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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Exactly.

For all the "wait and see"'s out there, there are things in these books that are obvious from the moment they arrive.

Obvious to us, that is. For some reason GW can't ever see the woods for the trees, and is either incapable or just unwilling to do proper testing. And it shows. It always shows. Book after book after book.

If not for Hanlon and his mighty razor, I would honestly think it's intentional.

We never guessed that someone would use a Salamanders Stratagem that improves rate of fire at the same time as a Salamanders Stratagem that improves the effectiveness of each hit. - professional GW game designer.

Designing codex balance to be sturdy by eliminating combos would also be a decent idea, even if combos can be very fun they are also very likely to be unbalanced. This can be done by making buffs mutually exclusive, like having one flamer Stratagem only work against Infantry and the other only work against Vehicles or have both Stratagems add to the number of hits such that the bonus is additive instead of multiplicative. Same thing goes for bonuses like Captain and Lieutenant auras, they could both offer +1 to hit under various exclusive circumstances (like in melee or for shooting).

Dudeface wrote:
I'm not really sure people what or expect to happen, have a codex that it utterly immutable and never gets faqd or rebalanced?

Pretty much yes. The only thing that should need to be changed is points costs. I am pretty happy Necron Destroyers got Core, but I am also very happy I didn't buy a codex and just borrow one. Stratagems that deal 5 MW for 1CP or something on that level should not even be in an alpha version of a codex. Strong Stratagems are okay and don't need to be erratad, like the 8th edition Necrons Destroyer Stratagem, it was undercosted, but it was not game-breaking and the points cost of Destroyers could be adjusted to reflect their output when factoring in the damage boost they often got from the underpriced Stratagem.

Moving Stratagems, Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines, Relics and WL traits from codexes to an annual chapter approved would mean that things can be updated once a year while making it clear how long a book's lifespan is. 0 days is not okay, like the Space Wolves codex which got a day 1 patch to its WL traits because there was something cool they wanted to add but didn't make it in time. Just put it on the noticeboard and add it to the codex next edition. Balance still hasn't been fixed despite all the changes GW is putting out, I can neither play competitive nor casual 40k without investing a huge amount of time into figuring out where the meta is at unless I accept that sometimes I will just crush someone or be crushed based on the tier our lists are at.

Having printed material be occasionally errata'd is inconvenient but understandable, and perfectly tolerable for improving the state of the game.

Having printed material that is so badly designed it needs eratta within weeks of release to fix things that are obvious even without testing is a different matter.

As for intent, it is obvious there's no sinister scheme behind GWs terrible balance, but the powers that be within the company are definitely making a choice not to get better. There is no way they don't know it is such a common source of customer dissatisfaction. My assumption is that they know shifting imbalance drives sales short term and long term consequences be dammed. It fits with the extremely common mentality among corporations for disregarding a net loss in the long term in favor of short term gain.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Having printed material be occasionally errata'd is inconvenient but understandable, and perfectly tolerable for improving the state of the game.

Having printed material that is so badly designed it needs eratta within weeks of release to fix things that are obvious even without testing is a different matter.

As for intent, it is obvious there's no sinister scheme behind GWs terrible balance, but the powers that be within the company are definitely making a choice not to get better. There is no way they don't know it is such a common source of customer dissatisfaction. My assumption is that they know shifting imbalance drives sales short term and long term consequences be dammed. It fits with the extremely common mentality among corporations for disregarding a net loss in the long term in favor of short term gain.

GW have primed the pump with the new regular patches and updates.

10th ed could well be season 1 of 40k ...and the balance will still end up being horrendous. Its just the business mindset of GW.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yeah this all true but there will always be some point or rule tweaks and an errata for typos or whatever, it might even only ever be for 1 line in the book but it still renders the book incorrect.

I'm not talking about the odd error or typo. I'm talking about massive power imbalance that's there from the word go.

How did the Eldar book make it to print with the Harlis in the state they were? The Custodes? The AdMech and Dark Eldar before them. These weren't simply "tweaks" or a point here and there that needed adjusting.

That's not relevant, you were complaining your printed material was invalidated, by points tweaks. I understand you're trying to say balance it better before release, but it would still need errata and points changes even then.

Yet again, you frequent the forums here enough to have seen that everyone was saying nids were going to be too strong, you knew they'd need to amend the points and or rules to balance them, then bought it anyway just to complain the expected changes happen.

It's very relevant. GW should do a better job.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yeah this all true but there will always be some point or rule tweaks and an errata for typos or whatever, it might even only ever be for 1 line in the book but it still renders the book incorrect.

