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.
Hecaton wrote: The Wraithknight is the other well-known one where corporate just dropped the points value.
The only documented case where a person in "a position of authority ( who has since left )" had an opinion on a single model and no others.
When "The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs."
And "As I say, though those days are over "
Which sounds more to me like someone wanted the Wraithknight to be "exciting and interesting" rather than corporate handing down an edict.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: I think that new models tend to sell themselves pretty well given the amount of positive comments they get on social media and the like. I think the meta chasing tournament scene tends to overvalue itself when it comes to how much they are putting into the company.
Agreed. See people pledging to buy Squats. No rules needed.
Insectum7 wrote: I tend not to blame the actual designers, because they aren't the bosses.
But they are the ones writing the rules. They have to have accountability of that.
They do, but it's a little like programmers. They know bugs exist, but management moves forward anyway. It's doubly worse when you're dealing in a physical product.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/12 01:31:40
Hecaton wrote: The Wraithknight is the other well-known one where corporate just dropped the points value.
The only documented case where a person in "a position of authority ( who has since left )" had an opinion on a single model and no others.
When "The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs."
And "As I say, though those days are over "
Which sounds more to me like someone wanted the Wraithknight to be "exciting and interesting" rather than corporate handing down an edict.
Again, goalpost moving. We know it happened. Like what probably happened with the Ork codex - the goal was not to provide Ork players with a fun experience, the goal was to sell Beast Snagga models, and punish them if they didn't buy them.
Insectum7 wrote: I tend not to blame the actual designers, because they aren't the bosses.
But they are the ones writing the rules. They have to have accountability of that.
Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
Hecaton wrote: Again, goalpost moving. We know it happened. Like what probably happened with the Ork codex - the goal was not to provide Ork players with a fun experience, the goal was to sell Beast Snagga models
So that's why Snaggas were so amazing? There's been literal dozens of them. Dozens, I say!
and punish them if they didn't buy them
So you infer that nerfing buggies was punishment for not buying snaggas?
Hecaton wrote: Again, goalpost moving. We know it happened. Like what probably happened with the Ork codex - the goal was not to provide Ork players with a fun experience, the goal was to sell Beast Snagga models
So that's why Snaggas were so amazing? There's been literal dozens of them. Dozens, I say!
and punish them if they didn't buy them
So you infer that nerfing buggies was punishment for not buying snaggas?
I'm sure they intended for those players to buy more of something.
Insectum7 wrote: Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
How many playtest games with 9 void weavers, old liquifires etc does one need to know that this things are or were bad for the game? A large chunk of the community knows if, even before playing any games with or against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 804430 11344113 wrote:
I'm sure they intended for those players to buy more of something.
This has to be a policy for only some books. For example if anyone played GK under 8th ed, then his amy consisted of 4 NDKs, draigo and strikes and interceptors. Termintors, tanks etc were bad. Special characters aside for Voldus and Draigo were not run. 9th ed codex made the GK lists consists of 5, later 4 NDKs, so no buying happens. Loads of strikes and 20-30 interceptors. So the same models. On top of that Voldus were made bad. Crow was locked behind big box for a long time, but not many GK players cared, because his rules were bad.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/04/12 04:43:19
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Insectum7 wrote: Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
How many playtest games with 9 void weavers, old liquifires etc does one need to know that this things are or were bad for the game? A large chunk of the community knows if, even before playing any games with or against them.
No idea. But maybe they didn't test with enough, or maybe the player wasn't enough the competetive sort, or maybe the big boss said "Make it cheap! We have a box set we want to move off the shelves!"
The point is really that the inner workings of a company can be very convoluted and opaque. It's not fair to just jump on an individual designer because there may have been variables completely out of their control, and it's important to remember that higher-ups are calling the shots, as well as defining the environment that people have to work in.
Insectum7 wrote: Potentially to very little degree. If they can't playtest enough, for example. Or if their time is spent wasted in droll meetings instead of at their desk working. At the end of the day it's the responsibility of management to ensure a quality product (if they care). The individual designers matter, sure, but it's management who decides what to prioritize from a product perspective. If a designer is downright bad, it's also on management to replace them with a better designer.
How many playtest games with 9 void weavers, old liquifires etc does one need to know that this things are or were bad for the game? A large chunk of the community knows if, even before playing any games with or against them.
