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.

Since they were spoiled, the Iron Hands have been the center of most balance discussions over the last few weeks. Fortunately the FAQ brought them back down to a more reasonable level, but people are still wondering how the gak did that supplement make it to print without anyone asking "Isn't this too strong?" Well, I think its time we put more thought into the copy-pasted dev commentary at the start of every FAQ. In particular, " Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule isn’t as clear as it might be." When applied to the printed Iron Hands rules it doesn't make sense that there were multiple ways to interpret the rules and a lot of the imbalance isn't from a simple mistake like "oops we put the wrong number." Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

So my premise is this: the playtesters aren't being ignored, but instead are instructed to "test the rules as we intend them to play not as they are specifically written." They've done this before with the first "no turn 1 deep strike" beta rule when they released a facebook pdf adding exceptions to the rule so it's not unprecedented. If the Iron Hands testing document wasn't just a copy of the supplement, but instead was an early version with "Dev's Intent" for every rule then it would explain the massive disconnect. Testers play for intent and a rule is fine, but when the finalized version rolls around it is completely different due to the lack of precision in GW's writing. It explains how things like infinite 6s or non-functional assault weapons after advancing makes it through testing.

RAI is a cancer. If RAW is done right then RAI isn't necessary. If you apply RAW vs RAI in the real world it looks something like this: Bob wants to eat a good steak so he goes to a steak house. When he gets there he orders the Salmon, a red wine (fish are typically paired with white wines), A1 steak sauce, and asks for it medium rare. The waiter comes back with the salmon and Bob flips out at the waiter that even though he ordered the salmon, his intention to eat steak was clear and he can't believe anyone would interpret his order that way.

So as a community should 40k stop giving GW the benefit of the doubt and start applying strict RAW to tournaments until things get fixed? Personally I think its going to suck in the short term, but it is time to rip off that bandaid especially now that we have FAQs as a tool for fixing things.

 DominayTrix wrote:

So as a community should 40k stop giving GW the benefit of the doubt and start applying strict RAW to tournaments until things get fixed?

No, because that would require people at tournaments to abandon their ITC house rules. Also, it's a pretty tone deaf thing to suggest.

Intentionally killing the tournament scene to "teach GW a lesson" is as asinine as the continued beating of the drum for RAW when people don't even follow the very basic and fundamental concept of RAW winning conditions in a given game.

RAI is how this game is played, like it or not. Want to play full RAW 40k? You won't be doing it at any tournament without a much more seismic shift away from ITC.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

Yeah... but no. OP’s hypothesis is nonsense, the analogy is not actually an analogy, and it’s just pure soapboxing. Comparing things to cancer is Reddit-esque edgery. RAI is a tool to make rules work, not something that people are told to use over the words.when playtesting.

This is just a personal agenda, sorry. Not one shred of it will match reality.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah... but no. OP’s hypothesis is nonsense, the analogy is not actually an analogy, and it’s just pure soapboxing. Comparing things to cancer is Reddit-esque edgery. RAI is a tool to make rules work, not something that people are told to use over the words.when playtesting.

This is just a personal agenda, sorry. Not one shred of it will match reality.

agreed. It makes zero sense. especially as the bit he's highlighting is a standard introduction GW's used for a few rules tweeks they've done in the past

They should always write rules for how they(GW) play the game. why on earth would they do otherwise? Since they're the ones who make the game, obviously with a specific style in mind. it just doesnt fit the RAW crowd, whom I'm assuming are not the intended audience to begin with. this is just backed up by GW's rules writing for 30 odd years now.
But since it doesnt fit how some players want the game to be, anytime something is exploitable, it becomes the "screw you first" players mindsets focus. Anything that gives them a "leg" up on their opponent, will be used tirelessly until otherwise rectified. Most of the stupid restrictions in the game come from those who choose to bludgeon others with excessive use. Unfortunately, this has negative effect on those who RAI vs. RAW(for an advantage).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

Spoiler:

Here ya go

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

That is hillarious.

I thought more people knew about this.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

Spoiler:

Here ya go

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

That is hillarious.

I thought more people knew about this.

They do. We call them 'homeowners.'

BrianDavion wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah... but no. OP’s hypothesis is nonsense, the analogy is not actually an analogy, and it’s just pure soapboxing. Comparing things to cancer is Reddit-esque edgery. RAI is a tool to make rules work, not something that people are told to use over the words.when playtesting.

