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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

100% perfect out of the gate is impossible. Even with guys like Reece trying to break the game for testing stuff slips through. Thousands of eyes > dozens or even hundreds of eyes.

None is talking about typos and you know it. Please don't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even professionals make mistakes. College textbooks cost several hundred dollars and have errors all the time.

100% perfect out of the gate is impossible. Even with guys like Reece trying to break the game for testing stuff slips through. Thousands of eyes > dozens or even hundreds of eyes.

Nobody is complaining about occasional typos that get fixed by FAQ once they are discovered. We're talking about major mistakes and poor design choices caused by systematic failures in GW's process.

The guys who write and playtest the ITC are on board for play testing and are on record that not every problem is feasible to catch before a book comes out.

There is a severe lack of perspective combined with hyper inflated demands placed on this game that drown out the things that do need real addressing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
I dont understand why people have a mental block about doing something that isn't EXPLICITLY stated in the rules.

Because we don't want to have to play amateur game designer to figure out if the change is a good one and how to implement it. Sucks for people with weaker armies, but the easiest thing to do is just play by RAW and those people can buy stronger lists.

Based on the stuff I've seen the internet (and even Dakka) claim would fix the game I have to say the studio is doing a better job than 99% of the armchair games designers online.

There is a catch - the armchair game designers online do it for free, the GW studio is supposedly made up of professionals.

Even professionals make mistakes. College textbooks cost several hundred dollars and have errors all the time.

100% perfect out of the gate is impossible. Even with guys like Reece trying to break the game for testing stuff slips through. Thousands of eyes > dozens or even hundreds of eyes.

None is talking about typos and you know it.

Who said I was talking typos? Factual errors end up in college texts too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually speaking of factual errors: the US Army APFT manual used to require people to wear knee high tube socks to prevent shin splints.

That is not how shin splints or tube socks work.

And they have a budget that far beyond anything GW has.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
I assume that similar claim is made for AOS which by all dakka discussions is a much smaller game than 40k.

I make no such assumption. In fact, I have no idea how AoS is as I can't imagine why anyone finds the game appealing.

See a glaring hole in that landscape, perfectly fillable by collectors and beer and pretzels casuals and narrative players?

Not really. Let's make some reasonable assumptions, going with your 50/50 approximation:

* 50% of GW's revenue is from non-40k sources (AoS, license deals, etc), with "40k sales" including models, paint, and rules.

* 50% of 40k sales are to one-time customers who (for whatever reason) make an initial purchase or two but drop it soon after, which is probably a wildly optimistic estimate of GW's retention rate.

* 75% of 40k sales are to competitive players, a pretty good approximation of "competitive players dominate the hobby".

That's £40.5 million per year in 40k sales to competitive players. If the ITC list covers 100% of competitive players that's an average annual expense of ~£5,000. If the ITC list covers 10% of competitive players that's down to £500 per year, about equivalent to buying a new army every year or two. So no, there isn't really this massive hole you insist must exist. You can account for the majority of 40k revenue with competitive players alone, leaving very little need to assign sales to non-competitive players.

What I find funny is that during 5th to 7th you yourself, by your own statements in prior discussions, were a member of this suposedly non existing group of players, rarely playing an occasional narrative game and making an occasional purchase if ever.

By your own words, you did not exist/were irrelevant...

And that's 100% correct! People who stay engaged with a game at that point are rare, and someone who isn't involved with the local community and only buys OOP stuff from third-party sellers might as well not exist from the point of view of GW. It is absolutely correct to say that I didn't exist except as a potential customer that could be drawn back into relevance if GW improved the game.

You have basically repeated my 50/50 divisions just starting on a different one and then drew conclusions that suit you, because you have ommited the "look at ITC ranking closer" part of my post - it is absolutely unreasonable to assume, that entirety of those ITCx10 crowd churn and burn an army per year if half of the ITC ranking doesn't really compete in any serious way. Half of those RANKED players have a score of less than 100pts with only top 400 having scores of more than half of maximum (1200pts) and 5/5 attendance (5/5 attendance start at around top 1000). You also get a lot of examples in tournament vs casual threads that there is a whole lot of people even at LVO level who go only to get guaranteed, strictly casual games with people at their level (sorted out after first games due to pairig mechanism). I suspect that only those in higher percentiles can be reasonably "accused" of spending +£500 per year to stay competetive, so "reasonable assumptions" require you to multiply yearly spendings per competitive player tenfold again. You also forget, that churn and burn means that a whole lot of models get recycled on second hand market, deducing that part from GWs revenue from other players - GW only sells any mini once. So no, this don't add up and there is a glaring hole to fill by narrative/pretzel casuals/collectors and this "filling" is visible all over internet, including large chunk of dakka's own P&M blogs.

