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.

Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

Lol no, the lead time on books and printed materials is very short, production and distribution for them takes just a few weeks to a couple months under normal circumstances. Usually GW is writing, playtesting, and editing them until the very last minute before they go to print, so definitely not done a year or more in advance.

The fact that they are doing all this work such last minute leads me to believe that there is no plan and that they really are making it all up as they go along. The fact that you can noticeably see the changes in the design paradigms and "standards" that are employed change from one book to the next pretty much confirms it. A big difference-maker too is who the design lead on each book is. We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men operating in harmony and with a shared understanding and vision, but the reality is that they all have their individual philosophies and approaches, a few of them have big egos and very firmly held beliefs on what the right and wrong ways to do things are, etc. and the codecies are reflective of that. I am convinced that any codex that has a superdoctrine type ability that changes from one turn to the next (Necrons, AdMech, Custodes) were written by the same lead, clearly whoever that person is believes that its a good mechanical concept that should be repeated/re-used across all their work. I imagine to some extent theres also an element of "Anything you can do I can do better" going on at times, as it sometimes feels like theres a game of oneupmanship afoot and certain things are being designed with the mindset of "this is how you should have done it if you were actually good at your job". The codex creep in general is almost certainly the result of a semi-subconscious tendency towards "keeping up with the joneses"/"upping the ante" vis-a-vis the previous book that was released.

chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men

I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
I keep hearing that 40k codices are designed and written way before they are released....I've heard people say a year or more before release.
Now, I don't care about the exact time line but my point is that this insinuates a plan GW has made at some point.

Lol no, the lead time on books and printed materials is very short, production and distribution for them takes just a few weeks to a couple months under normal circumstances. Usually GW is writing, playtesting, and editing them until the very last minute before they go to print, so definitely not done a year or more in advance.

well, I would call months "long" as with rules changing every 6 months and changes done to the last minute, even a 4 month lead time would mean every book going to the printer after the season started will be outdated by the time it is released

chaos0xomega wrote:

The fact that they are doing all this work such last minute leads me to believe that there is no plan and that they really are making it all up as they go along. The fact that you can noticeably see the changes in the design paradigms and "standards" that are employed change from one book to the next pretty much confirms it.

no need to have one, people buy the books anyway and even pay for updates, and praise the game for who much fun it is, having resources dedicated for making a big plan or make sure that every designer follows the guidelines of the current edition is just a waste of money that reduces profits

hobojebus wrote:
It's simple you can't make people buy models over and over every two years.

Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

 dadx6 wrote:
Yes, but also they clearly don't understand the right way to think about the game vis-a-vis competitive play.

The Hammerhead railgun with AP-6 ignore invulnerable saves would be better than the Pulse Blastcannon even if the Pulse Blastcannon had 3 shots at S20 per turn.

GW seems incapable of processing that reducing the risk to two rolls of dice (Do I hit? Does it wound?) is better than reducing the risk of each individual roll failing (same roll to hit, but wound on a 2+ and limit opponents to invulnerable saves). Adding mortal wounds to the railgun just made the difference between it and the Pulse Blastcannon ... I don't want to be inflammatory and say 'insulting' but egregious may be the appropriate word.

Whoever thought
Heavy 2 S16 AP-4 D12 was better against knights than
Heavy 1 S12 AP-6 6+D3+3MW ignores invulnerable saves should be asked to design basic troops in the future and avoid heavy support units. Or maybe transition into writing the kids books for Black Library.

It is better against Knights, unless it's got Rotate Ion Shields and uses a re-roll on a save. Railgun is S14.

2*1,25/1,5*12/11=1,8x damage.

Or with Rotate Ion Shields 2*1,25/2*12/11=1,36x damage.

 Ordana wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
It's simple you can't make people buy models over and over every two years.

Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

Bit of a bad example, given Firstborn are still around and Primaris came like 20 years afterwards (the modern plastic Space Marine)? Oh noes, GW will force me to buy Primaris 2.0 in 18 years.

I disagree that it's better. Stormsurge has to be within charge range of a Knight, essentially, to shoot the Pulse Blastcannon at it. Hammerhead can fire from literally across the table. Probably from the next table over, frankly.

Dispersed shot is still more damage than a railgun, 48" range is plenty.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Bit of a bad example, given Firstborn are still around and Primaris came like 20 years afterwards (the modern plastic Space Marine)? Oh noes, GW will force me to buy Primaris 2.0 in 18 years.

Optimistic to assume Primaris Marines have an 18 year shelf life. Stormcasts have already been 2.0'd after only 6 years.