No idea. But maybe they didn't test with enough, or maybe the player wasn't enough the competetive sort, or maybe the big boss said "Make it cheap! We have a box set we want to move off the shelves!"
The point is really that the inner workings of a company can be very convoluted and opaque. It's not fair to just jump on an individual designer because there may have been variables completely out of their control, and it's important to remember that higher-ups are calling the shots, as well as defining the environment that people have to work in.
Some things should just be apparently obvious. Think about the Iron Hand supplement
in the past: tests were not allowed in house, the baordgame designers explicit said that they did it in secret at home
often the first draft of rules were used and at least once the points were adjusted to make the desired amount of models fit into a standard game
"now": external testers do not get the full rules and/or different drafts to test
we don't know if the actual rules are ever tested/played before release
we also know that the different "teams" don't know what the others are working on going so far that 2 different lists for points for the same product are around at the same time
thing is even if there is a proper testing of new releases, that they need to be backwards compatible with broken factions released before screws the whole process over
unless every faction gets a balance update each time a new one is released
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
No idea. But maybe they didn't test with enough, or maybe the player wasn't enough the competetive sort, or maybe the big boss said "Make it cheap! We have a box set we want to move off the shelves!"
The point is really that the inner workings of a company can be very convoluted and opaque. It's not fair to just jump on an individual designer because there may have been variables completely out of their control, and it's important to remember that higher-ups are calling the shots, as well as defining the environment that people have to work in.
I don't know how it works in other countries, but here if you are resposible for something, you are responsible for it. If you don't want to be responsible for stuff, then pick a job with less or no responsibility. And there is also no way there is just one dude working on the book, and no one not even the head of the design team took a glance at it. Someone has to review those thing. And again we are talking here about people who had been in the industry for decades and the biggest table top company in the world, that exists for more then 6 months.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
"now": external testers do not get the full rules and/or different drafts to test
we don't know if the actual rules are ever tested/played before release
This. I remember seeing a playtester saying before Ad-Mech released when they playtested them their lascannons were still D6. Not D3 + 3.
No idea. But maybe they didn't test with enough, or maybe the player wasn't enough the competetive sort, or maybe the big boss said "Make it cheap! We have a box set we want to move off the shelves!"
The point is really that the inner workings of a company can be very convoluted and opaque. It's not fair to just jump on an individual designer because there may have been variables completely out of their control, and it's important to remember that higher-ups are calling the shots, as well as defining the environment that people have to work in.
I don't know how it works in other countries, but here if you are resposible for something, you are responsible for it.
Is the designer responsible for bad design? Or is the lead designer responsible for giving that much responsibility to a single designer? Or is the overall manager responsible for not providing adequate time for playtesting? Or was the project producer at fault for scheduling so little time for the project, due to a scheduling conflict with shipping? Or was it a higher-up giving bad direction to a team who knows better, but is powerless to do anything about it because of lousy cooperate culture? Whos responsible for broken cooperate culture?
Big teams making stuff have all sorts of ways that things can get really screwed up along the way.
There is an easy way to check, if someone is responsible for something. It is a fan project, you work for free etc? the responsibility is limited, if there even is any. But if you take money, if you have a contract , take a scholarship or have sponsors then you are 100% responsible for what you do and what happens. Now other people can be responsible for things too. Earth is not a one person per plant being responsible place. But everything else, aka there was too much work, I was pushed etc is just excusses. And if someone can't do the job properly, then they should leave and make space for people that can do it.
And again how much playtesting is needed to look at the void weaver with 2 cannons and the gun of death to know it is very powerful, maybe oppresively so. And that is before seeing how many points it costs.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Try going to your sports trainer or boss, and explaining to them that the work is not done or is done bad, you take no responsibility for it, because it is other people foult. And you are working under contract. That is how small children behave, and I say this as someone who isn't 18 yet.
What is next, I felt so bad about the coof, that I couldn't work properly and there for the rules I wrote at home aren't that good? That is a 2.0 version of dog ate my homework.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Mmm, Karol, you've found the reasoning behind the phenomena where, if something goes bad on a project, the manager can blame it on one small contributor or team and let them go. But if the project goes well, said manager can of course claim the responsibility was all theirs, and receive a pat on the back and forthcoming bonuses.
Ive explained to my boss that my work is suffering due to my own mental health problems on a few occasions and they have empathised and done all they can to help, this is a key way of keeping a happy and more productive work force.