And I forgot to mention, that I don't really believe in 50% of GWs revenue being accidental one time purchases, I was just being generous here - I never saw any data supporting it. But even with all those "reasonable calculations" provided by both of us "serious competitive players" are only a fifth of GWs revenue but act as 95% of it. GW could easily stop bother about them altogether, focus solely on pushing minis and broken rules and still be the largest and most prosperous tabletop games company. Which they kind a do, which is the point of this entire thread. But now I'm tired with this going in circles with you, so don't expect another reply from me.

And you did not understand the last part - you did not exist not in the eyes of GW, but in the eyes of Peregrine's previous discussions during those last three years.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The guys who write and playtest the ITC are on board for play testing and are on record that not every problem is feasible to catch before a book comes out.

There is a severe lack of perspective combined with hyper inflated demands placed on this game that drown out the things that do need real addressing

Again, nobody is expecting 100% perfection. If all we saw was minor mistakes that managed to slip through a thorough playtesting effort despite reasonable efforts to catch them then hardly anyone would be complaining. But what we get is stuff that the community spots within minutes of the books being available. That kind of thing should not happen with any kind of competent design and development process.

Factual errors end up in college texts too.

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Insectum7 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

skchsan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.

That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.

You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.

Another reason why GW needs to make a dedicated tourney ruleset and separate it from the rest of the game.

Agreed. They need to release "advanced" ruleset for competitive gaming.

Ehhh, didn't they do that in their main rulebook anyways? They have Matched Play and Open. do I have to buy another book on top of the expensive one I already bought to get tourney rules? No thanks.

What I'm talking about is a stand-alone ruleset (no 40k rules crossover)that doesnt cater to any singular faction(read: balance). If the rules dont have to worry about non-optimal builds and you limited the number of strats(everyone gets same, no faction special) & unit values/quantity, a strictly defined ruleset is feasible at least. add in a map/deployment set and specific rules for how to implement them in play. Kinda like a video game in that the maps are specifically balanced between each other and then specific missions to go along w them.

I'm not opposed to competition/tourney play, it just doesn't interest me at all. I play 40k to relax & hangout, always have, always will. If some find tournaments fun and relaxing, more power to them.

I don't see how it's even possible to discuss honestly the issue, at this point.
Deliberate disregard for the math that leads to several rule add-ons in order to fix weapons that formerly used templates is not a typo or a factual error.
Is deliberate sloppy design whose cost is discharged on the customer to make them but the next rulebook.
Same with rule bloat, scale of the game etc.
These are not typos or factual error, they are CONCEPTUAL errors. Deep roots.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I don't see how it's even possible to discuss honestly the issue, at this point.
Deliberate disregard for the math that leads to several rule add-ons in order to fix weapons that formerly used templates is not a typo or a factual error.
Is deliberate sloppy design whose cost is discharged on the customer to make them but the next rulebook.
Same with rule bloat, scale of the game etc.
These are not typos or factual error, they are CONCEPTUAL errors. Deep roots.

Templates were a problem in their own right. Nothing like arguements if a template is clipping an extra model or people skewing the scatter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The guys who write and playtest the ITC are on board for play testing and are on record that not every problem is feasible to catch before a book comes out.

There is a severe lack of perspective combined with hyper inflated demands placed on this game that drown out the things that do need real addressing

Again, nobody is expecting 100% perfection. If all we saw was minor mistakes that managed to slip through a thorough playtesting effort despite reasonable efforts to catch them then hardly anyone would be complaining. But what we get is stuff that the community spots within minutes of the books being available. That kind of thing should not happen with any kind of competent design and development process.

Factual errors end up in college texts too.

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

You're overblowing the faults in the rules or playing the wrong game if you sincerely think your comparison isn't hyperbole.