This is just a personal agenda, sorry. Not one shred of it will match reality.

agreed. It makes zero sense. especially as the bit he's highlighting is a standard introduction GW's used for a few rules tweeks they've done in the past

Right? We also know from crusaders like BaconCatBug (ironically, as he was soapboxing another point) that the game would be poorer if played purely by RAW, as in it just doesn’t function in lots of cases... but common sense sorts it right out. Honestly, this weird agenda people have about slavishly following rules to the detriment of reason, logic and fun is... well, alien to me.

 Vaktathi wrote:
...Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

But this is often the result of not having enough time/money to fix the problems before the product ships not just because they listen to the feedback and go "nah, even though we paid to get this info we aren't going to do anything about it".

w1zard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

But this is often the result of not having enough time/money to fix the problems before the product ships not just because they listen to the feedback and go "nah, even though we paid to get this info we aren't going to do anything about it".

And who’s to say that is the case here? No one has any proof anyone was ignored, heeded, or anywhere in between. GW done fethed up. At least they haven’t made us wait a whole edition for a fix. Patch is better than no patch, however you look at it. And no product has ever shipped with zero errors (cue BCB parachuting in with his “100% error record!” mantra). For the record this isn’t white knighting, it’s being pragmatic.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

Spoiler:

Here ya go

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

LOL fair enough that is a credible source

However I will say there is a bit of a stretch between "hey, I'm directing you to make this unit overpowered", and "hey those rules are really cool, so we'll keep them but we don't really wanna raise the cost of the unit". It's bad design but its probably not as malicious as how you made that sound.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And who’s to say that is the case here? No one has any proof anyone was ignored, heeded, or anywhere in between. GW done fethed up. At least they haven’t made us wait a whole edition for a fix. Patch is better than no patch, however you look at it. And no product has ever shipped with zero errors (cue BCB parachuting in with his “100% error record!” mantra). For the record this isn’t white knighting, it’s being pragmatic.

Granted, nothing is 100% perfect at launch... but IMHO the IH rules that GW gave us before the patch were a purely unacceptable level of quality for a company with the resources of GW. Go ahead and disagree if you want, but I have more self-respect as a consumer.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoiler:

Here ya go

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

This makes me incredibly angry. The dude who made that call on the wraithknight should be fired. Even if you don't care about the balance of the game, you can argue that the positive value of additional wraithknight kits being sold is massively outweighed by the revenue loss of a portion of your playerbase quitting your game entirely because of the frustrations of imbalance, as we saw that happening in 7th. It was an incredibly shortsighted business ploy that MAYBE generated a positive revenue in the short term but ultimately damaged the brand and in all likelihood cost the company net revenue in the long term.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Lots of people have suggested that GW might be ignoring the playtesters, but that doesn't make sense for a notoriously greedy company to waste time and resources like that.

We know that the dev studio has been point blank told by management in the past to do things like dramatically overpower the Wraithknight in 7E without increasing costs from some of the author's own statements. Likwise, having worked in QA departments before for dramatically bigger and even greedier companies, lots of games ship with all sorts of known issues that playtesters reported and development or management chose not to act on

“We know” - I bet my house that you can’t provide a single credible source for that invented quote.

Spoiler:

Here ya go

When you wanna call the real estate agent?

LOL fair enough that is a credible source

However I will say there is a bit of a stretch between "hey, I'm directing you to make this unit overpowered", and "hey those rules are really cool, so we'll keep them but we don't really wanna raise the cost of the unit". It's bad design but its probably not as malicious as how you made that sound.

Ha! Fair enough then. Thanks for signing up!

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

Makes me wince, just thinking about it.

As I say, though those days are over

Malcious it isn't?
Just willingly breaking the game for more sales?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Malcious it isn't?
Just willingly breaking the game for more sales?

It isn't malicious. It's just stupid. See my explanation above as to why.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Malcious it isn't?
Just willingly breaking the game for more sales?

It isn't malicious. It's just stupid. See my explanation above as to why.

And you seem to not understand what shortterm win maximizing is in a market you basically controll and with a heavy side dose of sunk cost fallacy. (especially considering how many of us came crawling back at the start of 8th heralding it as the best ever thing since sliced bread) .