I'm not talking about the odd error or typo. I'm talking about massive power imbalance that's there from the word go.

How did the Eldar book make it to print with the Harlis in the state they were? The Custodes? The AdMech and Dark Eldar before them. These weren't simply "tweaks" or a point here and there that needed adjusting.

That's not relevant, you were complaining your printed material was invalidated, by points tweaks. I understand you're trying to say balance it better before release, but it would still need errata and points changes even then.

Yet again, you frequent the forums here enough to have seen that everyone was saying nids were going to be too strong, you knew they'd need to amend the points and or rules to balance them, then bought it anyway just to complain the expected changes happen.

It's very relevant. GW should do a better job.

No, it really isn't. In this instance it's buying a knowingly faulty product and complaining when they amend it. Every single book gets points changes and always will, because the game isn't static and things need to be rebalanced.

The only way your printed medium will not be obsolete (again, 2 pages of it on average), is if they either don't errata or balance patch things, or don't print the points in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

Dudeface wrote:

Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

Yes, Sisters have been rising steadily since AoC dropped, and topping BAO shows the significance of the buff to their faction.

Dudeface wrote:

No, it really isn't. In this instance it's buying a knowingly faulty product and complaining when they amend it. Every single book gets points changes and always will, because the game isn't static and things need to be rebalanced.

The only way your printed medium will not be obsolete (again, 2 pages of it on average), is if they either don't errata or balance patch things, or don't print the points in the first place.

The degree to which it needs to be rebalanced is still too high, however.

Dudeface wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

Yes, Sisters have been rising steadily since AoC dropped, and topping BAO shows the significance of the buff to their faction.

Too bloody rose, and most people had their armies as Argent Shroud. That is like saying that marines are doing great when WS win an event to a person who plays IF.

Dudeface wrote:
... then bought it anyway just to complain...

You think I spent money on the book just so I could complain about it later?

You are absolutely mental if you think this.

I bought the Tyranid Codex - going against my personal "Don't by GW printed material!" rule - because I was excited that, I thought, we finally had a Codex after literal fething decades that was fun, dynamic, had a good breadth of options, and also didn't screw over what came before it too much (Hive Guard got munted, I'm not a personal fan of the changes made to 'Stealers, and Tyrants continue to suffer for their past sins, but really everything else came through largely intact). I bought it because I thought that I'd finally get to use a Tyranid book where I wasn't always running up hill, where I could make use of just about any Tyranid model I owned (and I own a lot...) without, in essence, throwing the game away.

The book got delayed in Australia - it came out yesterday - but because I am who I am, that didn't deter me, I got a copy (for cheap) elsewhere and was ready to go. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I haven't had a chance to use it yet, and the book has already changed. It and the cards are already invalid thanks to the FAQs. For people in Oz who aren't me, the book was out of date before they could even get their hands on it.

Do you get how fething annoying that is?

But no, according to you, any complains on the rules are "irrelevant" (because you say so, apparently) and I just bought it to "complain".

Dudeface wrote:
No, it really isn't.

Yes. It really is. And no I wasn't just complaining about points tweaks. It's really fething obvious to anyone with half a God-damned braincell what we're talking about here.

GW books are not fit for purpose upon printing.

It doesn't matter whether it's a tweak to some points, or a wholesale change in an FAQ that dramatically alters a unit or the function of equipment/strats/etc; these things should not be seeing the light of day in the state that they are in.

Your continued attempts to minimise and trivialise the very valid and OBVIOUS issues with the rules in this thread are, to be frank, un-fething-believably insulting.

Karol wrote:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

Yes, Sisters have been rising steadily since AoC dropped, and topping BAO shows the significance of the buff to their faction.

Too bloody rose, and most people had their armies as Argent Shroud. That is like saying that marines are doing great when WS win an event to a person who plays IF.

No, actually. Its exactly the opposite. The complaint about AoC was specifically that it made one Sisters sub-faction worse (or more specifically one unit from one sub-faction didn't get better) and that made the whole faction worse.

Dudeface wrote:

Unrelated, I note that sisters won BAO, I take it that "AoC is a nerf for sisters" thread was a way off the mark?

Absolutely, as expected.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
... then bought it anyway just to complain...

You think I spent money on the book just so I could complain about it later?

You are absolutely mental if you think this.