Mist of GW's rules problems come down to unexpected rules interactions followed by a lack of more in-depth terrain and movement mechanics.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I don't see how it's even possible to discuss honestly the issue, at this point.
Deliberate disregard for the math that leads to several rule add-ons in order to fix weapons that formerly used templates is not a typo or a factual error.
Is deliberate sloppy design whose cost is discharged on the customer to make them but the next rulebook.
Same with rule bloat, scale of the game etc.
These are not typos or factual error, they are CONCEPTUAL errors. Deep roots.

Templates were a problem in their own right. Nothing like arguements if a template is clipping an extra model or people skewing the scatter.

This is another deflection, sorry.
The fact that templates were a problem for some does not make the new rules mathematically sound.
Nor the design team look good if their fix for their poor planning and forethought is "let's add another layer of rules". See the new marines codex, BTW.
The issue here is that the team re-adapted templates without crunching the numbers in a game with dice. It's really that simple.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Mist of GW's rules problems come down to unexpected rules interactions followed by a lack of more in-depth terrain and movement mechanics.

And this is surreal because we are in this very moment discussing an example of an horrible, poorly planned, and statistically illiterate implementation of a basic rule.
The design team is bad at math.

nou wrote:
You have basically repeated my 50/50 divisions just starting on a different one and then drew conclusions that suit you, because you have ommited the "look at ITC ranking closer" part of my post - it is absolutely unreasonable to assume, that entirety of those ITCx10 crowd churn and burn an army per year if half of the ITC ranking doesn't really compete in any serious way. Half of those RANKED players have a score of less than 100pts with only top 400 having scores of more than half of maximum (1200pts) and 5/5 attendance (5/5 attendance start at around top 1000).

I have no idea what your point is with any of this. ITC is only one ranking system and "they aren't represented in ITC" does not prove anything other than a lack of participation and success in ITC tournaments. There is no way you can get from a lack of ITC points to conclusions about a person's spending habits. Poor skill and attending non-ITC events are two obvious explanations for a lack of ITC points that you've completely ignored in favor of your personal favorite theory.

You also get a lot of examples in tournament vs casual threads that there is a whole lot of people even at LVO level who go only to get guaranteed, strictly casual games with people at their level (sorted out after first games due to pairig mechanism). I suspect that only those in higher percentiles can be reasonably "accused" of spending +£500 per year to stay competetive, so "reasonable assumptions" require you to multiply yearly spendings per competitive player tenfold again.

Sorry, but what? I don't think you understand just how little £500 per year is. The travel and hotel costs alone for attending the LVO are easily going to exceed that, and it's laughable to suggest that someone making that kind of investment attending a competitive tournament for a game counts as a "casual" player. They're significantly invested in the hobby with a budget that makes £500 a very conservative estimate of their likely spending. Hell, even non-competitive players can easily drop £500 per year on models by building a new army every few years.

And I forgot to mention, that I don't really believe in 50% of GWs revenue being accidental one time purchases, I was just being generous here - I never saw any data supporting it.

You're right. I don't think it's 50%. I think 90% is a much more likely number for the proportion of customers that make an initial purchase and then drop out before getting anywhere in the hobby. Anecdotally GW's retention rates are known to be awful because of the immense up-front investment required before playing, as is the fact that GW openly targets younger "three purchase" customers and sets sales quotas for their employees based on the assumption that most of their customers will follow this buying pattern. By assuming only a 50% rate for this I was granting you an incredibly generous assumption.

GW could easily stop bother about them altogether, focus solely on pushing minis and broken rules and still be the largest and most prosperous tabletop games company.

Alternatively, they could stop ignoring competitive players, make the changes that benefit competitive play (and also benefit non-competitive play at the same time) and expand their customer base beyond the dedicated fans who are willing to put up with the game's flaws. It's certainly a theory with as much evidence to support it as yours.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I don't see how it's even possible to discuss honestly the issue, at this point.
Deliberate disregard for the math that leads to several rule add-ons in order to fix weapons that formerly used templates is not a typo or a factual error.
Is deliberate sloppy design whose cost is discharged on the customer to make them but the next rulebook.
Same with rule bloat, scale of the game etc.
These are not typos or factual error, they are CONCEPTUAL errors. Deep roots.

Templates were a problem in their own right. Nothing like arguements if a template is clipping an extra model or people skewing the scatter.

