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.

It might also be productive to not name the current iteration PL, because this isn't even PL. PL at least took an average cost for all loadouts iirc, mitigating the issue somewhat. This is just paying the points for the most expensive loadout you could take and having the "freedom" of taking less effective loadouts.

Can't come up with a new name that's both derisive and catchy though, a little help?

Breton wrote:
Update the choices to work with the new system - or just get people to buy new kits with more options installed. It sounds like you're trying to sneak in another LRBT No-Sponsons situation where optional bonus choices are being skipped - so the solution is pretty much the same: Make new models, Add some Bits, or GW reworks the Datasheet with the new system.

OR... and please hear me out: Just stay with the points system that was already in place. I'm more than willing to sacrifice the handful of minutes somebody saves to make their army list under PL over better balance, unneeded and unwanted consolidation as well as invalidating older models.

Some units you still had to add wargear with power level. Adding drones to units in Tau, for example, changed the power level of the unit.

So, in that regard, 10th actually manages to be a step backwards in regards to the effectiveness of its points system compared to the previous power level system.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There is 0 reason for 5 bolter armed devs to be an option at this point.

That drastically misses the point of what's being argued.

Bad example is a bad example. It also resolves the issue being discussed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you have to consolidate options that have been there since 3rd edition because your system cannot account for the differences in them, then your system is objectively worse than every system since 3rd which could account for those differences.

Also, those more than 30 loadouts didn't take support systems into account, and support systems have already been gutted in 10th to 3 options.

Well you don't have to - you can just have imbalance, which we've had in every edition (unless you are going to argue all 30 possible weapon combos of Crisis Suit were ever equally "valid").
I mean the 9th edition method of X for one burst cannon, Y for the second burst cannon etc possibly had some merit, but still produced weird outcomes (and would I suspect grow complicated if embraced throughout 40k's list building).

There's only so much variety you can put into "this gun has (X) shots at S(Y) and AP(Z) and we've balanced it - so another gun with (X+1) shots at S(Y-1) and AP(Z+1) produces very similar results". Points gives you a degree of additional dimensionality but its still basically the same problem.

I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

Andykp wrote:
I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

I always love the fallback of, 'this is a game for little Timmy's' defense. Like, you all know how expensive this game is right? In my experience in this hobby, the bulk of people playing have been adult men over 30. Since the mid 2000s , I can count the number of people I've met plying who don't at least have a driver license on two hands. And most of those were playing because their dad played too.

They may say stuff like this, but their pricing is built around 35 year old's with full time jobs and discretionary income.

Also, lets not deride the kids that do play 40k. Many of them are intelligent and talented. At least smart enough to figure out the SUM function in a spreadsheet app. +15 points for a Heavy Bolter should not be stumping people.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

I always love the fallback of, 'this is a game for little Timmy's' defense. Like, you all know how expensive this game is right? In my experience in this hobby, the bulk of people playing have been adult men over 30. Since the mid 2000s , I can count the number of people I've met plying who don't at least have a driver license on two hands. And most of those were playing because their dad played too.

They may say stuff like this, but their pricing is built around 35 year old's with full time jobs and discretionary income.

Also, lets not deride the kids that do play 40k. Many of them are intelligent and talented. At least smart enough to figure out the SUM function in a spreadsheet app. +15 points for a Heavy Bolter should not be stumping people.

It’s nothing to with intelligence, it’s about grabbing the attention quick and keeping it, so it can’t have too steep a learning curve. Hence all the starter push on starter sets, getting half decent painting results quick. So cheers for anecdotal evidence but I will keep listening to those in the know.

I suggest you watch the video, it’s very informative on the decision making in the company. He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum. You might learn soemthimg, they even discuss people like you, who can’t see outside their bubble of experience.

Andykp wrote:
He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum.

Oh right, the Warhammer moms. Constantly going in and out of Comic and Warhammer stores. The moms who make up the biggest group that buys GW things. Those moms.

Sorry, but I'm pressing my X button to doubt this until either somebody comes up with a proper customer study, or I see it happening in real life.

In my limited experience, only the smallest kids go to the Warhammer store together with their parents to buy something. At around ~10 years and older they go there by themselves after school to hang out or grab something. The biggest and best advertisement for the actual tabletop has and always will be somebody actually playing the game. There are very likely dozens or hundreds of games out there with a better ruleset, easier army construction, less complexity as a whole while still providing a better player experience... and none of that matters if you go to your local scene and nobody plays or wants to play it.

