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.

 Charistoph wrote:

Blackie wrote:Several codex are perfectly fine even if they belong to a previous edition. There's really no need to update everything as soon as possible with a new book, especially now because as I said before GW frequently releases FAQs and points changes.

Some do, some don't. It is important when new models come out, because of their need for basic information. I mean sure, they could do the Warscroll method of AoS, but sometimes changes to stats or special rules is needed to get a model line to sell due to the "competitive or nothing" crowd.

However as has been pointed out, their model line is what drives the codex development, over all. It is very rare for them to release a new model without a codex. A replacement model has happened, but say something like Noise Terminators has never come out without a codex having it at the same time or first (in case of the Chronomancer).

And it's very common to see a codex without a single release. Let alone several new releases. So what's the point of constantly upgrading the rules if models are basically the same for years, if not decades? The only reason behind that is that GW wants to sell more books in the short period. New models aren't mandatory for players, new books are.

It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.

And this is why chasing the dragon is bad.....if you're dumb enuff to do it, you have zero right to complain(unless it's about how moronic you are). Cuz NO ONE is holding a gun to your head and if they are...you are in a pretty tough spot.
Not directed at anyone in particular, just wish more people would understand it.

It seems to be what's wanted, though. In game after game, it produces solid financial results.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's not about selling more books really, it's mainly about selling more models by hyping the faction and changing the rules for them so people go out and buy different stuff. Look at the way online MOBAs work, it's very similar. Every few months you shake things up, making stuff that's bad good, good stuff bad, releasing a new overpowered hero that people will buy en masse only to then nerf it a few months later and replace it with another, etc.

What is it that GW is selling to people when they increased the capacities of venoms and raiders - things that most veteran DE players own? How many times do people reference their hellions that they never put on the table, because they weren't great?

The only new model they have they put behind a box and they didn't make her decisively better than the other options.

GW just needs engagement. Models will follow. An interesting book creates just as much buzz and a busted one ( in my estimation ).

The venom and raider thing is actually a perfect example of MOBA design. You didn't see raiders in 8th, it was all venoms; now it's all raiders. Sure, some people have both - but you can't get those people to buy more period, obviously, because they already have everything. So they're a lost cause. Plenty of people had 6 venoms but no raiders or maybe only one, though, or maybe they had 6 raiders back in the day but sold them so now they have zero...you get the idea.

Additionally, and GW is well aware of this, the average 40k player started in 8th (or returned after a long hiatus). They don't have a full collection of multiples of every kit in even one range, not by a long shot.

I don't think GW is really even competent enough to specifcally overtune or undertune things (aside from infamous stuff like the wraithknight), but it doesn't need to - the normal process of stirring the pot naturally causes certain things to rise to the top and certain things to sink down, they don't need to specifically push something down or pull something up.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It seems to be what's wanted, though. In game after game, it produces solid financial results.

"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from." - Agent Smith

yukishiro1 wrote:
The venom and raider thing is actually a perfect example of MOBA design. You didn't see raiders in 8th, it was all venoms; now it's all raiders. Sure, some people have both - but you can't get those people to buy more period, obviously, because they already have everything. So they're a lost cause. Plenty of people had 6 venoms but no raiders or maybe only one, though, or maybe they had 6 raiders back in the day but sold them so now they have zero...you get the idea.

Additionally, and GW is well aware of this, the average 40k player started in 8th (or returned after a long hiatus). They don't have a full collection of multiples of every kit in even one range, not by a long shot.

I don't think GW is really even competent enough to specifcally overtune or undertune things (aside from infamous stuff like the wraithknight), but it doesn't need to - the normal process of stirring the pot naturally causes certain things to rise to the top and certain things to sink down, they don't need to specifically push something down or pull something up.

What sunk to the bottom?

The things that were popular are still popular and now everything else outside of beasts are popular. People that really like wyches, reavers, and hellions will run wyches, reavers, and hellions. People that really like boats with do that. People that love covens will use those.

Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.

Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.

This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.

-- Someone (I'm presuming now not you) complained that releasing the dexes in one dump would lead to rules without models. If it is occurring already then it renders that argument moot. (The general GW practice, as has been told by a number of ex-employees, is that the model comes first, then the lore, then finally someone is asked to make rules for it).
-- You realise the people that write the rules and the people that do the lore etc are often not the same people? (outside of the specialist games) GW has in the past produced entirely new editions of a game, along with entirely new "get you by" lists in as little as two years, with a smaller team than it has now. Again, you're complaining about something being impossible that has not only been done before, but done by GW. Honestly a lot of your complaints can be solved by just not looking at each problem in the stupidest and most ridiculous manner possible. Many of the answers have already been given, multiple times, so you can go back and read those rather than me repeating them here. Again. For example your second question in the quote above.

