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.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Whilst I have been miffed with most on here, especially in regards to play testing discussion, I must admit that the article posted yesterday is an absolutely awful indication of the direction of travel for this edition.

Playtesters being allowed to play in a style that fits their fairly obvious bias (I absolutely bet he was already using(abusing) thunder fire cannons and drop pod devs in 8th edition, and didn't fancy buying/painting new models) is just poor control by GW. What is the point in having absolutely endless information about thunder fire cannons and playing a peek a boo style, it does not address the general landscape, it just skews, again. Then letting the guy write an article, F me... Seriously? Talk about skewing the direction of travel even further.

The hilarious thing is, TF cannons and devs aren't going to be around by next edition you would presume (in their current iteration anyway).

Really poor article, and why they decided to only highlight already used strats in this current edition is beyond me...

Lets hope some of the other play testers were doing their job properly, such as TTT.

I actually know tony and I can tell you... no he's not telling GW things so that 'his' army is the better one. He doesn't GAF about what army he is playing with really, he'll cycle to what he thinks is the best one anyways (And he's good enough that he is one of the dudes who sets what everyone else thinks is good in the future). And, indeed, I think his heart is in Space Wolves as an actual collector.

 Jidmah wrote:
Feel free to provide proof for your theories.

GW has, in fact, dictated certain units get a boost in the past, according to former rules writers. I guarantee no current rules writers is gonna tell anyone if the current GW execs do the same because, you know, they'd like to keep their jobs. But, gak, constant cycling what is the top of the power curve is dead basic development for products like 40k. I mean, do you follow the 40k meta at all? Either the designers are stunningly incompetant (and they aren't), or they have built in a certain level of churn into the system. For these 4 months castellans the hot gak. Okay, now let's nerf em. Eldar flyars are the hottest gak. Okay now for space marines. Centurions are the hottest gak. Okay, nerf em. Some of that is, sure, mistakes not noticing interactions that they patch. But not all of it is. Especially if you note, as several have in this thread, how hard they can nerf units now. The Castellan isn't just no longer the best unit to build an army around, it is straight out trash and even knights players are better with smaller versions of knights now.

This happens in CCGs (and thier online versions) and MOBAs all the time, and it's a well known process.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:
I mean... I'm not entirely sure that follows. The old GW process also included extremely limited playtesting. If they playtested as extensively, there'd likely have been way less issues with the old method. They simply refused to invest to properly create a product. Not that it is impossible to make a higher quality more finished product on release.

This is a misconception, not limited to 40k or games, but all projects of such complexity. You cannot test everything, there will always be something that you missed. In addition, both the testing process and processes for incorporating tester feedback can have systematic flaws (or worse, no defined processes at all). In addition, testers are pretty likely to become routine- or system-blinded as they become absorbed by a companies' philosophy and organizational structure. The problems of Conway's law also apply to play-testing.
In the end, you are creating a product for your customers, only the customer knows what they want. Testers aren't customers, but part of the company.

Honestly I think the profit motive came first and the benefits of the method are incidental to the ability to monetize more aggressively and cut costs of development. A 'good' product is incidental. This method doesn't, in my opinion, produce better products in any appreciable higher quantity ratio than older methods.

I honor your opinion, but the old method has been proven to not work. Blindly developing a complex system for a long time without continuously integrating customer feedback might yield a great product if you get lucky, but most of the time simply fails to do so.
Windows 8 is a great example of large project that failed because of the lack of customer involvement.

You can't look at aggressive monetization schemes in gaming and go "yes, NBA2k has certainly benefited from being aggressively monetized as a live service". Some products using this method are good quality, some are bad. It just creates different incentives for how a company measures cost benefits. Sometimes it means the development is responsive. Sometimes it means the product is made to intentionally waste time and force grinding to sell time savers. For the case of GW, I'd be shocked if there wasn't some strong incentive to NOT fix things so that the next cycle has something to be worked on and sold, and that there is a push to buy the new hot overpowered unit this cycle, which will get nerfed next cycle to push a different product. And that's on top of genuine errors and mistakes GW writers make. GW isn't just regularly upping their prices, they are pushing you to buy and trade out books and units at an increased pace too.

