don't end up like 6th and 7th edition then they'll probably be fine. However, we should not forget if they ended up like the mid 2005-2016 GW then they might end up like that again.

 lolman1c wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW need to hire a legal/technical writer to make sure their rules actually work, for once.

They could do this... but why would they? GW only came this far in 8th edition because they left it until the last second until their company was about to collapse in on itself... They've dragged themselves out of their grave by just slightly doing what the customer might want and their stocks show that. The recent stock drops is likely because of the from CA and the idea that lots of people are selling now in case there is a drop in model sales. Once that is over and summer hits their stocks will rise again and they'll balance out. Right now GW is in a good state... I will always be critical of them as I believe that's the right thing to do (I do enjoy 40k, etc...) but as long as they don't end up like 6th and 7th edition then they'll probably be fine. However, we should not forget if they ended up like the mid 2005-2016 GW then they might end up like that again.

You make an interesting point and one that is both good and bad: GW's fanbase basically showed them that mediocrity is acceptable by how well received 8th edition is despite still being a horribly unbalanced mess. So why would GW put in more effort when their stock skyrocketed from doing a minimal job?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

As somebody else said, you should probably literally double that number. I don't get how this is controversial. .

It's not controversial. You posted a rather hyperbolic rant about how ridiculous it was that they only had 6 rules writers, without mentioning why that was an issue or how big you felt the team should be. Or why you would be more qualified to make that decision than whoever is actually doing that work, for that matter... So people questioned it. Simple cause and effect in action.