This is another deflection, sorry.
The fact that templates were a problem for some does not make the new rules mathematically sound.
Nor the design team look good if their fix for their poor planning and forethought is "let's add another layer of rules". See the new marines codex, BTW.
The issue here is that the team re-adapted templates without crunching the numbers in a game with dice. It's really that simple.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Mist of GW's rules problems come down to unexpected rules interactions followed by a lack of more in-depth terrain and movement mechanics.

And this is surreal because we are in this very moment discussing an example of an horrible, poorly planned, and statistically illiterate implementation of a basic rule.
The design team is bad at math.

No, you're looking at a rules mechanic that replaced another rules mechanic and deciding it's bad because you don't like the way it works. The execution works fine, you just don't like that execution.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templates were a problem in their own right. Nothing like arguements if a template is clipping an extra model or people skewing the scatter.

You're missing the point there. It's not that templates were a good mechanic (they weren't), it's that the random shot mechanic GW replaced them with has been an utter failure because GW doesn't seem to understand math. It's how you get stuff like frag missiles and the missile launchers that use them being worthless 95% of the time, LRBTs that were so hilariously terrible that GW had to literally double their firepower to get them to a reasonable level, etc.

Mist of GW's rules problems come down to unexpected rules interactions followed by a lack of more in-depth terrain and movement mechanics.

IOW, "most of GW's rules problems come down to rules bloat causing too many interactions for comprehensive playtesting and a failure to create reasonable mechanics for the key feature that defines a miniatures game". I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a compelling defense of GW, and that's not even considering the continued existence of IGOUGO, the absence of any kind of pinning/morale/etc system, etc. None of these things are accidental typos that slipped through because GW's employees are only human, they're fundamental design problems caused by systematic flaws in GW's approach to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
What I'm talking about is a stand-alone ruleset (no 40k rules crossover)that doesnt cater to any singular faction(read: balance). If the rules dont have to worry about non-optimal builds and you limited the number of strats(everyone gets same, no faction special) & unit values/quantity, a strictly defined ruleset is feasible at least. add in a map/deployment set and specific rules for how to implement them in play. Kinda like a video game in that the maps are specifically balanced between each other and then specific missions to go along w them.

But why does this need to be a separate expansion instead of the normal game? Because it sure seems like you're arguing that GW should fix the game and make it enjoyable for everyone, and then tell all of the non-tournament players to keep suffering through the broken mess of "normal" 40k.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No, you're looking at a rules mechanic that replaced another rules mechanic and deciding it's bad because you don't like the way it works. The execution works fine, you just don't like that execution.

Let me understand if I got it right - you are telling me that the transition from template to dice has been done elegantly? If so, why all the "patch" rules for (formerly) single shot vehicles?
Also I am in fact explaining you WHY "I don't like" the rules. Because the rule team understanding of probability is garbage.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

 Peregrine wrote:

Alternatively, they could stop ignoring competitive players, make the changes that benefit competitive play (and also benefit non-competitive play at the same time) and expand their customer base beyond the dedicated fans who are willing to put up with the game's flaws. It's certainly a theory with as much evidence to support it as yours.

So havong tournament players involved in playtesting matched play is ignoring competetivs players?

What color is ths sky on your planet?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
No, you're looking at a rules mechanic that replaced another rules mechanic and deciding it's bad because you don't like the way it works. The execution works fine, you just don't like that execution.

It objectively doesn't work fine, as demonstrated by GW's attempts to fix those weapons (with varying levels of success).

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
What good rules allows

1) Narrative players will be given a decent frame work to build of on for "forging the narrative." "Muh Story"
2) Players who want to achieve a "Win State" will have various options and/or playstyles suited to their needs.
3) Prevents rules inconsistencies to the point that the game itself has a clear simple mechanical flow that is because of its intuitive design.

I note that "cutesy" little stab at narrative players. I can't say I'm surprised.

Do you realise I have modified CA2018 Rules extensively for my own home games and my own narrative campaign format.
These Rules Include
No Vehicle Keyword datasheets (don't like, see later)
Non-named Characters can gain perks a modification of CA2018.
Cities Of Death Modification for games.
Custom Faction Rules for my custom armies.
Buffs to some units (cough rough riders)
I am waiting for various releases before starting that is going to (maybe go into Psychic Awakening stuff if it is good from narrative point.)

There was no stab it was the same as "win state" for MP.