As for your last comment, complaining about people working on things that won't produce income for a while, that seems an extremely odd thing to moan about for someone that works for a pharmaceutical company.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.

Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.

This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.

Aye, sounds like the same "logic" that leads to the theory "gw doesn't make fw models too good because they don't want to sell them". Obviously the model company doesn't want to sell its models......

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Last edition, covens were the strongest part of DE. Now they're the weakest. Last edition, Venom was the strongest transport, now it's the weakest. The fact that they aren't as weak as their counterparts in 8th doesn't mean there haven't been winners and losers, there are always winners and losers from a new codex and it is part of what makes the system tick. GW is neither capable of nor has any interest in perfect balance, a certain amount of imbalance is what drives a significant % of its sales and they're not dumb enough not to know that.

Then they sure haven't been very consistent at it if they're smart enough to realize it.

This whole string of logic presupposes that GW deliberately made DE transports bad so they could then sell them again 3 years later. That sounds quite stupid if you ask me.

No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.

GW is the king of unintended unit on unit nerf/greatness.
Some of it is entirely intentional, other times....nope.

Cmon, 5 minutes and a calculator and anyone can find the clear outliers every codex update.

It didn’t take much to realize that aggressors were busted, it doesn’t take a genius to notice that certain melta units are outperforming other options by a large margin, anyone could see that plasma inceptors were really point efficient shooting (prior to DG), or how good ponies are right now.

I do not believe, for a second, that GW is not aware that there are outliers. There are millions on the line, GW knows. They might fail at more nuanced balance, but that’s because they don’t care about that, most likely.

A changing meta results on more sales and everyone knows that. Sadly, we careless consumers fuel that. But at least let’s not pretend we don’t know we are being milked by the owners of the hype machine.

I've always felt that it's sheer luck/incompetence why things shift constantly. Sometimes it seems like it's deliberate but other times it feels more like random crap that just so happens to shake things up.

I'm not convinced GW's designers are smart enough with real probability and game design to deliberately do some of these things.

Wayniac wrote:

I'm not convinced GW's designers are smart enough with real probability and game design to deliberately do some of these things.

It's really not that complicated to gauge the average damage output of a given unit against a range of plausible T and Sv. values.
My math skills are well below average and I can put that equation together without much hassle.

I don't believe it's incompetence, indifference maybe.

In my opinion, the real problem is not the phased releases but the point that in recent years they have released quite a lot of codex versions hence without having time to stabilize any army.

The problem is not the temporary phased releases but the permanent and constant phased release periods without any reasonable time in between. At least it has been this transition between 8th edition and 9th edition.

I personally won't mind waiting for an extra year for the codex of my armies to arrive if I knew that If after that everybody got their own codex and won't need to worry about new codex train releases for some years and the only updates were more point updates and small tweaks - FAQ's. And I say that I who plays GK and I expect that we will get the shortest end of the stick in the codexes releases by been the first codex in 8th edition and most likely the last one in 9th edition.

yukishiro1 wrote:

No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.

You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.

So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.

GW brings out new unit with overly strong rules = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW brings out new unit with underwhelming rules = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules buff established common unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules nerf established common unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules buff a previously unused unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.
GW rules nerf a previously unused unit = Evil, unscrupulous sales ploy.

Here's another one:

GW's flagship game has been successful for more than three decades and currently outsells every other tabletop miniature game on the market at least 2:1 and has generated more than 500 novels = GW is stupid and incompetent

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.

You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.

So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.

No, I didn't. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. This is the second time I'm asking.

Aside from the most egregious stuff (the wraithknight fiasco, the iron hands debacle), I don't think most of GW's balance errors are caused by some evil mastermind (if they actually had one of those, they might make better rules overall!). It's just run of the mill lack of attention, and, more specifically, a lack of any real incentive to pay attention, because again it's better for sales to err on the side of imbalance than on the side of balance, unless it's so egregious that it's game-breaking. And even then, as long as you fix it within a few months, you can hit the sweet spot of getting some sales out of it without driving people away. This is the primary lesson GW has learned re: balance since the bad old days of 7th - these days, the most egregiously broken stuff gets fixed within a couple months, which is a short enough time span that people don't quit over it. Short of that, imbalance actually powers sales, rather than depressing them.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

No, it doesn't, and I specifically said the opposite in my prior post. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. The beauty of the system is GW doesn't even really have to try, its own natural inability to balance well inevitably leads to the winners and losers that help keep the cycle going.

You assigned intent originally. Now they don't have to try.

So basically people will just label every nerf and every buff as some sort of sales ploy. It literally doesn't matter if that change was correctly applied.

No, I didn't. Please read what's written instead of creating straw men to beat on. This is the second time I'm asking.