The squattings haven't happened yet but I doubt even GW can maintain an infinitely growing range of Marine units indefinitely.

nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong. First, that would require competence from GW. They blatantly lack it and just buff their pet armies (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough*). Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers? Why, instead of buffing primaris, shiny new range that needs to recoup money invested in it, some incompetent choose to ruin the whole edition by giving ugly gak squat models (that are available in literal mountains in secondhand market) W2, an absurdly dumb move if you wanted to shift the meta away from stuff most people have in abundance? Why huge necron revamp in 9th edition, with tons of money invested in it, was accompanied by gak rules that failed to excite people and left that faction as weakest in 9th? Despite a lot of new kinds of units no one yet had that could be made into new hotness?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Matt Ward was the best codex writers GW have had in a long time. His rules were original, fun, varied and thematic and his love of and enthusiasm for the setting as a whole shines through in the rules. However because he worked for GW they didn't really try to reign him in in any way and in turn that resulted in him getting a lot of gak from the community online and generally reviled. If GW had properly playtested his rules though? They would have been some of the best books GW had ever put out. He'd probably still be working at GW if the community hadn't been so hard on him.

Ward's books stood in a very stark contrast to Cruddace, who's books were bland, uninspired and perfunctory. Unfortunately Cruddace is the one still working at GW (as far as I'm aware), hence our current..."situation".

That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best - core rules offering deep, yet not unnecessarily convoluted experience, all codex books written by Ward on the same level, no matter if first (SM) or last (GK). That was literal golden age, I still love how you got massive amounts of conversions, counts as, and rule of cool written into the rules, with none of the OP gak infesting the rules from 6th edition onwards. Too bad being good writer in GW doesn't pay, as the example of Ward (or the guy who wrote Titanicus) shows - you're more likely to get a kick in the bum than a raise even when you vastly outperform expectations, alas.

And the saddest part is, he literally didn't wrote the fluff he was blamed for. He was rules writer. 4chan grade children were unable to even check who wrote what in his book and screeched him out of company based on cover alone.

 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...

 Arschbombe wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Like when 4? edition started with very minimalist codexes that were completely barebones, an approach that was abandoned swiftly and left those effected with garbage, poor Dark Angels.

Jervisication.

Yeah, the right word at that time.
(I had a date (2008) immediately after buying the DA codex in the GW store; browsed through it when heading home; was surprised how ''bad'' it was. )
But JJ is already out of business, isn't he?

I think it's half amateurism, and half "we need to make this codex outsell the last one to impress our employer".

 Irbis wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...

I don't mean that as Primaris being given good rules to sell, because they clearly failed there. But it was as a reaction to the notion "they can't sell you new models every 2 years, so they sell you new books instead". Regardless of the quality of their rules, Primaris as a model range exists to sell marines to marine players that already have every kind of marine.

 Irbis wrote:

nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong.

LOL. Perfect Imbalance is not a conspiracy theory, its literally a well-known aspect of game theory which is practiced regularly by both tabletop and digital game designers across the globe.

 Irbis wrote:

That is not a hot take. Literally every competent player says 5th edition was the best - core rules offering deep, yet not unnecessarily convoluted experience, all codex books written by Ward on the same level, no matter if first (SM) or last (GK).

When it comes to core rules? sure, but the codex balance of 5th was a mess. Also really unconvinced by the claim that all Ward books were on the same level with how hard GK dominated the end of 5th (also the sheer stupidity of having an entire army with access to cheap Instant Death).

 Sim-Life wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men

I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.

You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.

Making a good game, and making a successful game are very different, arguably mutually exclusive goals.
In fact, they involve different teams, a good game requires a good rule writing team. A successful game requires a good marketing team, a good logistic teams, a good manufacturing team, etc.

There are many games that have writing teams far superior to GW's writing team. And pretty much none of them know how to make a successful game, none of them know how to run a corporation.

And even if they had all that, Warhammers single greatest feature is its market penetration. a game like 40k, Bolt Action, Warmachine or X-wing lives or dies by your ability to find someone else to play it with.

Even if a better games comes along and 40k feels bad the fact that you can find a club or store to play with complete strangers in probably every major town in the US or Europe is what will make 40k the more attractive choice.

 Tyran wrote:
Making a good game, and making a successful game are very different, arguably mutually exclusive goals.
In fact, they involve different teams, a good game requires a good rule writing team. A successful game requires a good marketing team, a good logistic teams, a good manufacturing team, etc.