The fact that only certain people in GW have access to the Internet is such a massive red flag if true.

There is nothing that GW does that you would not want access to the Internet for.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The fact that only certain people in GW have access to the Internet is such a massive red flag if true.

There is nothing that GW does that you would not want access to the Internet for.

They apparently had a private network (intranet) with limit links to outside sites like bbc news, YouTube was out and so were forums and things.

The bloke says it did result in some insular working.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

I always love the fallback of, 'this is a game for little Timmy's' defense. Like, you all know how expensive this game is right? In my experience in this hobby, the bulk of people playing have been adult men over 30. Since the mid 2000s , I can count the number of people I've met plying who don't at least have a driver license on two hands. And most of those were playing because their dad played too.

They may say stuff like this, but their pricing is built around 35 year old's with full time jobs and discretionary income.

Also, lets not deride the kids that do play 40k. Many of them are intelligent and talented. At least smart enough to figure out the SUM function in a spreadsheet app. +15 points for a Heavy Bolter should not be stumping people.

It’s nothing to with intelligence, it’s about grabbing the attention quick and keeping it, so it can’t have too steep a learning curve. Hence all the starter push on starter sets, getting half decent painting results quick. So cheers for anecdotal evidence but I will keep listening to those in the know.

I suggest you watch the video, it’s very informative on the decision making in the company. He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum. You might learn soemthimg, they even discuss people like you, who can’t see outside their bubble of experience.

Little timmies also play Magic, Pokemon, and Yugioh. And if kids can deal with the complexity and math in those games, they don't need the simplification of PL to build and army.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Andykp wrote:
He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum.

Oh right, the Warhammer moms. Constantly going in and out of Comic and Warhammer stores. The moms who make up the biggest group that buys GW things. Those moms.

Sorry, but I'm pressing my X button to doubt this until either somebody comes up with a proper customer study, or I see it happening in real life.

In my limited experience, only the smallest kids go to the Warhammer store together with their parents to buy something. At around ~10 years and older they go there by themselves after school to hang out or grab something. The biggest and best advertisement for the actual tabletop has and always will be somebody actually playing the game. There are very likely dozens or hundreds of games out there with a better ruleset, easier army construction, less complexity as a whole while still providing a better player experience... and none of that matters if you go to your local scene and nobody plays or wants to play it.

If this reasonable senior GW worker is saying this was the case when he was there and he had access to that data I choose to believe him. Why would he lie, he is no longer with the company and isn’t protecting anything?? There’s no reason to make that up. So I will trust the international plc and their research over your anecdotal evidence.

Watch the video, they agree that playing the game is key to getting people hooked, and removing barriers to that. But he likens it to the video game experience or bond moving, the big show stopping first scene or experience that leave you wanting to come back for more. Now sitting down and unpicking complicated army composition rules across multiple books, writing lists with every option on and doing some boring maths is going to kill that vibe.

So we have combat patrol, starter editions at different levels of entry and a rule set that is “simplified not simple”. It’s basic stuff they are doing. And it appears to work.

And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

I always love the fallback of, 'this is a game for little Timmy's' defense. Like, you all know how expensive this game is right? In my experience in this hobby, the bulk of people playing have been adult men over 30. Since the mid 2000s , I can count the number of people I've met plying who don't at least have a driver license on two hands. And most of those were playing because their dad played too.

They may say stuff like this, but their pricing is built around 35 year old's with full time jobs and discretionary income.

Also, lets not deride the kids that do play 40k. Many of them are intelligent and talented. At least smart enough to figure out the SUM function in a spreadsheet app. +15 points for a Heavy Bolter should not be stumping people.

It’s nothing to with intelligence, it’s about grabbing the attention quick and keeping it, so it can’t have too steep a learning curve. Hence all the starter push on starter sets, getting half decent painting results quick. So cheers for anecdotal evidence but I will keep listening to those in the know.

I suggest you watch the video, it’s very informative on the decision making in the company. He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum. You might learn soemthimg, they even discuss people like you, who can’t see outside their bubble of experience.

Little timmies also play Magic, Pokemon, and Yugioh. And if kids can deal with the complexity and math in those games, they don't need the simplification of PL to build and army.

It’s not about how much complexity kids can handle, it’s about getting them in and getting hooked, like crack. Give them a good first high and they will keep coming back.

Hell, I found complex games so much easier when I was a teenager, now I’m to busy, don’t play often enough etc. I like simple.