I bought the Tyranid Codex - going against my personal "Don't by GW printed material!" rule - because I was excited that, I thought, we finally had a Codex after literal fething decades that was fun, dynamic, had a good breadth of options, and also didn't screw over what came before it too much (Hive Guard got munted, I'm not a personal fan of the changes made to 'Stealers, and Tyrants continue to suffer for their past sins, but really everything else came through largely intact). I bought it because I thought that I'd finally get to use a Tyranid book where I wasn't always running up hill, where I could make use of just about any Tyranid model I owned (and I own a lot...) without, in essence, throwing the game away.

The book got delayed in Australia - it came out yesterday - but because I am who I am, that didn't deter me, I got a copy (for cheap) elsewhere and was ready to go. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I haven't had a chance to use it yet, and the book has already changed. It and the cards are already invalid thanks to the FAQs. For people in Oz who aren't me, the book was out of date before they could even get their hands on it.

Do you get how fething annoying that is?

But no, according to you, any complains on the rules are "irrelevant" (because you say so, apparently) and I just bought it to "complain".

Dudeface wrote:
No, it really isn't.

Yes. It really is. And no I wasn't just complaining about points tweaks. It's really fething obvious to anyone with half a God-damned braincell what we're talking about here.

GW books are not fit for purpose upon printing.

It doesn't matter whether it's a tweak to some points, or a wholesale change in an FAQ that dramatically alters a unit or the function of equipment/strats/etc; these things should not be seeing the light of day in the state that they are in.

Your continued attempts to minimise and trivialise the very valid and OBVIOUS issues with the rules in this thread are, to be frank, un-fething-believably insulting.

Edited to a shorter response:

That wasn't what I meant, it was clear that I wasn't insinuating you bought a book with the sole intent of complaining.

We all know GW balance out the gate sucks, you admit as much.

We all know their books need amending as do points etc. Even in a balanced book.

There is a separate topic that isn't rage bashing GW rules writing about the longevity of the printed material you seem to be ignoring in place of simple anger.

The point was, you admit you know the initial printed quality isn't great, you knew it'd need amending, you knew that book would have "obsolete" pages pretty quickly, so don't moan about it was one angle.

The other is, should GW be printing them at all, should the delivery be different etc?

For the millionth time.

Errata are to expected (probably). No one is arguing against this.

You need to codex to play your faction (arguable to some I know but go with it) or a facsimile of it.

It certainly is a problem when said codex is out of date from point of concept even.

Further to this major changes are wrought to the structure of the codex by on going playtesting in the form of tourney results.

A consumer of such product has a right to be angry.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
For the millionth time.

Errata are to expected (probably). No one is arguing against this.

You need to codex to play your faction (arguable to some I know but go with it) or a facsimile of it.

It certainly is a problem when said codex is out of date from point of concept even.

Further to this major changes are wrought to the structure of the codex by on going playtesting in the form of tourney results.

A consumer of such product has a right to be angry.

They're out of date at conception because of the lead time with printers in part. So should they move away from printed books altogether?

I disagree on the anger, it's very well advertised by GW themselves that no book in this game will remain as printed forever. Part of buying a book with the knowledge it'll be amended is understanding it won't remain as printed forever. The quality of the rules writing aside, it's better they fix a wonky book earlier than later.

I would add they should maybe consider a reprint occasionally to roll in the updates.

Although this is getting very far from the topic of nids winning tournaments in May.

GW clearly could do a better job balancing the game. Its unclear why they don't. I feel the playtesting clearly isn't working. (And while we had the much quoted "but we didn't test D3+3 damage dark lances" - that wasn't even the main reason DE were top faction for 9~ months.)

A simple consideration of what Tyranids *get* for their points compared to everything else in the game should have easily demonstrated the problems. Just as with Harlequins, to some extent Eldar, Custodes and indeed Tau before them.

Equally however I feel the window has grown too short for it to really be about encouraging sales. If Maleceptors are say nerfed hard in a few weeks time, you've had... what, a month or two to buy, assemble and play with them? That might suffice for the Esports-esque scene that tries to hit a tournament every week or two - but those guys are a miniscule fraction of the customer base. I feel few people are dropping $1000 to buy a new army... that may be pushed back to being decidedly mid-tier before the glue dries.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
For the millionth time.

Errata are to expected (probably). No one is arguing against this.

You need to codex to play your faction (arguable to some I know but go with it) or a facsimile of it.

It certainly is a problem when said codex is out of date from point of concept even.

Further to this major changes are wrought to the structure of the codex by on going playtesting in the form of tourney results.

A consumer of such product has a right to be angry.

