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.

Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

Asenion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Asenion wrote:

Lammia wrote:

Asenion wrote:

ccs wrote:
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Entire armies/Codex? Not usually. Happens though at times. Specific units, often the new hotness? Hell yes. Gotta sell those models....


I've been watching them do this for all 29 years & some odd months I've been playing this game.
The new twist to it in recent years is the blatant bait & switch that comes shortly after release nowdays.

How is this not false advertising?

'Never atribute to malice, that which can be sufficently explained by stupidity.'

GW have only recently begun to try and really understand how their game plays out 'in the wild.' The whole 'conspiring to sell new models' ignores the large number of models that manage to be truly unplayable on release as well as some of the oldest kits having some of the best rules at times.

Sorry but if it Talks like a Duck, Walks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck - it's probably a Duck.

I could see this happening once or twice with a small business but for a multimillion dollar company to keep making the same mistakes over and over which just happen to, by coincidence, sell more product eventually we have to call a Spade a Spade.

Trust me when I say the used car salesman didn't sell you that lemon out of naive innocence.

Funny thing about the Duck Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

GWs ability to constantly fail to sell a new model due to underpowered rules while overpowering rules for models people already have is all the proof you need to know that GW isn't doing it on purpose.

Did you read your own link? Because otherwise it seems like you are engaged in bait and switch yourself.

I did. Apparently you didn't.

The French automaton maker Jacques de Vaucanson created a mechanical duck in 1738. The mechanical duck would quack, move its head to eat grain which it would appear to digest, and after a short time would excrete a mixture that looked and smelled like duck droppings. The irony is that while the phrase is often cited as proof of abductive reasoning, it is not proof, as the mechanical duck is still not a living duck.

So ironically, the off quoted rules of the duck test were used to prove that the mechanical duck was a duck, which it clearly isn't.

 jaredb wrote:
New units are not necessarily always good.

I'm more in the boat of "rule are too good by accident" rather than malice.

You've got a good point, the problem is players are really good at spotting the gold and avoiding the crap. Years ago when GW introduced new units people ran out and converted Defilers and Storm Ravens (there was no model at release) because they were amazing. No one was too concerned about converting up Scout Bikers or whatever.

So good on GW for balance patching and such but I think it is fair to say they sometimes anoint a unit to be the new hotness and write rules that make it impossible for players to resist.

And do that with every intention of nerfing it later.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

During the pre launch of Votan they said it performed well VS what they where playtesting against. And that was tyranids and eldars. Both strong armies upon release.

This says a lott of their playtesting model as this can least to shifting baseline syndrom. Instead they should be playtesting VS Necron and marines. But that takes three times longer to test as you can't test two codexes at the same time.

I do not know the inner workings of GW, but I do belive that the pendulum is trying to swing in the direction of balanced codexes. But it is hard.

It the old days there are reports of previous employees who wanted to price the big eldar wraight knight at some high point cost because the weapons where over powered. But their bosses said they would never sell any then and owrote it to 320 points or the model would not sell. (I think the suggested and recommended amount where around 600 or 800 points.) Those desisisons leads to bad gameplay experiences and thus a worse game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

The wraithknight incident was nearly a decade ago under different management. In fact given that they were probably told to alter the rules during development it probably WAS 10 years ago at this point.

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Also falling on the side of it's not malicious, they're just incompetent.

No. I don't think so, it's not just incompetence, considering what we know about the wraithknight.


However the pol lacks 2 more options:
1.Attempts to overpower but is too incompotent.
2.Is too incompetent which leads to overpowered stuff.

Personally after the wriathknight incident, i think it is Nr. 1.

Completely agree. As I stated, GW probably thought that Intercessors were oppressive at 20 points at the beginning of 8th.

The wraithknight incident was nearly a decade ago under different management.

Fair, however it is also fair to point out that the rulesteam also has been very stable and consistent fo the same people in big swaaths.
And i can think of quite a few recent exemples of questionable choices, f.e. PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

Also we know of their "testing" circle being against the other recent codices, which means that they have an inbuilt escalation in power , which facilitates and requires corrections which can be sold separatly as seen with PA in the past.

I think the question is less if GW is purposefully making OP rules and more if Dakkadakka understands what bait and switch actually is.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

Tbh I read the Wraithknight quote as corporate incompetence - or rather indifference - rather than an explicit drive to be overpowered.