There are many games that have writing teams far superior to GW's writing team. And pretty much none of them know how to make a successful game, none of them know how to run a corporation.

The problem is GW likes to keep recruitment in house, unfortunately most GW managers aren't great rules writers.

 Irbis wrote:

nou wrote:
There is a term in game design - perfect imbalance. And there is perfect explanation why GW chooses that approach over working towards perfect balance.

People repeat this conspiracy theory again and again but it's just plainly wrong. First, that would require competence from GW. They blatantly lack it and just buff their pet armies (*cough* Phil Kelly *cough*). Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers? Why, instead of buffing primaris, shiny new range that needs to recoup money invested in it, some incompetent choose to ruin the whole edition by giving ugly gak squat models (that are available in literal mountains in secondhand market) W2, an absurdly dumb move if you wanted to shift the meta away from stuff most people have in abundance? Why huge necron revamp in 9th edition, with tons of money invested in it, was accompanied by gak rules that failed to excite people and left that faction as weakest in 9th? Despite a lot of new kinds of units no one yet had that could be made into new hotness?

You misunderstand - with "perfect imbalance" nothing has to be neither perfect nor balanced or doesn't even have to make sense as long as you stir the pot every month or two and correct the most glaring mistakes like Razorwing Flock soon enough to not bleed players. It really doesn't matter. For each spammed unit a counterstrategy will emerge, that will be invalidated as soon as you change something else. There is no conspiracy "to sell models" - models have a life way, way longer than their moment in the rules spotlight. "Perfect imbalance" provides one, and only one value - prevents stagnation and keeps the game alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men

I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.

You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.

Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons - it is well, moronic itself. GW is not bad at making the game, it is great at being a successful business built around hobbyists and people there are clearly experts at this.

There is also one other perspective many players seem to not understand - GW is first in model making business, the game is secondary. Garage hammer players couldn't care less how the meta is shaped, because they play with the same few friends and those same few armies they own. There is a thread about starting new armies, from which you can learn, that in extreme cases people plan their lists two or three years in advance. Or they collect in 500 pts increments every few months. Perspective of meta chasers, that somehow GW should focus on them, because they are the core of the market is pretty much wrong. Which competitive player collects and paints 10,000pts worth of Guard company or Tyranid Fleet? Or pays thousands of dollars for a great home table made entirely from official Necromunda terrain? Tournament circuit isn't there to generate the core of the income - it is there to provide publicity.

That the game they make doesn't suit some people expectations? Well, I know 8th and 9th ed doesn't suit me, I play 2nd ed with modern minis or a completely custom ruleset. But I collect models, I build armies around aesthetic themes, and I've provided around 12000 pts worth of income and a table worth of terrain kits. That's about 12 standard matched play armies worth in the last 6 years if I convert terrain purchases to unit purchases. I buy FW models that are crap or illegal on the battlefield, because they look great on my shelf and provide fun challenge to paint. I convert models from multiple entire kits, just to have a mini that looks exactly like I want it. I'm most certainly not alone in this, as there are numerous FB groups dedicated to people like me.

Yes, GW is so great at being a game company they ran WHFB into the ground so hard the best financial choice was to kill it completely and launch something else in its place.

Or how the community dropped during 6-7th to eventually be 'rescued' by 8th bringing a lot of people back.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
We like to imagine these guys as being a group of wise men

I'm pretty sure no one thinks the GW rules team are wise.

You're right that there are definitely problems that GW creates- I'm a big fan of the current edition, but even I would be a fool not to see some of these problems.

But every time I see a post calling GW idiots, or any of the other insults that get hurled around, I still stop and think: GW makes more money per year than the next five most popular miniature games combined, and the longevity of 40k in particular is eclipsed only by Battletech... And for long periods within the history of Battletech, it was virtually extinct in a way that 40k has never been since it debuted as Rogue Trader.

I'm not saying all that success is due to rules design- clearly it isn't, and Sim, I do know that this is your actual point, so my response isn't so much to you as it is to the whole movement of discontent.

GW isn't perfect- there are so many of us with so many diverse wants and needs that it is impossible for the company to satisfy us all. With four game sizes, three play modes, 3 campaign settings this edition (and another inbound), they're clearly trying to satisfy as many of us as possible.

But it's hard to see some guys on the internet who I've never heard of talk about how the designers of an international multimedia empire that is not only the dominant force in Wargaming today, but has been for 30+ years are stupid or incompetent. If you're so much smarter and you could do it so much better, why isn't your company making as much money as GW?

If GW is stupid and incompetent, can I be stupid and incompetent too? Maybe then I'll make 2 billion dollars a year.