They're out of date at conception because of the lead time with printers in part. So should they move away from printed books altogether?

Yes.

Tyel wrote:
GW clearly could do a better job balancing the game. Its unclear why they don't. I feel the playtesting clearly isn't working. (And while we had the much quoted "but we didn't test D3+3 damage dark lances" - that wasn't even the main reason DE were top faction for 9~ months.)

We also have some evidence that some of the pros are giving biased feedback to help factions they prefer and hurt factions they can't play well/don't like playing against.
On top of that, GW is keeping secrets from the playtesters - none of the beast snaggas were playtested.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:
GW clearly could do a better job balancing the game. Its unclear why they don't. I feel the playtesting clearly isn't working. (And while we had the much quoted "but we didn't test D3+3 damage dark lances" - that wasn't even the main reason DE were top faction for 9~ months.)

We also have some evidence that some of the pros are giving biased feedback to help factions they prefer and hurt factions they can't play well/don't like playing against.
On top of that, GW is keeping secrets from the playtesters - none of the beast snaggas were playtested.

The first one ugg...

The model thing could be GW not having the models done or rules constructed them in time for play test. Or they don't care to give guidance on base and model size for proxy. I doubt it's them trying to keep things quiet, because there's so much else that could leak.

If your models and rules aren't ready for playtesting prior to printing, then they aren't ready for printing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If your models and rules aren't ready for playtesting prior to printing, then they aren't ready for printing.

Sure, but they have sales targets and they "need" something in that release slot. Otherwise you get a sales slump, then the stock will drop, and everyone will run to the forum to declare that GW is dying.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
... then bought it anyway just to complain...

You think I spent money on the book just so I could complain about it later?

You are absolutely mental if you think this.

I bought the Tyranid Codex - going against my personal "Don't by GW printed material!" rule - because I was excited that, I thought, we finally had a Codex after literal fething decades that was fun, dynamic, had a good breadth of options, and also didn't screw over what came before it too much (Hive Guard got munted, I'm not a personal fan of the changes made to 'Stealers, and Tyrants continue to suffer for their past sins, but really everything else came through largely intact). I bought it because I thought that I'd finally get to use a Tyranid book where I wasn't always running up hill, where I could make use of just about any Tyranid model I owned (and I own a lot...) without, in essence, throwing the game away.

The book got delayed in Australia - it came out yesterday - but because I am who I am, that didn't deter me, I got a copy (for cheap) elsewhere and was ready to go. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I haven't had a chance to use it yet, and the book has already changed. It and the cards are already invalid thanks to the FAQs. For people in Oz who aren't me, the book was out of date before they could even get their hands on it.

Do you get how fething annoying that is?

But no, according to you, any complains on the rules are "irrelevant" (because you say so, apparently) and I just bought it to "complain".

Dudeface wrote:
No, it really isn't.

Yes. It really is. And no I wasn't just complaining about points tweaks. It's really fething obvious to anyone with half a God-damned braincell what we're talking about here.

GW books are not fit for purpose upon printing.

It doesn't matter whether it's a tweak to some points, or a wholesale change in an FAQ that dramatically alters a unit or the function of equipment/strats/etc; these things should not be seeing the light of day in the state that they are in.

Your continued attempts to minimise and trivialise the very valid and OBVIOUS issues with the rules in this thread are, to be frank, un-fething-believably insulting.

Edited to a shorter response:

That wasn't what I meant, it was clear that I wasn't insinuating you bought a book with the sole intent of complaining.

We all know GW balance out the gate sucks, you admit as much.

We all know their books need amending as do points etc. Even in a balanced book.

There is a separate topic that isn't rage bashing GW rules writing about the longevity of the printed material you seem to be ignoring in place of simple anger.

The point was, you admit you know the initial printed quality isn't great, you knew it'd need amending, you knew that book would have "obsolete" pages pretty quickly, so don't moan about it was one angle.

The other is, should GW be printing them at all, should the delivery be different etc?

Can you kindly explain why you feel it okay to say they're selling a finished product then handing over a best test copy when we buy it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
GW clearly could do a better job balancing the game. Its unclear why they don't. I feel the playtesting clearly isn't working. (And while we had the much quoted "but we didn't test D3+3 damage dark lances" - that wasn't even the main reason DE were top faction for 9~ months.)

A simple consideration of what Tyranids *get* for their points compared to everything else in the game should have easily demonstrated the problems. Just as with Harlequins, to some extent Eldar, Custodes and indeed Tau before them.