Two things:
1) GW already tried the aggressive monetization in 7th approach, selling dozens of single datasheets for 10€ and it clearly didn't work out well. Their current goal clearly seems to be to provide just enough product to keep everyone buying.
2) In the gaming industry, providing an objectively good game with few pain points for your players has proven to be the best way to earn money with your game in long term. Not fixing your game or intentionally breaking it has proven to hurt your sales and eventually will cause your game to die.

The one benefit of the development cycle you describe is one that GW, being a fair sized corporation, doesn't enjoy. It lowers the cost of entry for developers, as seen in a proliferation of small gaming companies, both in miniature gaming and video gaming. But, again, not something that is applicable to GW, since GW isn't small and it has the money to invest development that doesn't require getting a product out now or it goes bankrupt.

That is not how it works. The old models generates unnecessary risks, which will turn into losses. If you polish and test for six years and then release an edition that everyone hates, and then it takes you another six years to release the next one, even GW will be facing financial troubles.
Taking small steps and adjusting your direction when you need is superior to blindly steering towards a set goal for years.
And I also disagree that GW is too large for such an attempt - companies ten to a hundred time their size use this approach to develop their products.

If you like to continue this discussion, I suggest creating a thread somewhere else and PM me a link. This is nowhere near the topic anymore.

I mean, taking just GW into account, is 8th so much better than, say, 4th? Iunno. I can't even say. I remember 4th being quite fun, but it's hard to tell over the years

But is, say, an aggressively monetized minimum viable product in games better than the older style of internal iterations until a finished product is produced? Eh? Both are actually still regularly produced, and indeed quite successful. Doom Eternal did not release as the "minimum viable product". But paradox games sort of do (and I adore paradox games) with endless editions and development.

Both are entirely valid ways to develop. But if your minimum viable product is just a tool for aggressive monetization over any other concerns, that is going to produce a gak product. And I worry how much GW's development is driven for the most profit verse what is actually the healthiest for the game. Necromunda's minimum viable product was absolute gak and GW tried to fleece people for roughly a year with drip fed barely tested nonsense before they actually created what I would actually consider their minimum viable product. Actually worth the price of buying in to play.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
The software thing is an interesting one, the issue with applying the logic to GW is that typically in software, a development results in simply a product bigger than the last, a feature etc and there are patterns in place to manage dependencies and whole books on user experience etc.

For GW they add features but they are tightly coupled to others to use programming lingo, that is to say the change or adding of one thing often changes or has effects on the rest (something in programming you generally want to avoid).

If i add a CSV export feature to my invoice system it does not effect generating invoices and it certainly does not effect system users (unless they need permissions to export csvs, but this is just more adding stuff in)

If GW add in primaris bikers with OP rules it effects the entire marine army as you'd be daft not to take them and therefore all armies that fight against them are effected and therefore the whole product morphs so the user experience changes.

So if 40k were software i'd have unit tests up the wazoo, human testers at all stages of development and still expect my support queue on release to be full within hours.

You clearly haven't ever worked in a sufficiently complex software system. At my previous employer, I can assure you could take the whole company out of business for a day by doing as much as touching the CSV export
The whole balance thing very much works like developing a UI. For example, if you would build a new version of dakkadakka and you let the Gallery button cross the rubicron primaris to increase its size by 2, it would most likely mess up most of the design.
Note that this also proves my point that "finishing" the game without constantly integrating feedback is all but impossible.

