7th edition already?

[DarkLink]

Latest "rumors" here:

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/22/40k-humor-rumors-of-7th-edition/

I for one hope my storm bolters become assault d6 to match the design philosophy.

[Mr Mystery]

Ahh. More 'I don't like it, nor should you' drivel from the internet.

If it's not to your taste, fair enough. It's your opinion and your point of view, and your decision.

But to outright call design decisions bad because they're not to your taste. Yeah. Rectocranial Extraction team is on call.

[lobster-overlord]

someone needs to be shot for even thinking 7th right now.

[Morbid]

Holy sarcasm Batman.

6th is fine and the random elements are fine. People are crying about random assault range, but it's really not that bad. I've played with or against termies, bugs, wolves and deamons in assault so far in 6th. Yeah a handful of units didn't make it. And? Why did assault armies need to be auto-win anyways?

Think about how many games in 5th that a SINGLE squad shooting at a SINGLE squad and wiped it out in 1 round. Now how many times did a SINGLE squad in close combat killed one or even 2 squads (yes 2 is very rare) in a SINGLE turn?

I very rarely see a single shooting squad take out another full squad in 1 firing round, unless it was a small xeno/IG squad which is the only instances I can name, but on average 2-3 squads or more are wiped out in 1 round of CC. So why then is slightly toning that down negative?

I fully understand that the article in question was sarcasm. I just don't get all the gun hate now. You are playing a war game in the future right? Why then do guns have to be weaker than swords? Beyond me :)!

[SonicPara]

someone needs to be shot for even thinking 7th right now.


"40K Humor: Rumors of 7th Edition!"

You rolled poorly on your reading comprehension test.

[Mr Mystery]

"40K Humor: Rumors of 7th Edition!"

You rolled poorly on your reading comprehension test.

That's alright. The author of the article botched his satire test.

[DarkLink]

That's alright. The author of the article botched his satire test.

And apparently you don't know Reece very well. Don't be a douche.

[Mr Mystery]

And apparently you don't know Reece very well. Don't be a douche.

Whether I know him or not doesn't prevent it not being particularly funny.

[wittdooley]

And apparently you don't know Reece very well. Don't be a douche.

Wait wait wait..... That was supposed to be funny? Whoops..

[DarkLink]

Well, it's a little of both. I was actually hanging out with Reece and some of the other Frontline guys joking about some of the stuff in there before he wrote it. At the same time, we have some legitimate concerns about how the rules will affect the balance of the game.

I've played 8 games of 6th so far. Overall, I love a lot of the stuff that's changed. AP values, improved reserves, hull points, overwatch, etc. But in almost every game, we've had at least one moment ruined by the crappier aspects of the rules. Wound allocation can be extremely slow and clumsy. Challenges can devolve into pointless slap fights with an expensive unit being tied up by a cheap but durable one. You can get screwed when you roll double 1's for a charge.

None of those things add anything to the game, really. There's no good reason why there should be random charges or Look Out Sir in the rules, and those things have inevitably lead to situations where the dice ruin the game for you. Random elements in the game should add an element of excitement, not make you think "dammit, that is bull****".

Look Out Sir, Challenges, Flyers, and Random Charge length are this edition's wound allocation shenanigans, auto-include transports, overabundance of cover, and the dominance of MSU light vehicle spam. Many aspects of the game have improved, and the game as a whole is still 40k and still a lot of fun, but 6th has simply traded the handful of poorly balanced aspects of 5th for a different handful of poorly balanced rules.

Not that it's going to stop us from playing. Reece started back in 2nd ed, I'm pretty sure, and I've played since halfway through 4th. Our complaint isn't that 40k is ruined forever and we'll never play again, just that there are some poorly thought out elements of 6th edition that should have been caught in playtesting, and we'd like to see GW put a bit more effort into improving the quality of their rules.



Incidentally, Reece mentioned he'd talked to a game developer, and said two interesting things. First, sales and game design are pretty independent. The game developers don't really communicate with the sales people, so they don't get much feedback about what the consumer wants or doesn't want. Secondly, the developers are some of the same guys from the 80's, and they treat their job as if they were playing DnD in their garage. Their business practices and game design is archaic, because they haven't caught up with the lessons learned in the last four decades. They just slap together some rules that sound fun, print it, and tell their store managers to shove it down people's throats. Once these guys start retiring, expect some big changes to how GW operates. It likely means more effort put into producing quality rules, more playtesting to catch loopholes and poorly balanced rules, more consumer friendly business policies, and more community building and player support. GW might start to act like all those other game companies out there and actually bother to release quality FAQs and Erratas and things like that.

He also said, and I quote, "I asked them what they were thinking when they wrote the rules for [something*], and they said 'well, we didn't think that anyone would do that' ". He then literally facepalmed. GW wrote broken rules, knew they were broken and could be easily abused, and didn't fix them because... well, just because.

*I don't actually recall exactly what it was, but it was some cheesy, overpowered combo people like to complain about. I think it might have been the combination of Mindshackle Scarabs and Challenges, but I'm not sure.

[Anggul]

While I don't see much wrong with most of the random stuff, the chance for your best troops to trip and fall flat on their faces with a 3" charge or whatever is indeed silly. Perhaps they should have given us a minimum of 4" charge distance, if only to add a little more reliability. The difference between the results would still be a bit daft though. It is indeed silly that a Space Marine might only make 4", but a Guardsman might fly 9" or more across the field.

I'm not against random charge to some extent, but the difference is currently much too wide, and no-one is safe without Fleet/Jump Packs (and even then it might go horribly wrong).

[DarkLink]

And that randomness doesn't add anything to the game. There's no point to it. 6" charge was perfectly functional. Now, there's just one more chance for you to get screwed over by your dice. Anytime that happens, you can still have fun, but you're having fun in spite of the game, rather than because of it.

That's bad game design.


Whether I know him or not doesn't prevent it not being particularly funny.

Being funny or not isn't the point. Anyone who goes through my posts knows I'm protective of my friends, and Reece is a good friend of mine. He's an awesome guy, extremely good player, and has multiple huge and very well painted armies. And you basically called him an *******. And you did it for expressing his opinion of certain aspects of 6th ed, all while in the same post saying that he has the right to express his opinion that you just called him an ******* for. So, as I was saying, don't be a douche.