Equally however I feel the window has grown too short for it to really be about encouraging sales. If Maleceptors are say nerfed hard in a few weeks time, you've had... what, a month or two to buy, assemble and play with them? That might suffice for the Esports-esque scene that tries to hit a tournament every week or two - but those guys are a miniscule fraction of the customer base. I feel few people are dropping $1000 to buy a new army... that may be pushed back to being decidedly mid-tier before the glue dries.

It's because a constantly shifting mate leads to more sales as people change their armies to fit the new meta.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If your models and rules aren't ready for playtesting prior to printing, then they aren't ready for printing.

The models aren't required for playtesting really, as long as a description and relative size is included it's enough to go off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tresson wrote:

Can you kindly explain why you feel it okay to say they're selling a finished product then handing over a best test copy when we buy it?

I never said it was OK, nor did I ever mention them being a finished product nor does GW. They openly tell you they will change them, they advertise the points changes with a regular rota.

Are you OK with them potentially selling a finished product and never balancing it out or fixing issues with it in the future?

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The books aren't contemporary at launch as we know, but even if they were and have good balance future releases will facilitate some change in all probability.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
For the millionth time.

Errata are to expected (probably). No one is arguing against this.

You need to codex to play your faction (arguable to some I know but go with it) or a facsimile of it.

It certainly is a problem when said codex is out of date from point of concept even.

Further to this major changes are wrought to the structure of the codex by on going playtesting in the form of tourney results.

A consumer of such product has a right to be angry.

They're out of date at conception because of the lead time with printers in part. So should they move away from printed books altogether?

YES THEY SHOULD MOVE AWAY FROM PRINTED BOOKS. If they can't do a good job the first time, they shouldn't do it at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If your models and rules aren't ready for playtesting prior to printing, then they aren't ready for printing.

Sure, but they have sales targets and they "need" something in that release slot. Otherwise you get a sales slump, then the stock will drop, and everyone will run to the forum to declare that GW is dying.

Not my problem. Bad rules, however, are.

Tresson wrote:
It's because a constantly shifting mate leads to more sales as people change their armies to fit the new meta.

But it doesn't though. Unless you mean on a unit by unit basis?

I mean GW might think it does. But you aren't compelling people to change their armies when you have a new hotness every 6 weeks.

Yet you see try　hards playing different army constantly chasing new op all the time.

You might not think it works. Gw's profits disagree with you.

 Jidmah wrote:

We also have some evidence that some of the pros are giving biased feedback to help factions they prefer and hurt factions they can't play well/don't like playing against.

What specific evidence is that? I'd be interested to read it.

GK write up for 8th ed codex. That Nanavati guy throws in a blurb how GK MW generations and psychic powers had to be reigned in because otherwise GK would be too powerful, but this way they will be just powerful. What followed was GK being one of the worse or the worse faction with a codex in 8th ed. And the same time other "magic" heavy faction did not get any such limitations.

Later on when confronted on the state of GK, Nanavati claimed that GK players just don't know how to play and build a good GK army. And posted the same type of army everyone else playing as an example.

Karol wrote:
GK write up for 8th ed codex. That Nanavati guy throws in a blurb how GK MW generations and psychic powers had to be reigned in because otherwise GK would be too powerful, but this way they will be just powerful. What followed was GK being one of the worse or the worse faction with a codex in 8th ed. And the same time other "magic" heavy faction did not get any such limitations.

Later on when confronted on the state of GK, Nanavati claimed that GK players just don't know how to play and build a good GK army. And posted the same type of army everyone else playing as an example.

GK have been a solid army since their release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet you see try　hards playing different army constantly chasing new op all the time.

You might not think it works. Gw's profits disagree with you.

Again, those people already own or borrow whatever they need. I regularly see FB posts of people selling their pile of shame and some post literally tens of thousands of dollars in models.

Karol wrote:
GK write up for 8th ed codex. That Nanavati guy throws in a blurb how GK MW generations and psychic powers had to be reigned in because otherwise GK would be too powerful, but this way they will be just powerful. What followed was GK being one of the worse or the worse faction with a codex in 8th ed. And the same time other "magic" heavy faction did not get any such limitations.

Later on when confronted on the state of GK, Nanavati claimed that GK players just don't know how to play and build a good GK army. And posted the same type of army everyone else playing as an example.

about the bolded part:

What are you referring to? Thousand sons? You mean the army that specialises in OFFENSIVE psychic could do more damage than the one specialised in buffing psychic? (and your smites could be ridiculously stronger when facing anything with the demon keyword)