If anything, creating rules for a game is a lot less complex than creating software, but they clearly lack the tooling support that is taken as granted when developing software.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Feel free to provide proof for your theories.

there are 2 possibilities, either GW wants it that why, or they don't know what they are doing

I'm fairly sure it is the later. The entire disaster surrounding the first big FAQ and tau commanders/hive tyrants clearly demonstrated the disconnect between GW and their customers.
However, it is quite likely that they use sales as one metric to determine which units are doing well and which aren't since terrible units tend to sell bad unless they have an exceptionally great model. It doesn't take a genius to find out whether the squigbuggy or the scrapjet sold more.

problem is, that the game is on update 1.8 while some armies are still waiting for update 1.2
it is one of the only game companies were factions are on a different level of updates for a very long time

either they don't want to stick to a basic game design and don't care to update everything in time to the same level (core rule patch 1.8 breaks 3 factions but this will be solved by itself wit core rule update 2.1 in 2 years so no need to take care about it)

This is not game design. This is basic system design as part of any sufficiently large project with the ability iterate. Everything I wrote applies as much to games as it does to software, management projects, machinery construction , building a mall or subdivision or going to space. They don't blow up these rockets every other month because more testing would have solved their problems.
From a technical point of view, there is nothing wrong with updating modules at different speeds, as long as you make sure they still work well with each other.

It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.

Nor is GW a company making 3 million a year profit.... it's VASTLY larger. Things that work or don't in small business don't necessarily scale to mid tier business.

sieGermans wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

 addnid wrote:
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.

Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.

Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...

To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units

oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...

I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.

Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995

Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.

No, of course not. The Devs almost certainly work on units as a part of a larger picture, and then GW decides when and how to release the codexes in what order.

I'm sure the devs get some say - i.e. "hey, if you have no major model release coming up, Faction X could really use those improvements we queued up for them" or "Hey, since GK are in a really tough spot can we release their Tides of the Warp thing prior to the codex 2.0 just to give them a bump?" but there are CERTAINLY tons of much needed fixes that get crowbarred into the codex churn schedule purely to keep creating have/have not situations, and that's done by corporate, not design.

sieGermans wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

 addnid wrote:
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.

Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.

Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...

To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units

oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...

I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.

Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995

Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.

I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.

 Latro_ wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

 addnid wrote:
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.

Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.

Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...

To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units

oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...

I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.

Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995

Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.

I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.

James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.

stratigo wrote:
It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.

Game rules are by definition code that is written in a way to be human readable. All of Warhammer 40k's rules can be written as code in any programming language, and therefore all concepts that are true for code also apply to the Warhammer 40k ruleset.

This has nothing to do with human nature, but solely with your inability to recognize an abstract concept.

You also failed to notice that the concepts I described are do in fact stem from a project management and not from a background of software development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imateria wrote:
James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.

A person no longer working at GW talking about another person no longer working at GW still seems to be sufficient to fuel the tin-hats despite us having dozens of counter-examples of units which fell flat on their faces when they were released.

 addnid wrote:
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.

Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.

Oh GW does know. It's not accident marines are getting so buffed.

 Imateria wrote:

Spoiler:

 Latro_ wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:

 addnid wrote:
I think it is easy for GW to spot HUGE shifts in the game they can generate when reasing new stuff.
If they used the custodes bikes as a metric to give points to the new primaris outiders, they would have gotten the point cost more or less right.

Honestly anyone who has played like 30 games of 8th ed can give you a more or less accurate balaced point cost for outriders.

Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...

To be clear though for codex release or edition release i do believe indeed there is too much for bugs not to appear -if not many bugs-. But here we are talking about a few new units

oh yea i'm not saying GW dont intentionally break units to sell product...

I'v been playing 40k for 25 years, this has always been the case we should not be shocked by this.

Just as companies release game breaking DLC for online games for a cost, then tone it all down 6 months later GW are the OG's of pay to win and were doing it in 1995

Maybe, maybe as an institution they do this; but I cannot imagine the rules devs genuinely operate this way on purpose.

I'll shut up after this as its a rumours thread and i dont wanna be a derailer. But ex staff have come out in the past, even Jervis Johnson i think and said this is exactly what has happened. 'Make good rules for this boyo'. GW may well be a lot less toxic now, but they certainly release the same unbalanced rules sets so... if there is smoke.

James Hewitt is the one that has come out and said that when he came up with the rules for the Wraithknight in 7th he was forced to keep it at it's current points cost instead of raising it to the 400 or so he thought was fair. Whilst he didn't name the man responsible, Alan Merritt is the most likely candidate and is no longer part of the company.