[Wildeybeast]

I've played 8 games of 6th so far.

You could argue that isn't really enough games to make a definitive call on the new rules, particularly when we don't have any new codexes yet.


Secondly, the developers are some of the same guys from the 80's, and they treat their job as if they were playing DnD in their garage. Their business practices and game design is archaic, because they haven't caught up with the lessons learned in the last four decades. They just slap together some rules that sound fun, print it, and tell their store managers to shove it down people's throats. Once these guys start retiring, expect some big changes to how GW operates.

Sorry, but this is bull. The only old school people left at GW are Jeremy Vetock and JJ. JJ had little input and Vetock will have been responsible for the hobby side of the book. The likes of Troke and Ward who were responsible for most of the new rulebook were still at school back in the 80's so this argument holds no water. And to suggest this ruleset is a slapdash creation that hasn't been given careful consideration and playtesting is laughable. Oh, and sales clearly have an impact on games design as the allies and fortifications rules exist purely to sell more models, they pretty much admitted this at the recent studio open day.

[DarkLink]

I don't really keep track of who is employed by GW or not, but I trust Reece. He's been playing for a long time, and I know that he knows people. I might have misunderstood how 'old school' the people were whom he was referring to, but frankly Reece's qualifications as a source are better than yours, unless you happen to work for GW. And, of course, the guy Reece was talking to might have been a little off, but as with anything stuff gets lost in translation when it passes through multiple people.

The point that I got out of what he was saying was there are a group of older developers within GW that just don't care about producing quality balanced rules, and they have some archaic ideas that result in most of GW's head scratching decisions. Once these people retire, GW can start to catch up with the rest of the world.

[magickbk]

See, the funny part is that everyone wants to cling to that 6" charge distance. I remember how angry all the Xenos players were when 3rd came out and everyone had 6" charge instead of double movement distance, and the speed advantage of Eldar and Tyranids went out the window. Stuff is going to change, and has been mentioned, some of it will be good, and some not much better, but different. I maintain that the core rules are always playtested with codexes that haven't been released yet, which will hopefully balance up a few things between armies. Yes, there are some problems that 7th will need to fix, but I bet it won't fix everything...

[DarkLink]

They were annoyed about the 6" move because that was a nerf. Random charge isn't a nerf. For most armies it's a buff, and a potentially significant one. It's also annoying as heck, because for every time you roll a 12 there's a time you roll a 1.

[eldargal]

What a load of pointless drivel.

DarkLink, I'm very protective of my friends too. But there is a difference between defending someone from malicious attacks and shielding them from just criticism. This article wasn't clever, it wasn't amusing, it wasn't satirical and it had no point other than to poke fun at GW which it did not do very well at all. It was just bad.

Also Wildey is correct, of the design team only Jervis Johnson Jeremy Vetock are members of the old guard from the eighties/nineties (the oldest thing I can find from Vetock is from 1994). I don't know who Reece is but if he has been telling you that the design team of GW is predominately made up of people from the 80s then he is either ignorant or deceitful because that is simply wrong.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I think my brain fell out.
6th edition is cool, I like it, much better than 4th or 5th in my opinion, and I've had the ability to use 3 different armies to form that opinion.

[Skeith154]

the article wasn't that funny to me, but thats besides the point. if your not liking certain rules in the 40k book then why not just make your own or revert to older ones you do like? with other players permissions of course. constant complaining doesn't seem to make much difference to, well, anything. random movement seems pretty realistic to me more so in a futuristic enviroment going up against the xenos that those races go up against. all the same. no one can force you to play by the given rules...

[the jeske]

Why did assault armies need to be auto-win anyways?
you seem to have missed 3.5 , 4th and 5th ed man. 3ed BA rhino rush is gone .





I don't actually recall exactly what it was, but it was some cheesy, overpowered combo people like to complain about. I think it might have been the combination of Mindshackle Scarabs and Challenges, but I'm not sure.
they said it many times. For example Gav and Cavator asked why they made DPs and other chaos HQs in a such a way that people take only DPs , the anwser was the same "because they didnt think people would do that".
But I stoped thinking about the old design people a long time ago . When JJs anwser to you[face to face in a buissness meting , where you ask if you want GW to put updated post errate text in to translated rules books] is banging on the table and the information that ,if two gamers have a problem with rules they should roll it [ and that the sole fact of rolling is the best thing about w40k rule sets] , you kind of a stop caring .

that is why I like ward dex. sure the fluff is stupid [to me, but then again one cant make worse chaos fluff post gav so it doesnt matter] , but the dex are good . a lot of options , more then mono build stuff , some stuff maybe OP[WFB demons] but at worse it is only you that have fun playing the army . the old team dex were up to a point where it wasnt fun to play with or against them .




I remember how angry all the Xenos players were when 3rd came out and everyone had 6" charge instead of double movement distance, and the speed advantage of Eldar and Tyranids went out the window. Stuff is going to change, and has been mentioned, some of it will be good, and some not much better, but different.
you are rigth . but in the 3ed . eldar got starcannons after losing buffed up ultra exarchs [twice shoting d3 sgots extanded bright lance swooping hawks exarch with a power generator] , longer movement etc
Where is the eldar/nids "star cannon" in the 6th [or the 5th] . Random rule replace with a good non random buff is good. Random rule put in to make stuff more random sucks . Chaos csm had it before 5th ed. Guess how many likes did possessed get ? There is no fun , compatitive or not when a roll decides if you win or lose a game . this makes tactics unimportant , same with list building . Unless of course you happen to have an army that ignore the random aspects of the game [ shoty army] and can ignore night fight . Add in flyers and you have top of the game 6th ed army . But unless switching to necron is your idea of keeping it up with the new edition , then the fun aspect is not in the game . to make an example . Remember those chaos players? a lot of them still want to play legions [even when GW doesnt wants them to play legion armies] imagine them in 6th ed. Tons of "fun" awaits a WE or EC player in 6th ed.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't really keep track of who is employed by GW or not, but I trust Reece. He's been playing for a long time, and I know that he knows people. I might have misunderstood how 'old school' the people were whom he was referring to, but frankly Reece's qualifications as a source are better than yours, unless you happen to work for GW. And, of course, the guy Reece was talking to might have been a little off, but as with anything stuff gets lost in translation when it passes through multiple people.

