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.

I know it seems like the same crap people are used to hearing -around here, but take it as you will, sorry for the vagueness; designers were very tight lipped.

Without actually comfirming or denying anything directly at the meet and greet at games day, the games designers in attendance did suggest the following:

There is at the moment no ink being lain on an Eldar or ork codex, but both are scheduled, a lot of hats in the ring for the ork book
A Lot of focus being placed on tau (suggestions of play testing), direct questions were met with smirks and sidelong glances to one another sorry I didnt press this further, but there were a crush of questions being hurled and each one was met with an eagerness to answer but a very measured response
Lots of new models with individual rule sets will be released in the next few months
Codices are now being worked on in blocks of three, ostensibly this is to help balance, but is not indicative of release schedule
The play styles within GW (even during play testing) tend to lean towards the cinematic rather than competitive
All designers were very excited while describing the volume of new models due to be released over the next few months, and hinted that recent releases are indicative of the volume we can expect with regularity
Possible new tyranid anti-flyer unit
Company wide changes to bring forge world, wd, digital, and core releases into alignment are underway

If this is true then good news all round.

New models with their own rule sets? Does this correlate to that rumour on natfka were it was said codices will be constantly updated in the WD? Possibly those WD codices they were hinting at?

Much of the conversations at the designer table were recounting games they play with one another, and personal anecdotes about their time with GW, despite that every question put to them was about what's to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

unmercifulconker wrote:New models with their own rule sets? Does this correlate to that rumour on natfka were it was said codices will be constantly updated in the WD? Possibly those WD codices they were hinting at?

I believe this was a direct comparison to how the stormtalon and ork flyers were released, so yeah i'd feel comfortable standing on the same ground.

junk wrote: The play styles within GW (even during play testing) tend to lean towards the cinematic rather than competitive

That is not going to go well with the crowd

It was kind of fascinating. Apparently, they often employ one of the designers to be a game master that dictates events unfolding on the battlefield, who often doesn't play.

In one example, Jes Goodwin was 'running' a game where space marines had to siege an imperial stronghold to overthrow a renegade governor... at a certain point in the game, the governor was revealed to be a daemon and the surviving space marines and IG had to then join forces to defeat a daemon army allied with traitor guard. They recounted the game as one of their favorites.

Most of us never even consider story when we're lining up our 1850 vs. but the fathers of 40k always do.

And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

I actually prefer this move by GW to make the games more cinematic than competitive.
This is, after all, a game, and should be fun for players on both sides.

Yes, and my fun decreases with each instance of a rule question that could have been caught with a real game instead of the designers telling a bettime story acted out with models.

40k never struck me as being designed for competative play. There is a very vocal minority that has been trying their best to assert that it should be played in a very competative fashion, but this reaffirms the way that i have always felt about the game.

I gotta agree that is a god awful way to actually test the rules. I don't actually care that much about playing the game competitively. But I want the rules to be tight.

I hope that if they plan on releasing more rules in White Dwarf that GW will actually put those rules on its website in PDF form for those of us who don't get the magazine in time. I feel bad for those Sister of Battle players who never got their hands on their new "codex".

6th ed seems to be better than 5th in its ability to merge thematic a competitive play. There are still major loop holes that are exploited in tourneys "area terrain" but no system is prefect. I love the fluff and theme games are my favorite. If GW continues to put out new and fun models with White Dwarf rules support then I will buy them. Hears to hoping for that faster codex release schedule.

Chaos Legionnaire wrote:I actually prefer this move by GW to make the games more cinematic than competitive.
This is, after all, a game, and should be fun for players on both sides.

But they're not. Their own actions prove it: to make the game more cinematic, they have to supplement it with a GM.

Well they have tried every way but to come to individuals houses in person to tell you but this is how they approach their hobby. They are not making solid tourney rules, they are not interested in intricate battlefield simulations. They want cool models, cool rules and balance is something of a lesser concern. I do feel that allies plus fantasies track record will bring a level of balance that people are wanting however its more the nature of the allies rule than specific simulations.