Also, because this keeps being brought up as some kind of proof of the evils of GW marketing, it's worth mentioning this is the only confirmed instance we have of this (as well as the fact that, as you mention, the people responsible for this sort of meddling no longer work for the company). I don't think it's anywhere near as widespread as people think, mainly because I think the GW designers are generally so far removed from the sort of hardcore competitive, razor-edged balance style of play that is often discussed on forums that they aren't designing for that sort of balance in the first place. Personally I think they should because it ultimately benefits everyone if the game is better balanced but I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.

JWBS wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.

Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.

Dudeface wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.

Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.

You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!

Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s

 Tyran wrote:
Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s

They are Xenos, so the opposite is true. They make them bad to not prevent sales of Marines.

addnid wrote:Custodes (they are comparable, honestly how can one say they are not ?) are 90, so outriders should be 60-75 points. Who can honestly dispute this (I hope I am not being too bold with this assertion hah hah) ? Yet most of us here believe they will be less. I hope GW proves us wrong, us salty fools, but They will pop out at 50 or perhaps 55 points. Why would that be if not to sell tons of them ?
An "honest" mistake because you can't test everything ?When you have the perfect custodes bike as a metric (and in a lesser relevant way perhaps, ass cents) ? Nah...

We don't know the new cost of the Custodes bikes, so that's hardly a good place to start for reasonable points value. Fortunately, we do know that Intercessors are 20 points.

Look at the bike stat block along with the wargear of Twin Bolt Rifle, Heavy Bolt Pistol, Astartes Chainsword and presumedly Frag and Krak Grenades. Assuming they also have Angels of Death along with there charge ability of +2 attacks on the charge and we have a unit that has:

The shooting power of 2 intercessors
The wounds of 2 Intercessors
The charge attacks of two intercessors, but otherwise the combat ability of 1 Intercessor
Upgraded to Heavy Bolt Pistol and an Astartes Chainsword
+8 Move and +1 Toughness

This model should not cost a point less than 50, two intercessors plus more for all the upgrades. It should probably be more. Unfortunately, we don't know if GW has finally realized that mobility should cost more points than they have assigned in the past.

Time will tell.

 Tyran wrote:
Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s

Yeah, the Grand GWspiracy where every new thing is purposefully OP to sell models is obviously silly, new things come out all the time that are extremely weak.

But GW does have a habit of....creatively designing the rules of units that are entirely redundant, and otherwise would be totally pointless, to get people to buy the new thing.

When they release a new unit, generally that new unit is somewhere in the middle of the power curve. Occasionally you get something brand new that's super crazy, but generally you see a fairly normal spread. Look at all the new admech stuff

flyers; Seemingly pretty middle of the road
new floating HQ guy: Bad
Pistol cavalry: Average to bad
Sniper cavalry: Average to good
Dakka winged dudes: Average to bad
Flamer winged dudes: Good
Floating transport: Average
Floating gunship: OP

There's a fairly normal spread in there, with one or two things falling in the top percentage where you'll see them in tourney lists, most things having at least SOME reason to consider them, and the one character just being kind of a dud. Because people have a built-in reason to want to buy some cool new thing that's totally unique.

People need to be given a reason to replace their marine bikers with new ones that look exactly the same, or their CSM havocs, or their necron warriors, which is where the "oh look we made this new unit super duper strong and have a million attacks for...reasons...its because they're on a bike...no not like everyone else's bikes that don't give 2 bonus attacks, these are...different ones..." or the classic "hey look, it's a new fancy weapon that's just better than all the other weapons, and you'll need to get the new box to get it" tricks come in.

I'd bet the spacemario kart is actually pretty tame ruleswise.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s

They are Xenos, so the opposite is true. They make them bad to not prevent sales of Marines.

That's not how sales works, that's not how anything works. Economics being a zero sum game was an outdated ideology a century ago.

And Marines were a crap faction until very recently. In fact the only faction that has been consistently top tier has been Eldar.