The point that I got out of what he was saying was there are a group of older developers within GW that just don't care about producing quality balanced rules, and they have some archaic ideas that result in most of GW's head scratching decisions. Once these people retire, GW can start to catch up with the rest of the world.


What a load of pointless drivel.

DarkLink, I'm very protective of my friends too. But there is a difference between defending someone from malicious attacks and shielding them from just criticism. This article wasn't clever, it wasn't amusing, it wasn't satirical and it had no point other than to poke fun at GW which it did not do very well at all. It was just bad.

Also Wildey is correct, of the design team only Jervis Johnson Jeremy Vetock are members of the old guard from the eighties/nineties (the oldest thing I can find from Vetock is from 1994). I don't know who Reece is but if he has been telling you that the design team of GW is predominately made up of people from the 80s then he is either ignorant or deceitful because that is simply wrong.

Thanks EG. Darklink you'll notice I didn't cast any aspersions on your mate, nor his article, since I don't know him from Adam and you are equally in no position to judge the quality of my information. It's perfectly possible that Reece's source has lied to him or exaggerated to make a point, that he has misunderstood or misrepresented the point to you or that you have got muddled over it. Whatever, the statement I quoted is just plain wrong. Mat Ward, who is responsible for most of, if not all, the rules has only been designing for GW since 2008 (Daemons of Chaos is the first book I can find him credited on). There are others who have been there longer (Phil Kelly has been there for a decade according to to his BL bio) but JJ is still the only one left from the very early days with Vetock being a veteran as well. Rick Priestly might still be lurking around in the background, but if he is, he has little direct input into rules creation. This is common knowledge, it has nothing to do with specialist sources.

As to your claim that randomness doesn't add anything to the game, you are missing the point. It does add something - randomness. The design point behind a lot of the non-commercial changes is to introduce a more 'cinematic' element to the game. From charges sometimes failing, to shoving grenades into an MC's mouth to heroes duelling in challenges, all are in this vein, and they achieve what they set out to accomplish. A perfect example is when my Rhino mounted tactical squad were assaulted by my opponents venerable dread. The missile launcher guy in the Rhino popped off a krak snapshot and proceeded to roll 4 6's in row, blowing the dread to kingdom come. Dumb luck and really annoying for him, but we both agreed it had a real 'cinematic' feel to it. These are the sorts of moments the designers wanted more of in the game. You may not agree with that choice or even like it (and there is nothing wrong with expressing that view), but to suggest that they are just pointless changes, made on the whim of dinosaurs who know nothing about either design or what the paying public want just makes you sound like a petulant child.

[Mr Mystery]

There's also little point in looking at rules changes in isolation. Sure, random charge distances aren't reliable, but then that's the point. But how does that interact with the change to rapid fire and the introduction of over watch? Certainly makes more sense when you consider my troops will be blasting away with everything they have when we see you fix bayonets or here you war cry. I may not actually hit anything, but then rand charge reach still effectively portrays the psychological impact massed incoming fire can have.

And even if you're not being overwatched, there are still vagaries of command and terrain to consider. Remember, the turn sequence is an abstraction. Everything is happening at once. My units aren't standing around like Lemmings, they're in the midst of something or other.

And yes, randomness does force better tactics. Why? Simple. All tactics are a matter of risk management, and every unknown quantity invites if not outright demands a contingency. And the best contingincies are those setup assuming it's all about to go Pete Tong. I'm terms of 40k, this ranges from setting up multiple charges, to ensuring combat is less the deciding factor, and more mop up duty. Fixed charge reaches detract from this! It also forced tactical decisions on your opponent. Do I perform an orderly retreat to open the distance, or do I risk closing into rapid fire range and attempt to eliminate the threat there and then? Do I stay where I am and move up a supporting unit or two to really punish a failed charge? This is all off the top of my head, and in my opinion very much serves to prove random factors are only beneficial.

And if you don't want any random factors , don't play any game involving dice based resolution, or where you're opponent is flesh and blood. Both of these are guaranteed to confound even the best laid plans. Sure, play me a few times and you'll soon spot I'm a risk taker. This approach has won as many games as it's cost me. But then I still have the capacity to overcome my nature, and play in a very conservative manner when you least expect it. If you've planned on anarchy, and I suddenly present order, you're on the backfoot right there. And that's randomness to boot.

[the jeske]

And yes, randomness does force better tactics. Why? Simple. All tactics are a matter of risk management, and every unknown quantity invites if not outright demands a contingenc
only your looking at it from the wrong point of view . randomness you can control you counter for example with spaming . single melta wass bad , but double melta on a squad with possible hth and/or combi melta on a leader= something happens to a tank. It works in the other way too . 5th starts cover is +4 general and can go lower , plasma and las are bad weapons . This is randomness one can counter .1RL bad 15RL random but enough shots to work against everything . Or when random effects are a bonus ,I already have an HQ/WG/weapon on my GH squads , but a cheap upgrage MotW makes the unit better. Same with totems.
Randomness one cant control [chaos possessed, chaos demon weapons , random charge range. random myst terrain , random objective powers etc] is bad . Not because sometimes there is nothing you can do about it .you play a non meq army your objectives are exploding and your opponents buff up his shoting army for example. Or when your opponent is rolling for 6 min because he happens to have a multi wound character unit. You cant even ingore it because both nobz and paladins are scoring and/or troops.
Stupid randomness does not make you better at w40k . Just because someone put 15 RL shots in to a single marine in +5 cover and he didnt die doesnt turn you in to a top tournament player.



Certainly makes more sense when you consider my troops will be blasting away with everything they have when we see you fix bayonets or here you war cry. I may not actually hit anything, but then rand charge reach still effectively portrays the psychological impact massed incoming fire can have.what does that have to do with anything , other then buffing tacticals which offten run flamers . random charge range + overwatch means fewer models make it in to hth and even 1-2 dead may end up with a fail charge . yes meq ignore that , but then again meq do not play pure assault armies like nids or orcs . and even if they do fail a charge they still are siting on a t4+3sv with possible FnP for BAs.