The new book plus all recent communication with them screams this. I know what people want however its not what they are going to be offering, much less gearing themselves for. They are also not trying to be deceitful as is insinuated from various negative posters. They want to tell a story.

They have an idea for their hobby, you are more than welcome to come along or take what you buy from them and do any number of things with it.

Cinematic GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....

KarlPedder wrote:Cinematic GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....

Ha, indeed.

I also like how the word is flying around so much after GW started using it on their website and in the rulebook to describe the game now. I don't think the game feels more "cinematic" now than it did before, but since GW said it is everyone else thinks so. If you just keep repeating it eventually people start believing it I guess.

cincydooley wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

But they're supposed to be catching loopholes and fixing other problems with the rules as they become apparent during testing, that's their job.

That may be a fun way (for you) to play the game but that's kind of irrelevant when the designers aren't really being paid to "have fun" all day.

KarlPedder wrote:Cinematic GWs new keyword to justify any failing in their game design or play testing.....

A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.

Sidstyler wrote:
But they're supposed to be catching loopholes and fixing other problems with the rules as they become apparent during testing, that's their job.

That may be a fun way (for you) to play the game but that's kind of irrelevant when the designers aren't really being paid to "have fun" all day.

Well no, their job is to make a game that will sell. If they don't feel it's worth spending more time fine tuning some rules, that doesn't mean they're not doing their job, it just means they're not making the game you personally want. They're still making a game, which is still doing their job.

cincydooley wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

Nothing I said contradicts your statement. And vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:A cinematic gaming narrative has been GW's goal since basically forever. If you think the "cinematic" stuff is new in any respect, you haven't been paying attention.

But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Why is this so hard to understand? Making the rules more competitive doesn't invalidate casual play, in fact it doesn't affect you in any negative way whatsoever.

So I don't get why people fight the idea so fething hard.

I don't fight the idea. I'm a moderately competitive player and like playing in tournaments. But I think that, just as it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more balanced/competitive on the grounds that the game should be more narrative, it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more cinematic as if they inherently come at the cost of game balance. GW's designers can-- and in my view generally do-- write rules that are both balanced and characterful. One doesn't necessarily subtract from the other.

This makes aaalllloooottt of sense. The designers don't view it as a wargame, but as a large scale pvp wargame, like RT was!

It's so funny how people keep bitching about GW not doing what THEY want. Just because it is not what YOU want dose not meen it is wrong. I'm sorry, but "casual" players do care about rules, the idea that rules don't matter is rubbish. Just because it is not how you want to play dose not make it wrong. It's not that they are not trying to make a balanced game, but that making a balanced game with so many rules is almost impossible. No other game, as far as I know, has so many diffrent units and forces.

cincydooley wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And that's a terrible way to test for issues with the rules.

And that's probably the most fun way to play.

First of all, that's entirely subjective. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's more fun or not. A play tester's job is not to have fun. Their job is to find holes, see how far they go, and report them.

What they're talking about isn't playtesting, it's playing. Those are two very different things. This whole 'cinematic' hot word that they've been spouting endlessly is just bs used to cover up the fact that GW's rulesets are now compised of lazily edited, lazily written rules with lazy testing.

It's like saying the suffocatingly small house is just 'cozy,' and the broken piping and harmful mold build up is 'character.'

Fafnir wrote:First of all, that's entirely subjective. Second, it doesn't matter whether it's more fun or not. A play tester's job is not to have fun. Their job is to find holes, see how far they go, and report them.

What they're talking about isn't playtesting, it's playing. Those are two very different things. This whole 'cinematic' hot word that they've been spouting endlessly is just bs used to cover up the fact that GW's rulesets are now compised of lazily edited, lazily written rules with lazy testing.

It's like saying the suffocatingly small house is just 'cozy,' and the broken piping and harmful mold build up is 'character.'