Lets look at it another way, video games. Horrible company treats staff horrendously as often is the case, long hours, poor management, rushed release. Who is at fault for a game being a buggy mess on release?
Karol, your assignment is to write a musical score for a movie. I can't screen it for you, I wont even tell you the genre, or give you a copy of the script. You have a budget of $10 to hire musicians. You have three days. If it's not good, not only will I fire you from the firm, but I'll blacklist you and you'll never work in this town again.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Stuck with malice and stupidity according to the internet even though it would be pretty hard to both be too stupid to balance the Voidweaver and ALSO make it busted maliciously.
I don't think that tneva82 (making the stupidity argument) and ccs (making the malice argument) constitute "the internet".
The Eldar codex is a BIG book. I think it's entirely possible that changes to the Voidweaver were made after playtesting, and then never playtested, due to time constraints, similar to the change to the Dark Lance damage profile. Or that it was never sufficiently playtested at all. But that doesn't let gw off of the hook. It just means that the corporate leadership of the company needs to invest more into their rules writing and playtesting staff.
I'm in several FB groups and reddit frequently. The amount of people claiming the new ( and terrible ) Tzaangor AOR was a ploy to sell Tzaangors was off the hook.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Its certainly a factor in the grand scheme of things, But I wonder how rushed overworked and underpayed you have to be to miss the Voidweaver being stupid for 90 points.
I mentioned it earlier, but no one seemed to take it up. How stupid was the Raider at 85? Does a VW, which has fewer wounds at 5 points more seem absurd at that point? People used to have 6 or 7 Raiders running around.
If the Voidweaver had a single shot you might have a point, but it has double the shots of a Raider, and an extremely powerful alternate fire mode, 2 extra anti infantry guns, a better invul safe aswell as -1 hit and no re-roll hits
There is no way that list compares to -5 points and a transport capacity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 09:37:35
I wonder if they'll do what they did for the AoS balance update, where there isn't points changes, but a bounty system on killing trouble units. That'd be funny.
I think its sort of exaggerated as a great gotcha against 40k. Although it does make sense.
Basically people assume GW had a concept of a unit, write some rules and give it a points value.
Whereas in reality, they had a model, with a certain identifiable RRP. So say its £25 (now about £33) which means they want it to be 100 points. Well its going to be 100 points. Rules designers could then be cool or boring - with a preference for cool - but this doesn't change the fact that its going to be 100 points, because GW was then married to around 4~ points per £1 spent. (With some outsiders.)
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Stuck with malice and stupidity according to the internet even though it would be pretty hard to both be too stupid to balance the Voidweaver and ALSO make it busted maliciously.
I don't think that tneva82 (making the stupidity argument) and ccs (making the malice argument) constitute "the internet".
The Eldar codex is a BIG book. I think it's entirely possible that changes to the Voidweaver were made after playtesting, and then never playtested, due to time constraints, similar to the change to the Dark Lance damage profile. Or that it was never sufficiently playtested at all. But that doesn't let gw off of the hook. It just means that the corporate leadership of the company needs to invest more into their rules writing and playtesting staff.
I'm in several FB groups and reddit frequently. The amount of people claiming the new ( and terrible ) Tzaangor AOR was a ploy to sell Tzaangors was off the hook.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Its certainly a factor in the grand scheme of things, But I wonder how rushed overworked and underpayed you have to be to miss the Voidweaver being stupid for 90 points.
I mentioned it earlier, but no one seemed to take it up. How stupid was the Raider at 85? Does a VW, which has fewer wounds at 5 points more seem absurd at that point? People used to have 6 or 7 Raiders running around.
If the Voidweaver had a single shot you might have a point, but it has double the shots of a Raider, and an extremely powerful alternate fire mode, 2 extra anti infantry guns, a better invul safe aswell as -1 hit and no re-roll hits
There is no way that list compares to -5 points and a transport capacity.
Aye, it's a bad comparison. A Raider is a transport, which pays for its transport capacity and for being Open Topped, and it only has one (albeit a very good one) gun. Voidweavers are pure gunboats, with more firepower and no transport capacity. The more apt comparison is the Ravager, which is currently 130 PPM with three Dark Lances, but has had a fairly recent points cut. If I remember correctly, back when Raiders were 85 PPM, a Ravager was 140 PPM? 145? And more importantly, they don't come 3 per HS slot.