Aside from the most egregious stuff (the wraithknight fiasco, the iron hands debacle), I don't think most of GW's balance errors are caused by some evil mastermind (if they actually had one of those, they might make better rules overall!). It's just run of the mill lack of attention, and, more specifically, a lack of any real incentive to pay attention, because again it's better for sales to err on the side of imbalance than on the side of balance, unless it's so egregious that it's game-breaking. And even then, as long as you fix it within a few months, you can hit the sweet spot of getting some sales out of it without driving people away. This is the primary lesson GW has learned re: balance since the bad old days of 7th - these days, the most egregiously broken stuff gets fixed within a couple months, which is a short enough time span that people don't quit over it. Short of that, imbalance actually powers sales, rather than depressing them.

You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing. They intend to "stir the pot" to achieve a goal with no direct goal when it's more like they're actively trying to improve things and can get it wrong sometimes ( see crazy succubus that needs FAQ ). What happens with sales is just a consequence, but no one really has any grasp on what moves within the secondary market for stuff like that. GW makes a majority of its sales on new releases.

I feel like 9th has been less "Eh, we'll fix it in post" than 8th. And yet 9th is still young so there's plenty of time to get it wrong - knights will be interesting. Either way we have a bigger say in the outcome than ever and we should use it when necessary.

Perception of issues also plays a big role in how things shape up. How many people went out and jumped on Outriders and Eradicators because they thought they were going to be game breaking units? Even before the minor point nerf they hadn't seem much air time globally ( though I'm sure some meta somewhere is full of them ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing.

"You said it, based on my interpretation" is exactly what I was talking about when I asked you to stop beating on straw men. Please read what people actually write, not what you hope they wrote because it would be easier to attack it.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You did, well let me rephrase, as I interpreted your phrasing.

"You said it, based on my interpretation" is exactly what I was talking about when I asked you to stop beating on straw men. Please read what people actually write, not what you hope they wrote because it would be easier to attack it.

My intention wasn't to strawman, but I am sure my interpretation colored the discussion. I'll try to be more careful.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail the conversation. And I'm not suggesting that GW isn't trying at all to make a better balanced game, just that it isn't a very high priority, and some amount of stir-the-pot is absolutely part of their model, so they wouldn't want a perfectly balanced game even if they could achieve it (which very little in 40k's history leads us to believe they could).

Here's another example: Thunderfire cannons. These were oppressively good in 8th, and are now total junk in 9th. Now I don't doubt that the changes they made were intended to improve the situation. But I also don't think they were still trying to keep them good, because the changes are so overboard that it would have been totally obvious in playtesting that they are unusably bad now. This is another instance of "flip the script." I have no idea if it was intentional, or just the result of a lazy balance pass, but they sold a huge number of thunderfire cannons in 8th based on at best lazy balancing that are now just gathering dust in 9th, based again upon at best lazy balancing. You can find examples of this all over the game. 9th edition codexes seem to have a significantly better level of internal balance than 8th edition ones, but there's still all sorts of stuff that you can't explain if you really think GW is out to make the best balanced game possible.

GW wants a game that's just balanced enough to keep people playing, and just unbalanced enough to keep people chasing the meta.

When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?

All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.

 alextroy wrote:
When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?

All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.

Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?

I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
When it comes to balancing any specific unit, getting to just right is rather hard. It is easy to under adjust (remember the long reign of the Castellan?) or to over adjust (like say Centurions). Sometimes it a matter of making too many small adjustments all at the same time. Aggressors were great in the 8.5 codex, but the 9.0 Codex killed them competitively between the lack of Core and increased points values. Would only one of those changes been enough to remove them from overpowered without removing them from consideration?

All that said, I do agree that a highly balanced game does not appear to be GW's top concern. They seem to want a reasonably balanced game. At that, they seem to be doing better in the pass of codexes.

Aggressors still have Core. What "killed" them was the removal of Double Shooting when remaining stationary with the 9th Ed Codex. Did you mean Centurions instead of Aggressors?

I think with the Space Marines over the last four years we can see how the Design Studio and the Rules Team are not always synchronized. The Primaris units were all pretty under-powered when they came out, and several seemed to lack a role. I recall one interview where Jes Goodwin says how popular the Reivers are. The Rules Team then tried various approaches. Some ended up being bonkers by the time of 8.5 Supplements (Salamander Flame Aggressors). It is now somewhat stabilized. Still don't see Reivers on the tabletop. But perhaps they are popular on shelves?

That's probably what he meant; they probably did/do sell very well since the vast majority of 40k consumers are not focused on competitive or hyper-optimized play.

But some CoD looking tacticool Space Marines? That's a popular idea.

I'm weird in that really like the reivers far and above the other 2 variants of Phobos armour.

Personally I have 20ish currently and am looking to grab some infil/incurs to have a wider variety of poses for them. I am probably the target market for them as I like to have the same marines represented in the varying marks of armour and don't care about rules when I make hobby choices.

I do enjoy 40k but only with similarly minded players.