It does add something - randomness. The design point behind a lot of the non-commercial changes is to introduce a more 'cinematic' element to the game.
I again bring the example of chaos here . It had random effects added just for the sake of random effects. All those choices were bad or borderline bad . Random is not cinematic . If you have an assault army and it doesnt assault [and then die because GW decied to give you a +5=no save ] then it is not fun , not on a tournament level and neither on a non tournament level . When your army cant ignore all the handicap rules for an edition [or cant make lists of only the good stuff] , then again it is not fun . Losing because your opponent rolled better objectives then you is not a good thing to happen. The randomness make the dude going first even better [and first blood/relic missions dont help here either] . Shoting ignoring random effects makes assault armies worse [now if shoting was 12"+2d6" range on bolters and hvy weapons ranging from 24"+2d6 to stuff like 6d6" range it would be different] , even without the ouflank and infiltration changes . And before you say that rolls are random too , the I tell you one thing . They are , but with pre checking all ranges I can make it so that no tyranid or orc mob makes it in to hth , double that if my army is flyer based.

[Chumbalaya]

Damn, y'all are a humorless lot.

You don't need to defend GW at every turn, it's ok to poke fun once in a while.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Damn, y'all are a humorless lot.

Well, according to you Yanks we are. :p

[eldargal]

Call me old fashioned but I like my humour to be humorous.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Now THAT was amusing.

[Mr Mystery]

Zing!!!!

[Chumbalaya]

Call me old fashioned but I like my humour to be humorous.

Fanboy detected.

I guarantee if GW actually put in random weapon ranges and all this junk there would be a rush to laud it. "So tactical, hard choices, CINEMATIC!" all that jazz. Silly stuff.

I love GW games too, but they ain't perfect. Have a laugh at their expense once in a while, all the cool kids are doing it.

Most of the random stuff in 6th (charges and psy powers) is easy enough to influence and get some control over (fleet, getting closer, using good lores, more psykers, etc). The rest of it is stupid random, but at least it has no large impact and it easy to ignore.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Fanboy detected.

EPIC FAIL.

Dude, she's a girl. xD

[eldargal]

Calling me a fanboy won't change the fact the referenced article was not amusing. I never mentioned GW rules being perfect or anything of the kind, that is you projecting your agenda and issues onto me.

I will happily laugh at GW when someone produces something that will actually elicit a humorous response. By which I mean, something with actual humour not puerile attempts at mockery.

[Kyban]

I guarantee if GW actually put in random weapon ranges and all this junk there would be a rush to laud it.

They did, it just usually involves a blast template, but not always. :p

[Chumbalaya]

EPIC FAIL.

Dude, she's a girl. xD

Is that why you white knight for her?

First rule of the internet, broseph, there's no girls on the internet.


Calling me a fanboy won't change the fact the referenced article was not amusing. I never mentioned GW rules being perfect or anything of the kind, that is you projecting your agenda and issues onto me.

I will happily laugh at GW when someone produces something that will actually elicit a humorous response. By which I mean, something with actual humour not puerile attempts at mockery.

Easy, professor, save your big words for somebody you can impress.

[eldargal]

Now that post, that was amusing.


"You with your big words, and your small, difficult words"

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Yeah, sorry, it genuinely wasn't funny. There's a lot of things to have a laugh at GW about, but, really? Some game mechanics are random in a dice game? Hold up! Drop everything! I think we need to tell the Warmaster about this!

[wittdooley]

I dunno why ya'll are defending this unfunny article.

In my area, when a buddy attempts to be funny, we call him out on it and then ridicule him for his funny-fail. This article isn't funny. At all, really. That's all.

[eldargal]

Quite.

Additional: the degree to which I express my verbiosity can be increased exponentially if the concatenation of circumstances forming the current intellectual context of our transcribed interaction warrants such excitation. The utilisation of a thesaurus was unnecessary in the formation of this declaration

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Stop it! I have sesquipedalophobia!

[Kyban]

Stop it! I have sesquipedalophobia!

Well that's better than Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. :p

[DarkLink]

When I posted the link, I just expected some "lols" and some "meh, I like random charge length", not a torrent of "OMFG, not funny at all". 40k is srs bsns, I guess.



DarkLink, I'm very protective of my friends too. But there is a difference between defending someone from malicious attacks and shielding them from just criticism. This article wasn't clever, it wasn't amusing, it wasn't satirical and it had no point other than to poke fun at GW which it did not do very well at all. It was just bad.

My problem had nothing to with whether or not he liked the article, or if he agreed with the content.

He told my friend to get his head out of his ***, for doing nothing more than stating his opinion in a semi-satirical/sarcastic fashion. That's plain insulting, and that's my problem.

If you don't see the problem I have, compare these two quotes:

"What drivel. Reece needs to get his head out of his ***."

vs.

"What drivel. I didn't think it was that funny, and I'm fine with the changes in 6th."

One is a perfectly valid opinion. One is insulting.


I'll also clarify that I don't want to sound like I'm insulting you, Mr. Mystery. I think it was kind of a dick move, so I called you on it, but overall you seem like a pretty cool guy. We disagree on some things, but we agree on plenty of other things.


I don't know who Reece is but if he has been telling you that the design team of GW is predominately made up of people from the 80s then he is either ignorant or deceitful because that is simply wrong.

Like I said, this was a third-hand quote. But I do know, for a fact, that Reece knows people. Mainly via TasteyTaste, but Reece has been involved in the US 40k community for a long time and has friends all over the place so it could be a friend of a friend sort of thing.

I would attribute inaccuracies to my misunderstanding of what was said. Don't get caught up on "well, he said from the 80's and that obviously can't be true because only X and Y are still around from then". Maybe it was the 90's. Maybe it was even more recent, and these just happen to refer to some of the senior developers and playtesters. I'm just recalling what I heard.

Like I said, the point of the idea was that the senior guys, whomever they may or may not be, generally have a somewhat archaic view of how they should write the rules and how they should run their business. That has lead to many of the balance issues within 40k and Fantasy, and to many of the odd business decisions that GW has made. There are plenty of talented people working there, though, so there's plenty of promise when they take over.


Just to clarify, again, the quote referred to whoever the senior game designers were. If they weren't from the 80's, that's my bad, I misheard or got something mixed up. When the current senior game developers were hired was not the point. The point was, the senior guys are old school, and that's caused some of the problems that currently affect 40k, but there are young talented guys more than capable of taking over once the seniors retire.




Additional: the degree to which I express my verbiosity can be increased exponentially if the concatenation of circumstances forming the current intellectual context of our transcribed interaction warrants such excitation. The utilisation of a thesaurus was unnecessary in the formation of this declaration

But you forgot a period;):p.