We know rules writers are bottom of the pecking order. Jokes about giving Zoats a 2++ aside, "corporate GW" likely doesn't know or much care how the game works. They want to sell plastic. Designing, marketing, selling and shipping this plastic takes precedence. As does, to a degree, maintaining the franchise so they can sell other things. (Like games, and shirts, and... hot sauce?)

I think rules have moved a bit up the priority list (sorry but new GW is sort of a thing - and you can tell because they now attempt to fix stuff in about 6~ weeks rather than 6~ years) - but GW's board won't be having meetings about how many points a Flamer should be.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

(anecdotal evidence but) Most CSM players i know already had possessed since long time players of a faction usually end up with all the options, regardless of if theyre good or not, i'd say 12 years on the shelves is more than enough for people to have bought them, even if their look was "controversial"

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PA books which were often heavy powerspikes for the CSM codices and specific units like possessed.

so they made possessed better in order for a kit from 2007 to sell more?... in 2019?

considering how disliked they were due to their "design" why not? people would need more of them for the WB list that was so prevalent, and then when the new ones are ready and you cleared your stocks you got a win win.

That boils down to that minority of meta chasing net listers, I don't think the majority of players would have knee jerk bought possessed out of stock due to a supplement.

There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

You forgot the third one

3) Dakkadakka assumes GW is doing something illegal, often while misusing legal concepts.

 Eldarsif wrote:
There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

And that one time for the Wraithknight wasn't even a top level decision. It was some team manager mook who wanted to make something cool and not a company directive.

But people love a good conspiracy and the opportunity to take down something they hate while totally abandoning their capacity to gather data and be rational. Hooray for the internet.

Voted No
*Plays Necrons*

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
There are two things I always notice in these types of threads.

1 ) Threads assume majority of players are meta chasers and actually bother to buy and paint new armies because of the chase.

2 ) Everytime a "gotcha" is used to prove GW is overpowering stuff it is always the Wraithknight example. It's been the example ever since the WK came out and I am surprised not a single other model has stepped up to replace that one example.

People seem to forget that GW has am employee churn and a lot of people who have worked for GW are now in the wild. That the only big "aha" moment is the Wraithknight is surprising considering the amount of people who work for GW and would spill the beans eventually.

And that one time for the Wraithknight wasn't even a top level decision. It was some team manager mook who wanted to make something cool and not a company directive.

And yet it stuck.....

Let me lead with - I am not familiar with the wraith knight thing (I was on a break...)

Yes. Yes they do. GW is a very good marketing company and they market... FOMO at a very high profit margin. GW is also a very good miniature company - which they sell at a very high profit margin. I am not fundamentally opposed to either of those things but what it means is that in order to successfully generate profit from a new release - they push the market to push the FOMO by using rules to sell miniatures.

They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

This leads to another common observation/discussion/complaint - rules bloat. IMHO all of these are related. If they were in fact primarily a "Game" company then all of the new releases would come out already balanced without having to do an edition reset every 3-4 years but that would be less profitable.

That said though - Ill give them a slight nod to the fact that they rules that they play tested were 'finalized' at least 6 to 8 months before release so there is going to be a margin for error in how everything balances out initially.

If they released the rules electronically... More time for testing and more time for balance ... and things are easier to amend. Again - less profits in that. They make money on the codex's and bundles...

Anyway - Whatever they are doing is working for them. Not enough people have left the system to move to OPR or Mantic or...

Tome_Keeper wrote:
Let me lead with - I am not familiar with the wraith knight thing (I was on a break...)

the designers wrote rules they thought are cool and fit the model, and the middle management/sales management reduced the points suggested by the design team so that people would be able to use 3 of them (without adjusting the rules)

and this shows 2 problems of 40k, models are made first and rules come 2nd, which means the decision which models are made comes from a very different department and has nothing to do what an army might need or is missing
if the model design team does not like a specific unit type it gets never added to the faction (and the other way around from other units there are more than could ever fit into the army list)
the rules design team now creates rules that fit the models and the background and not trying to fill gaps in the army list (hence we get several units that have the very same role with one being better than the others simply because not all are created equal and therefore one will be most point efficient)
and the middle management will interfere at any point of the process if they think the unit will sell better if done in a different way

but this also means, to actually make overpowered new units to drive sales, the process would need to be the other way around
designers looking at the game, check what is missing and/or what is good/bad, than create rules that are overpowered and add them to the models coming up

this is also what I meant with my other post, GW creates rules in a very different way and has a very different design philosophy regarding the game
the game is there to have a reason to buy models and rules are designed to fit the models and the fluff while also being "cool"

at no point of the design process anyone thinks of gameplay or performance, this step comes after release and is done by a different team which was added after internal changes as Kirby left (same as the social media team)

hence we get different points on a Codex and a CA although they are released at the same time because those are different teams with different design goals