 Tyran wrote:
Oh yeah the idea that new units are overpowered to sell stuff, that's why the Maleceptor and the Pyrovore were such overpowered stuff when they were released. /s

It also explains why Primaris were inferior in every way to Squatty Marines for 80% of 8th edition.

I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

That's always been an issue. It also doesn't help that for a long time they didn't always listen to thw playtesters (when they bothered to have some).

The team has gotten better, but they are far from perfect for sure. Claims of them intentionally breaking game balance for sales is silly though. It's more they go "this would be a cool rule" amd then they refuse to murder their darlings when playtested feedback is negativw leading to stuff like the initial Iron Hands release.

That or somone made the bad choice of sending the books off to print while it was still being tested meaning the playtest feedback becomes day one patches at best.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.

Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.

You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!

You mean... you auto lose unless you pick 1 specific weapon?!

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

"Ready, aim, prepare to find out about the changes to Overwatch in #New40K.!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.

Dudeface wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I don't think this narrative of units being overpowered to sell holds any water if you look at it objectively and consider GW's history as a whole rather than this one specific anecdote.

The entire point of assault cannons being the best heavy weapon for terminators and on speeders one edition and then being nerfed and replaced by a different weapon in the next edition is to sell new models. This is more than customary at this point, it's a sacred tradition.

Only an issue if you insist on only using the best stuff 24/7 though.

You mean... try and win a game? What heresy is this!

You mean... you auto lose unless you pick 1 specific weapon?!

It's a handicap to go Terminators, but it's even moreso one if you pick a wrong weapon to upgrade them with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

Honestly the number of GW conspiracy theories we see is a bit silly. Plus some of the claims ignore actual trends in the games as well.

Hanlon's Razor will always remain the most likely truth behind when GW screws up.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Patches are free. They're called FAQs..

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Yes, you can do that if you feel that the product is not worth the price. It is called 'not playing the game,' instead of advocating piratism like you have done in the past.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is indifference. For all people bemoan GW's horrific balance, they know they'll still buy it just to have a game to play. People complaining about bloated rules in 8th? Who cares, we're making record profits anyway. The plastic addicted masses will buy it no matter what! Bringing playtesters in? They'll do it for free (unless you count giving influencers free stuff) and most will even shill for us.

Which is why I have said before to boycott GW's printed material, simply because they overcharge and expect us to pay for patches.

Patches are free. They're called FAQs..

TIL Chapter Approved is free.

 Jidmah wrote:

stratigo wrote:
It is important to make a distinction here. Warhammer 40k isn't software, it's not coded. It doesn't work the same way as your vocation does and trying to apply the idea that writing rules, producing miniatures, and marketing a game to consumers is the same as coding software is going to lead you to faulty ends. I know it is human habit to equate all things to their own experiences and expertise, but resist the urge.

Game rules are by definition code that is written in a way to be human readable. All of Warhammer 40k's rules can be written as code in any programming language, and therefore all concepts that are true for code also apply to the Warhammer 40k ruleset.

That's a very flawed comparison. Computer code is specifically compiled or interpreted for a fairly strict & narrow platform. Aside from hardware errors or data corruption, the same code will be interpreted the same way on any platform it's intended for. The same isn't true of human readable rules, which can easily be misunderstood thanks to the huge range of factors in the target audience. The whole profession of law exists to write language in ways that avoid ambiguity, but there's a reason people don't communicate like that in everyday life. We're not robots.

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Lenton's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by naivety

Darsath wrote:
I think it's more likely that Games Workshop doesn't actually know what's good or bad in their game.

Bingo! It's also more likely that they simply don't design the game with the same factors in mind as the majority of players who frequent forums. It should be pretty obvious their design goals are not for excellent balance. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still be aiming for it with each release but it shouldn't come as a surprise to people when they miss. I just wish people would stop pushing this utterly false idea that GW overpower new releases in order to sell them as that implies a level of both competence and similarly aligned design goals it should be patently obvious they simply don't have.