Look, you can believe it or nor, I though the whole interview was really enlightening as to how GW are targeting specific groups and happy for other companies to provide things they don’t want to or can’t make enough money from. It’s a frank and interesting discussion they have.

Andykp wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Andykp wrote:
He actually says in there the biggest group that bought GW stuff was women aged 35-50, ie little tummies mum.

Oh right, the Warhammer moms. Constantly going in and out of Comic and Warhammer stores. The moms who make up the biggest group that buys GW things. Those moms.

Sorry, but I'm pressing my X button to doubt this until either somebody comes up with a proper customer study, or I see it happening in real life.

In my limited experience, only the smallest kids go to the Warhammer store together with their parents to buy something. At around ~10 years and older they go there by themselves after school to hang out or grab something. The biggest and best advertisement for the actual tabletop has and always will be somebody actually playing the game. There are very likely dozens or hundreds of games out there with a better ruleset, easier army construction, less complexity as a whole while still providing a better player experience... and none of that matters if you go to your local scene and nobody plays or wants to play it.

If this reasonable senior GW worker is saying this was the case when he was there and he had access to that data I choose to believe him. Why would he lie, he is no longer with the company and isn’t protecting anything?? There’s no reason to make that up. So I will trust the international plc and their research over your anecdotal evidence.

Watch the video, they agree that playing the game is key to getting people hooked, and removing barriers to that. But he likens it to the video game experience or bond moving, the big show stopping first scene or experience that leave you wanting to come back for more. Now sitting down and unpicking complicated army composition rules across multiple books, writing lists with every option on and doing some boring maths is going to kill that vibe.

So we have combat patrol, starter editions at different levels of entry and a rule set that is “simplified not simple”. It’s basic stuff they are doing. And it appears to work.

Women have hobbies too... maybe on average, they enjoy other facets of the general hobby more than men, less tournament gaming, more painting and modelling or something like that, and are thus not that visible from the point of view of your typical gaming club or tournament scene, but surely they exist. Look at youtube, or past Golden Demon entries, and you see a lot of women doing professional painting and related activities. Also, it might be a question of available spending money in a given age bracket, men around that age are usually dividing their attention between a lot of things, that's something that's not quite as extreme for women due to cultural norms etc.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

Breton wrote:
Update the choices to work with the new system - or just get people to buy new kits with more options installed. It sounds like you're trying to sneak in another LRBT No-Sponsons situation where optional bonus choices are being skipped - so the solution is pretty much the same: Make new models, Add some Bits, or GW reworks the Datasheet with the new system.

Update the choices how? Change the kit how? Crisis suits are a swiss army knife kit, they are designed such that you have 4 points of attachment for weapons/upgrades. One on each arm and one on each shoulder. There are enough bits for each suit to have 3 weapons and a support system, so no more bits are required, nor are new models required as the unit had a model update not that long ago and nothing with regards to options has really changed since (except for the scrapping of all the individual support systems). The only thing that has meaningfully changed to this unit since they first introduced is the points system.

Andykp wrote:
I listened to this this morning and I think it explains philosophy behind they adopted this half power level points scheme. It’s a long video and I don’t expect you to watch it all but it quite good, the guy is from the team that made hobby stuff for them, clippers and painting handles etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-63A7cDkOm8

He talks about the hobby trumpet, and says this is one of the reasons they wanted contrast paint and they don’t use dropper bottles etc. it’s not new but it’s relevant here.

The hobby trumpet is like a funnel with everyone who first comes to the hobby getting filtered down into the die hards at the narrow end over time.

GW market is the wide end of the funnel. So they sell to them, market to them. Simplified not simple is for them.

So less complicated simpler army building and points mechanics means it’s less off putting for newbies and easier to get that quick reward, hence combat patrol etc.

They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.

So as angry as everyone can get won’t matter, because you aren’t who the game is made for. You are the exception.

It’s interesting watch either way.

PS. Only certain people in gw have access to internet at work so I don’t think they are prowling the forums dakka for inspiration. Sorry.

What GW thinks and what reality is are two different things. My biggest problem with this line of thinking is I don't see how a points system is going to draw people into a game in the first place. What attracts little Timmy to 40k is the cool models and amazing terrain in the GW store. It's the staff trained to make an introductory game a fun and appealing activity. It's the lore and background and the power fantasy of being an 8-foot tall murder machine in power armour. We already know the vast majority of GW's income comes from kids who likely play a handful of game at most, then lose interest. The points system and internal balance don't factor into their buying decisions at all.