PS: no matter if you play or not, the possibility to play and have a template on how an army might look like is enough to drive sales for one half of the community, and the other half is driven by the "meta" to actually have something playable
the first halve will always buy no matter how good/bad units are or how playable the game is, the other half increase or decrease sales on changes with the game

hence a bad game will reduce the sales by half, while bad model release will also reduce the sales by half, yet if there are both bad rules and bad model releases the faction fails

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

 kodos wrote:
and this shows 2 problems of 40k, models are made first and rules come 2nd, which means the decision which models are made comes from a very different department and has nothing to do what an army might need or is missing
if the model design team does not like a specific unit type it gets never added to the faction (and the other way around from other units there are more than could ever fit into the army list)
the rules design team now creates rules that fit the models and the background and not trying to fill gaps in the army list (hence we get several units that have the very same role with one being better than the others simply because not all are created equal and therefore one will be most point efficient)
and the middle management will interfere at any point of the process if they think the unit will sell better if done in a different way

I'd say that's a problem with GW as a whole, not just with 40k, and can be seen quite clearly in AOS in three areas.

Some factions have a faction terrain piece, some do not.

Some factions have endless spells (or equivalent), some do not.

Some factions have both of the above, some have one of the above, some have neither.

Despite being one of the four (I think) unit types in the game, many factions have no artillery.

I doubt any of these gaps are due to the rules team - they could be due to management saying no to a concept, or they could be due to the model designers not being able to come up with concepts for things.

for GW as a whole is a bit far, as some games are really designed as games, with the models coming later

Necromunda as prime example, hence the mess with the expansion books etc the new stuff was not known by the time the game was designed and the original designer does not work for GW any more
Adeptus Titanicus, HH, LotR or Warcry work because they got the game designed first as well

so it is more or less just 40k and AoS

Dudeface wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

Maybe "Overpower" is setting the wrong expectation - "Better" or "Stronger" may more closely fit the intent.

There is usually some kind of bang/zoom with a release. New gun/better character/upgraded stats and that will sell some models and codexs and IMHO that is the source question being discussed here- so not using a specific character example..

Since i am not a meta chaser or tourney player - I dont fit into the umbrella you appear to put me in but like many players - I find that being competitive at whatever level is part , but not all, of the enjoyment.

RE:New kits with bad rules - What is the definer there? If the expectation is that every new unit needs to be just a little better than Death Guard Terminators - that seems to prove the question*** GW has their duds, and some units make more sense in a smaller game and some make sense in a larger game, or FLGS campaign, or against a specific opponent.

Possible already done but - Maybe lets ask a couple of supporting questions:
Considering that GW is a for profit company:

If a 9th edition faction codex was exactly the same as the 8th edition codex but with updated art and version specific rules: How many would be sold?
If a unit from any faction was updated with new miniatures but no updated rules : How many units will they sell? (obviously more than the old kit but not as many if they update the rules)
If GW released a new box set with an old codex and old sculpts: How many would be sold?
If GW released a new box set with a new codex, new sculps, and worse rules: How many would they sell?

There is no quantifiable answer - only that it would be "fewer" and "fewer" means less money for GW

Anyway - I believe that they update the releases and rules to sell stuff and that is the primary contributor to rules bloat and eventually - edition resets which in itself is a way to sell more stuff.



*** Yeah , being snarky, no offense intended

Tome_Keeper wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:


They have done this in pretty much every system they have since the 90's so it just follows that if they want to sell more.. Drukari, Tau, Votann, Vampires, CSM, etc., that they would write advantageous rules for them. 80 Dollar characters wont sell themselves.

To be clear, you think they wrote overpowered rules for Tau who had a while 1 character release with them, who doesn't feature in competitive play often if at all, purely to sell that one said character?