You and others tend to try and place me in a box. I am neither a Narrative or Match Player, as if those are exclusive. I change according to the situation at hand.
I enjoy games design and making my own rules/armies. etc I can play "by the rules" or "house rules." Use to play Yu-gi-oh competitively so I have a unique perspective on 40k.
I have been aware of 40k since 3rd edition.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So havong tournament players involved in playtesting matched play is ignoring competetivs players?

What color is ths sky on your planet?

Having a token level of playtesting involvement in setting point costs is a pretty good approximation of ignoring them when GW continues to keep the fundamental design flaws in the game.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

No, you're looking at a rules mechanic that replaced another rules mechanic and deciding it's bad because you don't like the way it works. The execution works fine, you just don't like that execution.

Let me understand if I got it right - you are telling me that the transition from template to dice has been done elegantly? If so, why all the "patch" rules for (formerly) single shot vehicles?

Elegantly? Perhaps not. Functional with no actual breaks on the mechanics of how it works? Very much so. A rule that lacks elegance is not broken if it still works as the devsloper intented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

You're conflsting your opinion for objective fact again.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Elegantly? Perhaps not. Functional with no actual breaks on the mechanics of how it works? Very much so. A rule that lacks elegance is not broken if it still works as the devsloper intented.

Intent is not an excuse if the author deliberately writes a broken mechanic. And, again, if it isn't broken then why did GW need to literally double the firepower of certain units to get them anywhere near a playable state?

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So havong tournament players involved in playtesting matched play is ignoring competetivs players?

What color is ths sky on your planet?

Having a token level of playtesting involvement in setting point costs is a pretty good approximation of ignoring them when GW continues to keep the fundamental design flaws in the game.

They run one of the biggest tournament circuits on the planet and you call it "token"? Either you're trolling or you need to stop oriming your models inside the house.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You're conflsting your opinion for objective fact again.

I am doing no such thing. IGOUGO being a bad mechanic is as close to objective fact as anything in the entire game design profession. If you want to object to it as "just your opinion" then you are required to argue that game design has no facts or correct answers and any random person's drunk-posted proposed rules thread is as good as the best games done by professionals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They run one of the biggest tournament circuits on the planet and you call it "token"? Either you're trolling or you need to stop oriming your models inside the house.

Sigh. Their input is treated as token by GW, the tournament group itself is clearly not token. GW listens to them a bit but only as long as they get the answers they want to hear.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Elegantly? Perhaps not. Functional with no actual breaks on the mechanics of how it works? Very much so. A rule that lacks elegance is not broken if it still works as the devsloper intented.

Intent is not an excuse if the author deliberately writes a broken mechanic. And, again, if it isn't broken then why did GW need to literally double the firepower of certain units to get them anywhere near a playable state?

If the mechanic works it isn't broken. You're using your opinion on how the mechanic should work as a measuring stick on if it works which is not the basis on how we measure if a mechanic functions correctly or not.

ClockworkZion, the template debacle is a clear sign of the lack of forethought and math skills of the design team.
Even if the solutions worked well enough for the Leman Russ, the base problem remains. The approach is to add new rules, many of these rules just create bloat or noise or power creep until the system collapses.
It also subtracts design space. Trukk Boyz and Aspect Warriors risk to become my Carthago Delenda Est so my apologies to keep talking about it but they are a huge symptom as well. Basic, iconic concepts that are not going to work because the system is too big and with too big players like primarchs or knights and we need to spam scatterbikes (7th) or to jump 30 buffed boyz.

And remember: less design space is less concept space. So it could be one potential buyer that evaluates the possibility of a trukk boyz or Aspect armies and decides that no, better not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You're conflsting your opinion for objective fact again.

I am doing no such thing. IGOUGO being a bad mechanic is as close to objective fact as anything in the entire game design profession. If you want to object to it as "just your opinion" then you are required to argue that game design has no facts or correct answers and any random person's drunk-posted proposed rules thread is as good as the best games done by professionals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They run one of the biggest tournament circuits on the planet and you call it "token"? Either you're trolling or you need to stop oriming your models inside the house.

Sigh. Their input is treated as token by GW, the tournament group itself is clearly not token. GW listens to them a bit but only as long as they get the answers they want to hear.