[Mr Mystery]

No offence taken.

You should see what happens when I really don't like someone's comedy. :p

[Cap'nSmurfs]

For the record (as someone who's been following this stuff on and off for fifteen years), of the current Developers (please forgive me if I miss anyone or get something wrong):

Ward has been around since the mid-00s. I want to say 2006.
Kelly was part of the WD team from 1998-99 or so, then he made the step up to Development in the early 00s. His first contribution was some fluff text on the then-current Codex Necrons (which I think was also Andy Chambers' last involvement).
Troke is also mid-00s. For a while there he was kind of bouncing around jobs, but he's back in the GD studio.
Cruddace is late 00s - I think he was new as of 2008-9. Around when Alessio left.
Jervis is older than Time Itself. But he was only brought back into the fold around 2007, basically to firefight while they reorganised Games Development. He's a senior figure in the studio and definitely one of GW's main links to their past and traditions, so if anyone was meant, it's him.
Vetock similarly has been around for ages, but I think he only officially joined Development as a full member around 2008, as well.

There's also a fair few people in Development who aren't designers as such, but do important things like editing. Check out the credits of a codex, there's a lot of people in the GD studio.

So, honestly, there's not really a lot of Old Guard left there. The people who might have been thought of as guardians of an old way of doing things - Andy Chambers (80s), Gav Thorpe (early 90s) and Alessio Cavatore (late 90s). And of those, Chambers loved experimental rules and different mechanics, but was also responsible for the Grand Streamlining (3rd) that gave us the basis of the ruleset still used, and Alessio was a hardened tournament player (it's why they hired him - he also ran an end of 5th ed Warhammer competition in White Dwarf to send in the most broken combinations you could think of, specifically so he could splat them in the next edition!) The studio went through a phase of reorganisation around 2007-2008; it's telling that while 5th was a somewhat austere audition in terms of rules (it was Alessio's baby, and he left upon its completion after a year or so of writing FAQs), all of the subsequent codices were bringing back old stuff and adding in more of the weird and wonderful 40k things. We should've seen the writing on the wall when Space Marines brought back Digital Weapons and the Thudd Gun (by a new name) - and subsequently we also found ourselves with IG psykers again, rad grenades, Jokaero... and now overwatch is back, in a new, streamlined form.

The things some people don't like - random elements, "imbalance" - aren't there because GD is necessarily dysfunctional and/or waiting for all the old amateurs to move on. It's because that crop of designers has a philosophy and they've been working together for it since about 2008. Most of them are about the same age, they mostly grew up playing Rogue Trader, 2nd ed, and all the games GW used to do. They're writing something in that style - a heavily narrative tabletop wargame with roleplaying game elements, designed to be played to tell exciting stories in the 41st millennium. I like 6th because that's what I'm about too. But the idea they don't know what they're doing, that they don't know what tournaments need, or they're uninterested in that style of play is just not true - they're often successful tournament players themselves (Kelly has a reputation especially for being a very handy player) so it's not true that they don't know what tournament players want. It's just that the tournament/competitive aspect is not the core of the game. It's one way of several in which it can be played. The core philosophy, though, is the narrative, the visuals, and the experience, and that's what they're writing to.

Or that's my take :)

(which turned out to be FAR TOO LONG D: )

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Of course I'm going to stand up for my friends. :rolleyes:

[Skeith154]

Eldargal, while your use of words was certainly impressive, and i could actually understand it.who exactly speaks like that even remotely any more? it had this distinct british tone to it that makes me wanna give up any arguements just to silence the speaker.(useful tactics...)

[wittdooley]

Eldargal, while your use of words was certainly impressive, and i could actually understand it.who exactly speaks like that even remotely any more? it had this distinct british tone to it that makes me wanna give up any arguements just to silence the speaker.(useful tactics...)

So....what you're saying is British people. What a coincidence, as she's British.

[Skeith154]

oh i'm well aware she's british, but rather all those big words strung together gave it a certain tone that i personally would not want to have to match up against in an argument. though thanks for stating the obvious.

[DarkLink]

He might have been referring more to the playtesters than the big name designers, the guys that would sit down with Ward and the bunch after playtesting games and discuss what's up for them to change. The specific quote I had was when Reece asked about some broken, overpowered combo. The developer said 'well, we just didn't think people would actually abuse it so we didn't bother fixing it'. Frankly, that seems to fit in with 6th's design philosophy, and frankly, lack of concern for balance is an objective problem. There's no reason you can't have cooky fun rules and balance at the same time. That's the issue with the current design philosophy that I'm talking about, and it's pretty hard to argue that that doesn't exist. It also explains why GW does such a poor job with their FAQs, if the developers don't care that much about closing loopholes and patching imbalances. The old-fashioned design philosophy also extended to GW's reluctance to adopt things like digital media even though it's clearly becoming a vital area of just about any market involving intellectual property.

As for the part about the young guys, you remember that leaked document that people thought was 6th. Well, it wasn't 6th, and no, it wasn't even really an early version, but it did come from GW. And from what I heard, it did sound like there were a lot of guys within the studio more than willing to embrace improved game and community support and step into the digital age, so GW has a good chance of saving itself from that path to failure if it is willing to innovate.


No offence taken.

You should see what happens when I really don't like someone's comedy. :p

Heh, you should see when I actually get self-righteous. That GW IP China whatever thread a while back was one awesome train wreck. No wonder I got along with Melissia so well before she disappeared.

The internet always just sounds so serious all the time.

[Sacrean]

Exscuce me, But I was always under the impression that GW never set out to make a game that is comepletely balanced. for them to do so would involve once a new edition came out they would have to release all the dex's at the same time, written for the new rule set. and then not change anything because that would upset the balance. Does this mean that certain armies get the shaft. Hell yeah. is it fair hell no.

But who said life or anything in it would be fair. This isn't like an MMO where things can be changed on the fly. And before someone says FaQ's, if they hastily fix one thing it may actually cause much larger problems in many other fields. plain and simple the challenge is what makes this game fun. I would lose interest and quit if I just walked all over my enemies.