Tyran and Ordana have already responded appropriately but I'll add that comparing GW to other miniature wargame manufacturers is a false equivalence. GW is an entity unto itself in terms of where it is as and within the hobby. It's like comparing a a local take away to McDonalds.

Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

"They make a lot of money" and "They are idiot game designers" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no relation to each other whatsoever.

Heck, as children, the message: "The rich/noble/fortunate can be donkey-caves whilst the poor are usually genuinely good people" is slammed into us so hard I think Aladdin is lodged somewhere in my spleen.

 Ordana wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Sure they can, that is what Primaris are for. The solve the question of how you sell more Space Marines to players when everyone already has everything.

You wot?

90% of primaris rules since the start of 8th edition were garbage. Then inept at GW decided to give old, gak models everyone had tons of W2 killing the only advantage primaris had. In what universe what you just said makes any sense?

Hell, look at top 3 SM infantry units now. Sanguinary guard, vanguard veterans, DA terminators. Then you have attack bikes and volkite contemptors rounding top 5 of WAAAC list. Gee, I see lots of primaris and totally not ancient, old models introduced ages ago here...

I don't mean that as Primaris being given good rules to sell, because they clearly failed there. But it was as a reaction to the notion "they can't sell you new models every 2 years, so they sell you new books instead". Regardless of the quality of their rules, Primaris as a model range exists to sell marines to marine players that already have every kind of marine.

But many people just don't buy primaris, I own a few but mostly still use stuff I bought in 2009.

For a wolf player primaris stuff is mostly inferior to our unique units.

And if they do squat older units I just won't play that edition and keep playing an edition where they have rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.

The error here is assuming that goodness and success are related beyond basic correlation. One can help the other, but is not truly needed.

nou wrote:

Exactly what is baffling me in such discussions on dakka - the notion that a company that sells a game for 30 years and grows at a rapid rate is somehow led by incompetent morons

you still have to say that GW was often more lucky than competent of having the right product there at the right place without doing anything special, while during other times were able to turn around because they created enough goodwill without doing something for it

and this is also the reason why we see the same thing happening now as with 7th, they don't know that something went wrong because everything turned out to be fine

 Irbis wrote:
Second, if they were really doing this, they would pick better targets for said imbalance. You mention Razorwing spam. Or biggest cheese of 8th edition, Dark Reapers. Why the hell GW would push old, cheap, resin gak in both cases instead of flashy, new, expensive models like Reivers?

I personally think they push the power level of certain resin kits to insure the resin casters have a steady amount of work to do, So instead of waiting around for sales to come in, they will know that certain kits are going to sell so they can stockpile. Or at least to me that makes the most business sense.

IMO GW's massive success financially isn't because they make an awesome *game*.

There are so many other reasons people are involved with and buy into 40k but do not really like the game all that much.

A massive built in global community that provides tens of thousands of players in both online discussion as well as an inexhaustible number of tournament opponents, and great models being the top 2 followed by the lore that people get into.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.

The error here is assuming that goodness and success are related beyond basic correlation. One can help the other, but is not truly needed.

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding promulgated by short sight neo classical neo liberal economists such as represented in the famous Friedman fallacy that being the belief that one’s only obligation as a business leader is to max profit for shareholders. Originally, Adam Smith’s invisible hand was motivated by individual drive to social virtue cf. his Theory of Moral Sentiments. This basis of capitalism in civic virtue was selectively ignored by finance oriented bizniz skewls e.g. Chicago mostly in service of big corp and global fin cap ultimately with US mil intel support in hybrid cold warfare. Now, as a result, we are left with the mess that a few generations have been taught that selfish short sighted greed is what makes the world go round with the corollary that money is success. Meanwhile, cue Aristotle, the successful on such a formula are the ‘worst of animals’.

So, yeah. Big cap is happy that people are so misinformed as to love their neo feudal servitude, but the current global political economy is more neo fascist latter day corporate capitalist than capitalism as originally intended, but then again if anyone has studied their Marx and Aristotle, well, no surprises as this is where capitalism (democratic free markets) end up, tyranny by way of demagoguery which is where we are, now.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, the idea that success (and "goodness" as a value judgement) is solely defined by monetary accumulation is a fallacy.

Success is defined by monetary accumulation, because capitalism. That's literally the core principle of the modern, capitalistic society.help the other, but is not truly needed.

Financial success, sure.

Success at good game design is not correlated with financial success any more than marital success or being a successful artist or inventor is correlated with financial success.