Aye, it's a bad comparison. A Raider is a transport, which pays for its transport capacity and for being Open Topped, and it only has one (albeit a very good one) gun. Voidweavers are pure gunboats, with more firepower and no transport capacity. The more apt comparison is the Ravager, which is currently 130 PPM with three Dark Lances, but has had a fairly recent points cut. If I remember correctly, back when Raiders were 85 PPM, a Ravager was 140 PPM? 145? And more importantly, they don't come 3 per HS slot.
Yeah, this is where I come up. A Voidweaver fires less AT shots than a Ravager but has alternate fire modes and shuriken cannons that make up for it. It has fewer wounds but a 4++ and a -1 and no-rerolls so that's basically a wash too. If Voidweavers were to get nerfed to 130 PPM, I would think that was harsh but fair given just how strongly they (and the army) have overperformed. If you're bringing 3 of them, that won't completely break your back either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/12 12:37:54
Hecaton wrote: The Wraithknight is the other well-known one where corporate just dropped the points value.
The only documented case where a person in "a position of authority ( who has since left )" had an opinion on a single model and no others.
When "The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs."
And "As I say, though those days are over "
Which sounds more to me like someone wanted the Wraithknight to be "exciting and interesting" rather than corporate handing down an edict.
Again, goalpost moving. We know it happened. Like what probably happened with the Ork codex - the goal was not to provide Ork players with a fun experience, the goal was to sell Beast Snagga models, and punish them if they didn't buy them.
how to tell somebody is just pulling something from thin air. beast snagga boyz were terrible on launch and are terrible now.
the new model that was actually good were good on release were squig riders and squig bosses, but their synergy is not great with the strongest clans so buggy spam was and still is the only real competitive build sadly.
Tthe Killrig got so much "its too OP" comments from reviewers and the community when the codex was released that before the model was even released it got a nerfed. I think that was a enw one for GW a pre model for sale nerf, killrig spoiler alert was not game breaking at its not really taken now.
OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Stuck with malice and stupidity according to the internet even though it would be pretty hard to both be too stupid to balance the Voidweaver and ALSO make it busted maliciously.
I don't think that tneva82 (making the stupidity argument) and ccs (making the malice argument) constitute "the internet".
The Eldar codex is a BIG book. I think it's entirely possible that changes to the Voidweaver were made after playtesting, and then never playtested, due to time constraints, similar to the change to the Dark Lance damage profile. Or that it was never sufficiently playtested at all. But that doesn't let gw off of the hook. It just means that the corporate leadership of the company needs to invest more into their rules writing and playtesting staff.
I'm in several FB groups and reddit frequently. The amount of people claiming the new ( and terrible ) Tzaangor AOR was a ploy to sell Tzaangors was off the hook.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Is "rushed, overworked, and underpaid" a viable explanation? Or are we stuck arguing over malice or stupidity?
Its certainly a factor in the grand scheme of things, But I wonder how rushed overworked and underpayed you have to be to miss the Voidweaver being stupid for 90 points.
I mentioned it earlier, but no one seemed to take it up. How stupid was the Raider at 85? Does a VW, which has fewer wounds at 5 points more seem absurd at that point? People used to have 6 or 7 Raiders running around.
If the Voidweaver had a single shot you might have a point, but it has double the shots of a Raider, and an extremely powerful alternate fire mode, 2 extra anti infantry guns, a better invul safe aswell as -1 hit and no re-roll hits
There is no way that list compares to -5 points and a transport capacity.
Aye, it's a bad comparison. A Raider is a transport, which pays for its transport capacity and for being Open Topped, and it only has one (albeit a very good one) gun. Voidweavers are pure gunboats, with more firepower and no transport capacity.
Aside, I can't help but think that people put far too much value on Open Topped.
It's useful for all of one unit in the DE book... which happens to also be one of the worst units in the codex.
Are people perhaps thinking of the old rules, which used to provide bonuses to melee units as well as shooting ones?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
NinthMusketeer wrote: OK, so the 'it's all a GW scheme' people still have no basis for their argument beyond speculation, got it. Figured that hadn't changed, but good to confirm once in a while.
because it is easier to believe the company you give 1000s of dollars has a hidden scheme to mess things up, rather than the company you gave 1000s of dollars is an incompetent and don't know what they are doing
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
"
Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
7000 