GW nearly shot themselves in 7th with such behaviour , yes, economically though it makes perfect sense and is the same reason why companies such as actibliz, etc are pushing for monetization for the sake of it, willfully imbalancing games and mechanics aswelll.
And 8th has shown how good they can rebounce with an System that get's just as bloated again.

w1zard wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And who’s to say that is the case here? No one has any proof anyone was ignored, heeded, or anywhere in between. GW done fethed up. At least they haven’t made us wait a whole edition for a fix. Patch is better than no patch, however you look at it. And no product has ever shipped with zero errors (cue BCB parachuting in with his “100% error record!” mantra). For the record this isn’t white knighting, it’s being pragmatic.

Granted, nothing is 100% perfect at launch... but IMHO the IH rules that GW gave us before the patch were a purely unacceptable level of quality for a company with the resources of GW. Go ahead and disagree if you want, but I have more self-respect as a consumer.

Didn’t say I disagreed that the rules were way out of kilter with the playing field. It’s entirely possible to disagree with elements of a position without being a polar opposite stance no matter what the internet may have you believe. Apply a little more nuance and dial back the insults and you can have more interesting discussions. ;-) “More self respect as a consumer” puh-lease, c’mon. Needless.

Not Online!!! wrote:
And you seem to not understand what shortterm win maximizing is in a market you basically controll and with a heavy side dose of sunk cost fallacy. (especially considering how many of us came crawling back at the start of 8th heralding it as the best ever thing since sliced bread)

Yes, I do understand the concept and it is a bad business strategy. There has been a trend in American businesses recently where new businessmen come into a company and maximize short term gains in order to make themselves look good and pad their resumes. Their maximization strategies often hurts the company's long term profits, sometimes even bankrupting them, but the people who have caused it often don't stick around long enough to see those consequences, as they hop to another company before it crashes and burns.

Even if a lot of the playerbase did come crawling back for 8th edition, the lost sales revenue for the players who left for the duration of 7th edition probably cost the company more money than was gained in short term wraithknight sales boosts.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Didn’t say I disagreed that the rules were way out of kilter with the playing field. It’s entirely possible to disagree with elements of a position without being a polar opposite stance no matter what the internet may have you believe. Apply a little more nuance and dial back the insults and you can have more interesting discussions. ;-) “More self respect as a consumer” puh-lease, c’mon. Needless.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But don't hide behind playing devil's advocate when your argument is refuted... Especially if it is something asinine as defending the pile of gak that is the pre-FAQ IH codex with the statement "well nothing is perfect on launch."

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
And you seem to not understand what shortterm win maximizing is in a market you basically controll and with a heavy side dose of sunk cost fallacy. (especially considering how many of us came crawling back at the start of 8th heralding it as the best ever thing since sliced bread)

Yes, I do understand the concept and it is a bad business strategy. There has been a trend in American businesses recently where new businessmen come into a company and maximize short term gains in order to make themselves look good and pad their resumes. Their maximization strategies often hurts the company's long term profits, sometimes even bankrupting them, but the people who have caused it often don't stick around long enough to see those consequences, as they hop to another company before it crashes and burns.

Even if a lot of the playerbase did come crawling back for 8th edition, the lost sales for the players who left for the duration of 7th edition probably cost the company more money than was gained in short term wratihknight sales boosts.

Dunno, GW is as successfull as never before atm.

As for the short term gain maximizers i don't think so.
GW plans long term and by rebouncing they can not only reach the metachasers but also the veterans that they might have trhown out and get them with repleneished wallets to spend even more.
Myself included.


This is also partly the reason why i now have a policy of first searching for alternatives.
Or why i refuse that CA is something good.

I got burnt one too many times, but i feel like i am in the minority.
Otoh the BSF enemy boxes are hillariously good priced comparatively more like old GW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And who’s to say that is the case here? No one has any proof anyone was ignored, heeded, or anywhere in between. GW done fethed up. At least they haven’t made us wait a whole edition for a fix. Patch is better than no patch, however you look at it. And no product has ever shipped with zero errors (cue BCB parachuting in with his “100% error record!” mantra). For the record this isn’t white knighting, it’s being pragmatic.

Granted, nothing is 100% perfect at launch... but IMHO the IH rules that GW gave us before the patch were a purely unacceptable level of quality for a company with the resources of GW. Go ahead and disagree if you want, but I have more self-respect as a consumer.

Didn’t say I disagreed that the rules were way out of kilter with the playing field. It’s entirely possible to disagree with elements of a position without being a polar opposite stance no matter what the internet may have you believe. Apply a little more nuance and dial back the insults and you can have more interesting discussions. ;-) “More self respect as a consumer” puh-lease, c’mon. Needless.