I admit that I did not read the article. So I will say nothing about it. But people need to get over themselves and thier armies old supiriority and learn to adapt. It's something that real armies have had to do thousands of times in the past and will have to do coutlesstimes more. and thats what we are doing. We are playing war. So the rules of engagement has changed. Suck it up and deal. Everyone else is having to as well.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

You mean to say that a British person was condescending in an argument? Us? Never. :p In all seriousness, she was referencing her earlier comment. 'with your big words and your small complicated words'. She's trollin' Chumbalaya. :D

[eldargal]

Yes I was poking fun at Chumbawumba, though I do have a tendency to be more verbose than necessary sometimes. I try to rein it online. It does seem to have an odd impact on Americans especially when combined with my accent.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Hah. You giant troll. :p

[DarkLink]

Exscuce me, But I was always under the impression that GW never set out to make a game that is comepletely balanced.

That's kind of the point of the rumor I've been talking about. Like I said, Reece asked 'why did you allow 'X' broken combo', and the guy said 'we just didn't think people would care'.

So you're completely correct. GW doesn't care much about having a balanced game, or closing loopholes or making sure specific rules and rulings don't screw over entire codices (I'm looking at 'nidz here).



But who said life or anything in it would be fair.

This isn't life. This is a game that's intended to be fun. A well balanced game is inherently, objectively better, and balance is a virtue independent of how 'random' or 'cinematic' a game is. A balanced game is better both for competitive players and for non-competitive players who don't want to get curb-stomped by some cheesy no-fun spam list. Balance is good for everyone. But GW doesn't care, apparently. They don't care about an important and significant part of the gaming experience that would make the game better for everyone that played it.

I don't want to sound all doom and gloom, because I like 95% of 6th ed better than 5th ed. But there are a few areas of the game that would have been unquestionably improved if GW cared more about the quality of their product. No matter if their 'intent' was to make a balanced game or not, this is a criticism that GW cannot escape until it starts putting a little more effort into ensuring the quality of their game.

They can start by re-writing all their FAQs, because right now the FAQ's only redeeming quality is that they were updated quickly, even if the updates were mediocre.


And to be honest, it wouldn't be that difficult for GW to do improve their quality control. Literally all they need to do is release a PDF of the rules section of each book about 3 months before sending stuff to the printers. Let people play it, and just browse forums to see what people do or do not like, and fix it. The rules usually don't require more than repricing a few items and rewriting a rule here and there. And viola, 90% of the crazy broken over or underpowered stuff would get balanced out. A few things would slip through, but the quality of the rules would skyrocket if GW would just do beta testing like every single video game company in existence, and like many other wargaming companies. It would also go a very long way to improving GW's tumultuous public relations, which would almost certainly increase sales.

[Skeith154]

Which American are you refering too? cause when someone says american they are almost always talking about our USA cousins, and not in fact canadians. despite the fact we both live in North America. canadians sound different from both americans and the british eh?

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Which American are you refering too? cause when someone says american they are almost always talking about our USA cousins, and not in fact canadians. despite the fact we both live in North America. canadians sound different from both americans and the british eh?

All of them! Even the Mexicans! :D

[eldargal]

In this case I am referring to English speaking Americans in general, both Canadians and former colonials alike though it is more pronounced in the latter.

Which American are you refering too? cause when someone says american they are almost always talking about our USA cousins, and not in fact canadians. despite the fact we both live in North America. canadians sound different from both americans and the british eh?

[Kyban]

Which American are you refering too? cause when someone says american they are almost always talking about our USA cousins, and not in fact canadians. despite the fact we both live in North America. canadians sound different from both americans and the british eh?

Canadians are just polite Americans, until their hockey team loses... :p

[Mr Mystery]

Yes I was poking fun at Chumbawumba, though I do have a tendency to be more verbose than necessary sometimes. I try to rein it online. It does seem to have an odd impact on Americans especially when combined with my accent.

I shouldn't worry. I reckon he's the type that when he gets knocked down, he gets up again......

[Sacrean]

Dark Link, I agree a more balanced game is definately more fun. but at the same time having a game that is memorable is argueably better. And GW does do beta testing. Its just a closed beta not an open one. there is no game out there that comes out flaw free. I know that you aren't saying that it would if they let the public test thier game as well. But if they did release pdf's 3 months early so many people would get them keep them and not get the rulebook when it came out that they would lose a lot of money. And don't forget, if they have rules that people ***** about it keeps people from *****ing about the prices of models and whatnot.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Does anyone have a clear image of what a "more balanced game" would actually look like? Worth asking.

[magickbk]

Does anyone have a clear image of what a "more balanced game" would actually look like? Worth asking.

Chess. Each player receives 8 Tactical Marines with bolters, 2 Space Marine bikes, 2 Terminators, 2 Librarians, a Chaplain, and a Space Marine Captain.

Incidentally, if you extrapolate the percentages of the above, I'm sure there's a 2000 point 6th Ed net-list in there somewhere.

[Alex Knight]

Chess. Each player receives 8 Tactical Marines with bolters, 2 Space Marine bikes, 2 Terminators, 2 Librarians, a Chaplain, and a Space Marine Captain.

Incidentally, if you extrapolate the percentages of the above, I'm sure there's a 2000 point 6th Ed net-list in there somewhere.

Wouldn't it be two Chaplains and one Librarian though?
(Mine would be: 8 bolter boys, two heavy weapons, two jump packs, two special weapons, one sergeant and a standard bearer (king).)

[Cap'nSmurfs]

If at any time one side gains an advantage, the game ends, because the careful balance has been upset.

[Anggul]

Does anyone have a clear image of what a "more balanced game" would actually look like? Worth asking.

One where there are no obviously better things.

The very fact that we can quite easily look at something and say: 'That's too cheap/expensive for what it does' means that it really isn't hard to balance the game. I don't understand how any of the codex writers can look at some of the entries and think: 'Yup, this is fine'. Obviously when something is over-powered, it's because GW wanted to sell lots of it, but it makes no sense at all to make something underpowered. As great as the Dark Eldar codex is, I cannot fathom how Mr. Kelly and co. looked at Mandrakes, Keradruakh, Bloodstones, Implosion Missiles, Stinger Pistols, Electro-corrosive Whips and other things.


Also, as previously mentioned, random charges aren't necessarily bad, but they need some kind of reasonable minimum to stop snake-eyes-super-soldier-tripping-simultaneously. That happening is neither cinematic nor fun.

[Mr Mystery]

One where there are no obviously better things.