Just because the designers like to play narrative battles (this should be obvious to anyone who has read the 6th edition rulebook-- have you SEEN the crazy space station scenario?) doesn't mean that they don't test the game normally. It seems to me that GW's rules have followed a fairly steady trend from Rogue Trader until now-- a trend of generally getting "tighter" and with fewer loopholes. Claiming that GW's rulesets are "now comprised of lazily edited, lazily written rules" doesn't seem to hold water-- if you think the current rules are lazily edited or lazily written, I shudder to think what you would have thought of 4th edition!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

But it's quite stupid to think that a cinematic game cannot also be a good competitive game. Writing balanced rules doesn't reduce cinematic appeal - it benefits everyone. A tightly written well-tested set of rules means that competitive types can have their tournaments and not worry about fighting the dumb-ass rules, whilst the casual players can keep doing whatever they want, because the rules don't matter that much to them.

Exactly.

I don't want a 'super competitive game' but I do want balanced, well written rules and armies.

Fetterkey wrote:I don't fight the idea. I'm a moderately competitive player and like playing in tournaments. But I think that, just as it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more balanced/competitive on the grounds that the game should be more narrative, it is stupid to attack attempts to make the game more cinematic as if they inherently come at the cost of game balance. GW's designers can-- and in my view generally do-- write rules that are both balanced and characterful. One doesn't necessarily subtract from the other.

A tightly written and tested set of rules has zero impact on how fun it is to play. Ludo, snakes and ladders etc are all fun games where the rules have been extensively described to eliminate and ambiguity. D&D, Pathfinder, etc are all very complex rules-wise, but each has been written so that each individual power, weapon, armour, ability, feat, etc has its rules or at least the scope to account for pretty much everything you could ever do if you want to play the game that way. There is very little in the way of "turn to Page xyz for the actual rule you are looking at here, then actually you have to go and look at Rule K on Page abc and sacrifice a small goat while dancing anti-clockwise around the carcass bathed in the blood of a mouse" like there is in GW's rules.

I've had more fun playing D&D than I ever have playing 40K and I'm all for more of a D&D feel in my 40K games, but that doesn't mean they can be sloppy and lazy when writing the rules. Stopping every few minutes to discuss exactly what something does, or never being sure exactly what interpretation of the rules the other player has just kills any enjoyment you get from playing the actual game.

I didn't mean to convey that I got the impression that the lead designers disregarded competitive play; if anything I got the distinct impression that they appreciated the rivalries that sprang up from having their armies soundly defeated by one another, and on several occasions recounted moments that any competitive player might hold as a particularly poignant familiar memory.

I should have recorded the conversations to better report the content, rather than recounting my impressions, but again, there was a crush of questions and answers flying around, and people seemed as keen to express their own opinions to Phil Kelly and the other designers, as press him for his own.

In discussions about sixth edition, a few things stood out. The challenge system had at some point been far more involved, almost like a mini-game that played out within the game, and the version that was finalized for the rulebook was a simplified version of the model they had extensively playtested. The simplification to its current incarnation was made as a concession to competitive play.

You'll have to forgive my reporting for being anecdotal, I had intended to press for far more specificity, but as you can imagine, the volume of questions (and repeated questions at that) was a confusing mess.

I would be doing them a disservice if I did not, however, plainly state my impression that the designers with whom I spoke seemed to be great fans of the game, and treated each aspect of the rules, the background, and the models as a labor of love; their passion was universal and obvious.

All games by their nature are competitive. GW doesn't want to design with competitive players in mind because the effort involved in making a tight set of rules is something they dont want to bother with. I actually think the only reason they bother trying to clarify things is because they know there are competitve players out there, but the inconsistent ways they go about that makes me wonder if they actually employ someone that determines how the rules should play out or they just say whatever feels right at the moment. The "most important rule" is insulting and really undermines any image of authority GW has.

They keep saying they're in the model making business not the rules business. I really wonder why they bother with the game at all, if they're going to suck at it why bother? Because its the game that drives the sale of models. If they get down to it and make some solid rules they could just spend their time on adding to the game. They could actually push out the competition that way.

Most fun, but they're meant to be TESTING.