Patch is better then no patch yes.
But the reliance of first day patches is nothing good. Neither in the video game industry nor in the TG one.

It shows serious lack in planning capabilities and abuses workers for last minute crunch time.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dunno, GW is as successfull as never before atm.

Being successful is not the same as being optimally successful. Imagine how much more money GW would have now if 7th edition was as well received as 8th.

Not Online!!! wrote:

As for the short term gain maximizers i don't think so.
GW plans long term and by rebouncing they can not only reach the metachasers but also the veterans that they might have trhown out and get them with repleneished wallets to spend even more.
Myself included.

They once said that a release/new kit has to make profit (amortize itself) within the first weekend, otherwise it never will (and is considered a fail that did not payed off no matter how much is sold later), while all other sales after that are just a bonus.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dunno, GW is as successfull as never before atm.

Being successful is not the same as being optimally successful. Imagine how much more money GW would have now if 7th edition was as well received as 8th.

The irony is: 7th had some of the best work for factions done in dexes in a long time: Especially by FW....
The later implementation of formations and certain , let's just simply say questionable units as in our exemple above broke the camels back imo.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

As for the short term gain maximizers i don't think so.
GW plans long term and by rebouncing they can not only reach the metachasers but also the veterans that they might have trhown out and get them with repleneished wallets to spend even more.
Myself included.

They once said that a release/new kit has to make profit (amortize itself) within the first weekend, otherwise it never will (and is considered a fail that did not payed off no matter how much is sold later), while all other sales after that are just a bonus.

Seems stupid considering the lifecycle of ertain kits.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Seems stupid considering the lifecycle of ertain kits.

but would perfectly explain why certain old kits are not replaced, as GW does not expect to sell enough of them in the first week to make it worth it, and some kits are released with a longer time in between and not on the same day

 kodos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Seems stupid considering the lifecycle of ertain kits.

but would perfectly explain why certain old kits are not replaced, as GW does not expect to sell enough of them in the first week to make it worth it, and some kits are released with a longer time in between and not on the same day

Makes sense i guess.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

Ha! Fair enough then. Thanks for signing up!

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

Makes me wince, just thinking about it.

As I say, though those days are over

Malcious it isn't?
Just willingly breaking the game for more sales?

If that's the given reason, that's even more proof that it's just stupidity not a malicious directive to unbalance the game to sell more models. It seems like their reasoning was literally the opposite.

If you get the order to leave the price but add the new rules and weaponry. In order to sell MORE of the unt. then yes it is imo the basic premise of unblancing for sales and depending on view malicious or stupid.

Personally it is both.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Yeah... but no. OP’s hypothesis is nonsense, the analogy is not actually an analogy, and it’s just pure soapboxing. Comparing things to cancer is Reddit-esque edgery. RAI is a tool to make rules work, not something that people are told to use over the words.when playtesting.

This is just a personal agenda, sorry. Not one shred of it will match reality.

agreed. It makes zero sense. especially as the bit he's highlighting is a standard introduction GW's used for a few rules tweeks they've done in the past

Right? We also know from crusaders like BaconCatBug (ironically, as he was soapboxing another point) that the game would be poorer if played purely by RAW, as in it just doesn’t function in lots of cases... but common sense sorts it right out. Honestly, this weird agenda people have about slavishly following rules to the detriment of reason, logic and fun is... well, alien to me.

These people do not play this game. They talk about it. They may even excessively write lists they'll never play and argue the efficiency of units they'll never use. They'll weigh in on the meta, which is arguably their only worthwhile contribution, but the RAW crowd need that little bastion of following the rules to the detriment of the experience. They need that safe haven because the lack of firsthand experience is huge. It's pretend for Internet outrage points.

And they're the reason we don't get nice things.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

Ha! Fair enough then. Thanks for signing up!

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

Makes me wince, just thinking about it.

As I say, though those days are over

Malcious it isn't?
Just willingly breaking the game for more sales?

If that's the given reason, that's even more proof that it's just stupidity not a malicious directive to unbalance the game to sell more models. It seems like their reasoning was literally the opposite.

a combination of both, they wanted a point value so that people can fit 3 of them into a list, but just take the first or second draft of the rules because "who cares about rules anyway"

Cavatore said something similar about the Skaven in Warhammer, they just printed the first draft he proposed even with the remarks that it need some adjustment and testing