That attitude also massively underestimates the intelligence of the average kid interested in gaming. I'd even argue the conclusions about things like Contrast paint and the PL system aren't accurate anyway. I've found Contrast to be massively less forgiving of errors, because of the need to re-undercoat any areas that have misplaced paint in order for the Contrast to work as intended. The current PL system is actually making it harder for me to build lists because the lack of granularity means I can't adjust things to get up to or under a limit without swapping out entire units most of the time.

We all know who the core customer for GW is. The problem with what's presented above is it doesn't actually show how using PL achieves the goal that GW are setting out to achieve. It's just another assertion that Timmy like its better, with nothing to back that up.

Andykp wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler? Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce some basic grade school addition.

(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler. Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce the some basic grade school addition.

(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)

Because, as someone else pointed out, it isn't even PL accurate.

What GW thinks and what reality is are two different things.

As was made clear when GW claimed to own copyright on roman numerals and halberds in a court of law.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler. Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce the some basic grade school addition.

(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)

They are bad at writing rules because fundamentally, they do not set out to write good rules. If you wanted to do that, you'd do community feedback, and a high number of iterations of things until you get to a stage you deem 'good enough', and then essentially leave it at that, only ever doing balance revisions, typo hunting and rebalances if you introduce add-ons or different play modes. This is the process almost every 'living rulebook' or community version of e.g. the discontinued Specialist Games have followed, and all of them arrived at stable, well liked systems with a community that lives on even decades after the fact, at least in some fashion.

Of course, all of this is antithetical to how the development circle for the major games at GW works: these are characterized by little community feedback, a relatively low number, if any, of iterations of the game, instead opting for sweeping, broad redesigns, total resets and heaps of additional stuff in form of codexes, expansions and whatnot. Fundamentally, it's mostly change for change's sake, frequently reinventing the wheel or oscillating between different variants of concepts that have been used before, without any real or measurable progress - stated and revealed goals change so often that progress is practically impossible. At its lowest denominator, this is mostly because these frequent overhauls are seen as huge opportunities for marketing, as a tool to drive the hype and make people buy stuff again; the actual usability of the rules as a game comes in second or third place, it's all about the hype. We all know they are in the process of designing 11th edition right as we speak, with barely any feedback from 10th edition whatsoever, and that this will continue with 12th and 13th edition. It's a dysfunctional mode of work for the purpose of actually writing and improving a game, because it fundamentally is an exercise in hype-driven marketing: the new and best thing has always to be right around the corner, what a cool and exciting time to be a loyal and affluent customer, lucky you!

Tsagualsa wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler. Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce the some basic grade school addition.

(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)

They are bad at writing rules because fundamentally, they do not set out to write good rules. If you wanted to do that, you'd do community feedback, and a high number of iterations of things until you get to a stage you deem 'good enough', and then essentially leave it at that, only ever doing balance revisions, typo hunting and rebalances if you introduce add-ons or different play modes. This is the process almost every 'living rulebook' or community version of e.g. the discontinued Specialist Games have followed, and all of them arrived at stable, well liked systems with a community that lives on even decades after the fact, at least in some fashion.

Of course, all of this is antithetical to how the development circle for the major games at GW works: these are characterized by little community feedback, a relatively low number, if any, of iterations of the game, instead opting for sweeping, broad redesigns, total resets and heaps of additional stuff in form of codexes, expansions and whatnot. Fundamentally, it's mostly change for change's sake, frequently reinventing the wheel or oscillating between different variants of concepts that have been used before, without any real or measurable progress - stated and revealed goals change so often that progress is practically impossible. At its lowest denominator, this is mostly because these frequent overhauls are seen as huge opportunities for marketing, as a tool to drive the hype and make people buy stuff again; the actual usability of the rules as a game comes in second or third place, it's all about the hype. We all know they are in the process of designing 11th edition right as we speak, with barely any feedback from 10th edition whatsoever, and that this will continue with 12th and 13th edition. It's a dysfunctional mode of work for the purpose of actually writing and improving a game, because it fundamentally is an exercise in hype-driven marketing: the new and best thing has always to be right around the corner, what a cool and exciting time to be a loyal and affluent customer, lucky you!

I don't think GW has designers good enough to do anything on purpose. It's also a pretty common fallacy that people ascribe both super competence and super incompetence to the design team. Completely capable of designing a game to meet marketing goals, but not to make a good game. Which also denies the possibility of a game that exists and meets both goals.