The very fact that we can quite easily look at something and say: 'That's too cheap/expensive for what it does' means that it really isn't hard to balance the game. I don't understand how any of the codex writers can look at some of the entries and think: 'Yup, this is fine'. Obviously when something is over-powered, it's because GW wanted to sell lots of it, but it makes no sense at all to make something underpowered. As great as the Dark Eldar codex is, I cannot fathom how Mr. Kelly and co. looked at Mandrakes, Keradruakh, Bloodstones, Implosion Missiles, Stinger Pistols, Electro-corrosive Whips and other things.


Also, as previously mentioned, random charges aren't necessarily bad, but they need some kind of reasonable minimum to stop snake-eyes-super-soldier-tripping-simultaneously. That happening is neither cinematic nor fun.

Yet points values are always opinion, especially on the internets. Your army should always be cheaper, their army should cost more.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

This is the point. There isn't a way to balance a game like this that will please everybody. Or even a majority. Points values and changes in them, changes in abilities, are all genuine attempts to at least make sure there's some parity between any given matchup. Sure, some people find ways to break that. And of course it's never perfect (which is why there's editions, updates and so on). Bu it can't ever be perfect. It's a constant struggle to keep everything in check, and to hold it up against some mythical (and unachievable) Platonic form of The Balanced Game is silly.

As to snake eyes random charges not being cinematic:

They're repulsed by heavy and determined fire.
Orders were misheard.
The troops lost their nerve.
A hail of grenades disoriented them.
Something crashed down from a ruin, or smoke of the battlefield meant they miscalculated and lost momentum.

I might agree that it's not The Best Of Times when a crucial charge doesn't make it, but it's hardly uncinematic. War is chaos! Going over the top and hurling yourself into the serried ranks of enemy guns is not an easy or an unproblematic thing to do (yes, even if you're a Space Marine, or an amortal Kill Engine from beyond Infinity).

[DarkLink]

Except when literally no one takes a unit because it is so obviously horrible, as is the case with all the units Anggul mentioned.

GKs have a good example in Psybolt ammo. Why is Psybolt ammo 5pts on a Dreadnought, which has access to 2 TL Autocannons? You literally never, ever take anything else. Psyrifle Dreadnought are so obviously better than literally any other weapon loadout, and back in 5th with no Hull Points, Psyrifle Dreadnoughts were far better than every single other Heavy Support choice. As a result, no one ever took Land Raiders or Purgation Squads, and basically only took Dreadknights for the new model.

It took the internet about 30 seconds with the codex to figure this out. All that was needed to fix it was make Psybolt ammo reasonably priced.

There will never be a perfect balance, but points are not purely subjective, and GW can do a much, much, much better job than they currently do.

[olberon]

time to get out my troll beater!

nah its just some sarcasm at 6th... prolly a "really good 5th player" shooting of a random rant because now hes sometimes loosing his battles

[wittdooley]

As has already been intimated, there is no easy fix.

It took Privateer three years and they had to rewrite the entire system and all of their armies which, when you add Warmachine and Hordes together, is STILL LESS than the number of armies in 40k.

It's pretty clear to me in the 6E rulebook that they're (GW/the Designers) not concerned with 40K being a fair and balanced tournament style game. They want the game to be a cinematic, drink beer with your buddies and drive a narrative sort of game.

And I love that.

[DarkLink]

You go and look at the Sisters WD codex, then go look at the Necron or GK codex, and then see if you have the balls to come back here and claim with a straight face that GW couldn't easily do a better job at balancing out armies. If nothing else, they could at least put a little effort into their FAQ/Erratas and solve a lot of people's complaints.

[magickbk]

You go and look at the Sisters WD codex

I don't think you can use that as an example, as that was obviously more about getting codex Witch Hunters out of the lineup than it was about getting the Sisters updated and balanced.

[DarkLink]

You can use half the armies in the game as an example, but honestly that just emphasizes my point more. GW does a terrible job of supporting their rules. They produce the rulebooks and codices, and that's it. The FAQs are at best half-assed, WD provides essentially no expansions or clarifications or anything (hopefully they start to change that, with stuff like the Nightspinner and whatnot), and they provide basically no support for community events other than giving sponsored stores a little prize support.

Compare it to PP, and, well, there's no comparison. Sure, PP has a smaller game, so it's easier to keep everything up to date. But PP routinely introduces new units for all factions, rapidly and accurately addresses user complaints with their rules, and actively supports and provides widespread community building events. Yes, they focus on tournaments and competition. Yes, they have a smaller and more maneagable game. But they're also much smaller than GW is, and they clearly put much more effort into supporting their community and game.

Meanwhile, GW just handwaves all of that and says "whatever, just get drunk and you won't care if the game isn't balanced".

This isn't even about whether 40k should be random or not or competitive or not or anything like that. It's about how much GW cares about the quality of its product and how well it supports its customers. GW doesn't seem to care about either very much.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

For what it's worth, the design studio is made up of about seven full-time designers, plus editors and other backroom staff. There's about 30+ forces they have to write rules for, update, and so on. Putting a decent project together takes several months, and they all run alongside other projects. They don't have infinite time, resources (or interest, frankly). Yeah, they make mistakes. They're human.

White Dwarf has been wall to wall expansions lately. New Storm of Magic stuff. Rules for three new units last month. The Warhammer "civil war" stuff in previous months. The Sisters codex (maligned as it was, it at least exists). The Death World terrain charts, the Necron-themed mini-campaigns (in fact there were two, one with Helbrecht, the other one the studio were doing). There's a real commitment lately to releasing stuff in White Dwarf. This month there's a buttload of Daemons updates!

The FAQs, yeah, were underwhelming, but they'll be worked on.

As to Privateer, you basically listed all the reasons the two aren't comparable. :)

[the jeske]

they don't have infinite time, resources (or interest, frankly). Yeah, they make mistakes. They're human.
ok but isnt it like their job to do that stuff. I mean this is not a dude making a bad burger , this is the case when people stay with a bad product for years. Gav Thorpe makes DE so crapy that the codex has to be WD errated because no one is buying them . but he is human . He an cavatore make the chaos sm dex , but they are only human . Crud makes nids , but he is only human [oddly enough he isnt a human when he makes IG].
not being interested[for something your being paid for to be interested in] and being human are not good explanation for doing a crap job .

and as the expansions go that you listed. not everyone plays necron . storm of magic is as widly played as apocalyps , sob dex sucked [and wont be updated for years.] And yes they do put in rules for stuff they have models for .