Just like everyone else who comes out with these statements. Why do they release new kits with bad rules, why do they release factions with bad rules overall? There are as many, if not more examples of new kits with bad rules than good. If they make new stuff OP on purpose, why are they so bad at it to only manage it half the time at best?


Maybe you're confusing, like many, meta chasers buying up new armies every release for that extra slither of win rate as thats what's publicly observable, rather than the vast majority of people who don't behave like that.

Maybe "Overpower" is setting the wrong expectation - "Better" or "Stronger" may more closely fit the intent.

There is usually some kind of bang/zoom with a release. New gun/better character/upgraded stats and that will sell some models and codexs and IMHO that is the source question being discussed here- so not using a specific character example..

Since i am not a meta chaser or tourney player - I dont fit into the umbrella you appear to put me in but like many players - I find that being competitive at whatever level is part , but not all, of the enjoyment.

RE:New kits with bad rules - What is the definer there? If the expectation is that every new unit needs to be just a little better than Death Guard Terminators - that seems to prove the question*** GW has their duds, and some units make more sense in a smaller game and some make sense in a larger game, or FLGS campaign, or against a specific opponent.

Possible already done but - Maybe lets ask a couple of supporting questions:
Considering that GW is a for profit company:

If a 9th edition faction codex was exactly the same as the 8th edition codex but with updated art and version specific rules: How many would be sold?
If a unit from any faction was updated with new miniatures but no updated rules : How many units will they sell? (obviously more than the old kit but not as many if they update the rules)
If GW released a new box set with an old codex and old sculpts: How many would be sold?
If GW released a new box set with a new codex, new sculps, and worse rules: How many would they sell?

There is no quantifiable answer - only that it would be "fewer" and "fewer" means less money for GW

Anyway - I believe that they update the releases and rules to sell stuff and that is the primary contributor to rules bloat and eventually - edition resets which in itself is a way to sell more stuff.

*** Yeah , being snarky, no offense intended

Rules bloat =/= purposefully overpowering.

Giving more exciting rules for models that may have been boring, sells models. Playing Thousand Sons in 8th was cool. It felt like Thousand Sons. Playing them in 9th is far and away a much better experience and it isn't because of overpowered units.

The other part of this problem is that any action GW takes to fix something is automatically filtered under the lens that it was done purely to sell the models. Let's look at the SM Gladiator variants. Those kits have been out for a while now and almost no one is sweet on them. They've received point cuts twice and still they don't really move. No one is yet claiming GW tweaked them to sell, because they've been unsuccessful at making them compelling to take on the table. The game is littered with units that were made good and no one talks about GW getting it right, because that's not as fun to talk about.

As always the release procedure leads to a stochastic balance outlook and GW is still learning ( decades late, but here we are ). Additionally, the factors impacting the game have changed radically over a short period of time. At the onset of 9th we didn't have the same understanding of terrain that we do now. Nor did we have the same secondaries or mission design.

This is a system that is a huge sum of its parts that gets casually ignored.

Is there any value in considering the state of how quick GW has been with the nerf bat post release this edition? Given the length of time required to actually crunch numbers, and put together a nerf package, it seems almost pre-meditated?

Please forgive the inaccurate time line, I can't recall this far back:

SM release new Primaris Melta boys. Nerfed within a (?) month?

DE release with very low costed yet abusable units, nerfed within 1 month?

Eldar and Clowns: release in a broken state, left to stew for almost two months?

Tau, Custodes, and Zerg: given nerfs after almonst 3-4 months of blatant silliness.

Votann: Nerfed within weeks of release?

Orks - never really nerfed? Release was crap and remained so?

Again, my dates are likely wrong, very likely, but given how LONG it takes GW to put anything on paper, is Votaan really believable that they didn't intend to nerf them as soon as they released?

New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

And yet 40k was dying under Kirby.

GW is and likely always will be a model company first and foremost. But rules releases definitely help as show by 40k's fast growth when GW was able to release one or two codex per month during 8th.

IMHO it isn't even that the rules need to be balanced, but a quick and sustained release schedule gives the illusion of support, and that is a very important one.

Lammia wrote:
New Sister tanks models sold well on launch, Phobos Marines sold well on launch.

Like it or not, Kirby was right to think GW was a model company first and foremost. That's what makes their money.

Game rules just keep casual modelers interested.

No, he wasn’t. The game is what gives the models context and what not.