Anyway. Them intentionally not doing a good job, does not excuse the current point system. It's more evidence against it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What GW thinks and what reality is are two different things.

As was made clear when GW claimed to own copyright on roman numerals and halberds in a court of law.

I'm sure Andy and Breton will defend this and say we just don't understand GW's vision, and the Chapterhouse debacle was a blessing for us all.

All you need to do to meet marketing goals is to produce something new(-ish) which can be marketed; preferably with the capacity for add-ons which can also be marketed.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.

It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.

If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler. Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce the some basic grade school addition.

(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)

They are bad at writing rules because fundamentally, they do not set out to write good rules. If you wanted to do that, you'd do community feedback, and a high number of iterations of things until you get to a stage you deem 'good enough', and then essentially leave it at that, only ever doing balance revisions, typo hunting and rebalances if you introduce add-ons or different play modes. This is the process almost every 'living rulebook' or community version of e.g. the discontinued Specialist Games have followed, and all of them arrived at stable, well liked systems with a community that lives on even decades after the fact, at least in some fashion.

Of course, all of this is antithetical to how the development circle for the major games at GW works: these are characterized by little community feedback, a relatively low number, if any, of iterations of the game, instead opting for sweeping, broad redesigns, total resets and heaps of additional stuff in form of codexes, expansions and whatnot. Fundamentally, it's mostly change for change's sake, frequently reinventing the wheel or oscillating between different variants of concepts that have been used before, without any real or measurable progress - stated and revealed goals change so often that progress is practically impossible. At its lowest denominator, this is mostly because these frequent overhauls are seen as huge opportunities for marketing, as a tool to drive the hype and make people buy stuff again; the actual usability of the rules as a game comes in second or third place, it's all about the hype. We all know they are in the process of designing 11th edition right as we speak, with barely any feedback from 10th edition whatsoever, and that this will continue with 12th and 13th edition. It's a dysfunctional mode of work for the purpose of actually writing and improving a game, because it fundamentally is an exercise in hype-driven marketing: the new and best thing has always to be right around the corner, what a cool and exciting time to be a loyal and affluent customer, lucky you!

I don't think GW has designers good enough to do anything on purpose. It's also a pretty common fallacy that people ascribe both super competence and super incompetence to the design team. Completely capable of designing a game to meet marketing goals, but not to make a good game. Which also denies the possibility of a game that exists and meets both goals.

Anyway. Them intentionally not doing a good job, does not excuse the current point system. It's more evidence against it.

This fallacy is not in effect here - they don't need to do anything special from the design side to make that marketing game, they just need to feed the constant churn with a book every other month and a new edition every three years. Their design brief can be literally 'release anything, whatever, as long as it looks like a playable game', the marketing dudes will write it up as the best thing since sliced bread anyway. That also does not preclude the possibility of much of the team genuinely wanting to do a good job and working hard at it, but ultimately their release schedule is ordained by corporate, multiple years in advance, and does not take design considerations into account if there are conflicts. It's not your hobby and garage shop anymore, where the 'corporate' side and the designers are largely one and the same.

Dudeface wrote:
Bad example is a bad example. It also resolves the issue being discussed.

It resolves nothing and it's not a bad example. It's a perfect example.

One of many perfect examples. All of which completely and conclusively prove the point being made: A points-based system is objectively superior to any inflexible power-level system that values different things at the same value.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Bad example is a bad example. It also resolves the issue being discussed.

It resolves nothing and it's not a bad example. It's a perfect example.

One of many perfect examples. All of which completely and conclusively prove the point being made: A points-based system is objectively superior to any inflexible power-level system that values different things at the same value.

I mean they've been blatantly ignoring my Tactical Squad example so I'm not surprised. Dudeface came the closest and was like "just don't let them take two Grav Guns" LMAO

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There is 0 reason for 5 bolter armed devs to be an option at this point.

That drastically misses the point of what's being argued.

Bad example is a bad example. It also resolves the issue being discussed.

Actually . . . There were lists that popped up in 8th where only one Heavy was taken in the Devastator squad, because they were just there to leverage a Stratagem, but otherwise save points.

If the current "points" system wasn't r******d and Heavy Weapons actually cost points, there's a reasonable move of taking a 5 man Devastator Squad with only 2 Heavies, and putting them inside a Rhino, which allows two models to fire out of it.

Now, personally I'm not the type to not pack my Devs full with Heavies, but some people have done it from time to time in order to save some points, and providing the option to do so is good, imo.