[DarkLink]

For what it's worth, the design studio is made up of about seven full-time designers, plus editors and other backroom staff. There's about 30+ forces they have to write rules for, update, and so on. Putting a decent project together takes several months, and they all run alongside other projects. They don't have infinite time, resources (or interest, frankly). Yeah, they make mistakes. They're human.

The company needs to put more work into the quality of its rules, or at least pretend it cares. If that means hiring more people because the current group is overworked, then so be it. Either that, or take the criticism for having mediocre rules.

I do believe that I made a point about beta testing that would improve quality while relieving the design team's work load, however.



White Dwarf has been wall to wall expansions lately.

Yeah, I noticed that. That's definitely a step in the right direction. Incorporating Forgeworld is nice as well.



The FAQs, yeah, were underwhelming, but they'll be worked on.

GW's track record here does not inspire confidence. GW's FAQs have always been horrible. Half their rulings they just stole from Yakface (who I can attest firsthand that puts quite a bit of thought into that stuff).

As to Privateer, you basically listed all the reasons the two aren't comparable. :)[/QUOTE]

The key thing that I've thought is that PP is much smaller than GW. GW has significantly more resources. So why does the little guy, with limited resources, do a better job than the big guy with plentiful resources?

[Kyban]

The key thing that I've thought is that PP is much smaller than GW. GW has significantly more resources. So why does the little guy, with limited resources, do a better job than the big guy with plentiful resources?

Because they try. It seems to me that GW doesn't care whether their rules are clear or balanced as long as they're fairly fluffy. PP is looking to make a game that rules lawyers can play where GW just wants to get some rules out so that you can play cinematic games with their models, which take precedence.

[Mr Mystery]

PP don't have their own stores, or have a massive gaming hall you can just turn up to and play.

GW offers massive support when you have a local store. That's been their business model since they became a games company! Indeed, the whole FLGS thing is an extension of GW. Offer somewhere to play and learn new systems and you're onto a winner.

[DarkLink]

So if GW has the resources to pull that off, why can't they release a decent FAQ?


Because they try. It seems to me that GW doesn't care whether their rules are clear or balanced as long as they're fairly fluffy. PP is looking to make a game that rules lawyers can play where GW just wants to get some rules out so that you can play cinematic games with their models, which take precedence.

And then we come back the point point that balance makes the game objectively better. Clear and well written rules make the game objectively better. Neither are something exclusive to hardcore tournament style games.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

But Link, that'd require effort on their part. :p

[Mr Mystery]

Yet with balance, comes a lack of diversity within the army designs.

Take Warmahordes. All the armies function around the same parameters. Big gribblies, smaller gribblies. Nobble the caster and you're out in front. This does not appeal to me as a player.

In 40k, I've fielded armies referred to as 'sub-par' for that very reason. Any goon can win with a beady army, but field Saim Hann takes balls. And win or lose both me and my opponent have had an awesome game.

Same with Fantasy. All Savage Orc army started in 6th Edition. I couldn't contol it. It did what it wanted half the time, and it was an absolute blast for me to play. Despite it's limitations I soon developed tactics that took the random nature into account. My opponents would usually win, but neve by a massive margin, and when I won, their army was in tatters!

I like a challenge, and in my realm of gaming I'm at a level where I can field pretty much any army with a good degree of comptency against any foe, regardless of how gamey. Sure, I'd prefer not to play against a Dwarf Gunline, but that's more to do with you average gunline player than the game itself.

[DarkLink]

You're mixing randomness with other design principles. You can have a well balanced random game. In fact, it's easier to balance a random game, because everything is based more on statistics and raw numbers than on abstract things like player skill and branching decisions or strategy. Any casino game is a perfect example of this. Each and every game is very carefully designed to give the house a small statistical advantage, so say the house has a 50.5% chance of winning and the player a 49.5% chance. That 1% difference turns into a huge amount of money. They could just as easily tweak the rules to give you a 50-50 chance of victory, but then they wouldn't make any money so they obviously won't.

Randomness is independent of balance. You can have both well or poorly balanced random game. Nor do the games have to be perfectly balanced. You are correct that we'd end up with a basic board game.

But the point you are skipping over is that GW can very clearly do a much, much, much better job at balancing 40k than they currently do. It frankly wouldn't even take that much work. They have the perfect medium in the FAQ/Erratas. Just let people play, and every 3 months tweak some point costs and special rules to buff/nerf whatever players complain about (presuming the players present a reasoned argument). My point about GK Dreadnoughts and Psybolt ammo is a perfect example of something that could be fixed. A single line in the Errata, Change the price of Psybolt Ammo on Dreadnoughts to 25pts, would have fixed all the problems associated with them back in 5th. Yet they couldn't be bothered to make the effort to add a single sentence to the FAQ.

This isn't about turning 40k into warmahordes. This is about taking blatantly obvious flaws, flaws that GW knows about, and making at least the tiniest effort to improve those flaws. All GW has to do is pay a little attention to the customer, and easy thing with 40k's online presence, and occasionally update their FAQs.

Nothing about this prevents you from still playing and having fun with your random ork army. In fact, those orks would be more fun, because whatever complaints you did have about them actually might be addressed and the codex improved. That one unit you want to take, but its rules are so terrible it's not even fun to play? Fixed. Or that one unit you'd like to play, but don't want to look cheesy? Fixed.


With WD lately they seem to be looking to increase the volume of their rules. That's a nice start. But they should still at least pretend to try and maintain the quality of those rules as well.

[Damocles8]

How are the GK dreads overpowered? Sure their weapons are stronger, but they are by no means broken, they don't have the survivability this edition. Previously if you suppressed them (shaken/stun) then they could override it, now they are closer to death, not much of a problem anymore.

As to your statement about balance making the game objectionably better, the problem with that is balance is a matter of opinion, not fact.

[DarkLink]

You'll note that I specifically state 'the problem with Dreads in 5th edition'. They're perfectly fine now, though the pricing of psybolt ammo is still nonsensical.

[Damocles8]

Implying that they are still broken.......

[DarkLink]

Uh... no... Implying that in 5th ed, they were underpriced. I said nothing about 6th ed, nor did I ever use the word broken.