Citation needed because unless you can source actual evidence you're talking out of your backside again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
ClockworkZion, the template debacle is a clear sign of the lack of forethought and math skills of the design team.
Even if the solutions worked well enough for the Leman Russ, the base problem remains. The approach is to add new rules, many of these rules just create bloat or noise or power creep until the system collapses.
It also subtracts design space. Trukk Boyz and Aspect Warriors risk to become my Delenda Carthago so my apologies to keep talking about it but they are a huge symptom as well. Basic, iconic concepts that are not going to work because the system is too big and with too big players like primarchs or knights and we need to spam scatterbikes (7th) or to jump 30 buffed boyz.

And remember: less design space is less concept space. So it could be one potential buyer that evaluates the possibility of a trukk boyz or Aspect armies and decides that not, better not.

Or they've added different rules to said weapons to try and add more flavor to the way they work much like gow we had weapons that reduced scatter or upped the blast marker size when hitting bigger units.

James clearly says they try to capture the feel of the models and the lore which means increasing the ways a mechanic is employed on the table.

And 30 buffed boys sounds pretty Orky to me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So havong tournament players involved in playtesting matched play is ignoring competetivs players?

What color is ths sky on your planet?

Having a token level of playtesting involvement in setting point costs is a pretty good approximation of ignoring them when GW continues to keep the fundamental design flaws in the game.

They run one of the biggest tournament circuits on the planet and you call it "token"? Either you're trolling or you need to stop oriming your models inside the house.

The fact that such drastic changes, such as the aforementioned doubling of LRBT shots, happen after that playtesting and the codex release happens does seem to suggest that either the playtesting is incredibly limited and does not adequately test the units in a codex, or that GW ignores the feedback. Take your pick.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If the mechanic works it isn't broken. You're using your opinion on how the mechanic should work as a measuring stick on if it works which is not the basis on how we measure if a mechanic functions correctly or not.

Again, the mechanic didn't work. GW themselves admitted exactly this by making significant changes to units that used the mechanic, correcting their previous failures to understand dice math. If the mechanic worked then extreme changes like that would not have been necessary.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Citation needed because unless you can source actual evidence you're talking out of your backside again.

Evidence of what? That IGOUGO is bad? That GW doesn't pay attention to their playtesters enough? The latter is pretty well demonstrated by the continued existence of threads like this arguing over how 40k is still a poor competitive game despite years worth of opportunity to improve it, and, well, if you don't understand something as obvious as why IGOUGO is bad then I'm not sure where to begin.

ClockworkZion... what the designers try to do could be very different from what they ultimately accomplish, and at what cost.
And yes, 30 boyz is very orky, I have 90 and I built with care every single one of them to make them unique. Going for 150 asap.
But this has nothing to do with the fact that you are deflecting again. Ork boyz in groups of 30 is orky, but are not Trukk Boyz so the fact that is "Orky" has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing.
It's an answer GW's FB team would write. We can do better, can't we?

 Peregrine wrote:


You're right. I don't think it's 50%. I think 90% is a much more likely number for the proportion of customers that make an initial purchase and then drop out before getting anywhere in the hobby.

Despite my previous post I simply have to - 90% of one time purchases leave you with those ITCx10 crowd spending £270 a year responsible for the entirety of the rest of GWs 216 mil revenue, with no room for repeated purchases for AOS, Necromunda, Middle Earth or BSF whatsoever. Also, it is about 3 milion people a year buying nothing else but Start Collecting box and some paints or equivalent. And because those are one time only customers, in ten years that is one in thirty citizens of NA+Europe having owned at least one box of GWs product, in 30 years of GWs existence it is one in ten. Yes, you are that bad at this estimates game...

I really don't get people "IGOUGO" is a broken mechanic has been for a long time regardless what game it is in.
Yu-gi-oh as a TCG had changed 1st turn from both players draw 5 cards, turn start draw 1 card to
1st turn player doesn't get a draw.

Even chess 1st turn is "better."

This is an issue with game systems in general.

40k is unique because it add layers of bloat that are "good dakka vs bad dakka" to "everyone has no defence, unless you reach a point your are unkillable, cough Warlord titan."

That and the terrain system is something that is "non-existent" to the point where many people "rely on unofficial rules and/or covering the entire board." As an "patch" to the fact that if you play kinda loose with terrain game is "shoot the target." What I personally have nothing against this just creates an artificial meta of what "your group" likes.