Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There was an informal Q&A at the Seattle Open and after reaching out on Twitter I managed to get some info from it that I thought others would find it interesting.
 

There was some discussion about how GW functions on a company level, like the art department being entirely able to do their own thing without influence from the board, and that when they decide to make a thing it will have rules made after the design is finalized

Some questions were asked about upcoming changes or additions to current game systems, but they were very coy about answering those. They they did reinforce that they are listening and looking at the data a lot more than the company did in the past, so feedback is important

I got a great reply when I asked about the ancestor sigils on the Leagues of Votaan Kin, apparently there's going to be AI that are treated as Kin with equal standing as citizens, and that we'll see that on the tabletops as well

They mentioned that their app development team is pretty large (and growing) and that they are actively working on making the tech side of things a lot better, but they want to stay true to the legacy of the games and will strive to stoll have print media and analog tools as well

When asked about the recent codex balance, it was discussed that a lot of the codexes were balanced against each other before they were released (and subsequently adjusted) then the next would come out but still be based off the balance they had against the previous release

So it's a little bit of power creep, but they're doing their best to stay on top of it and it's not intentional. Sometimes a strategy is discovered that is really great but makes for a bad game experience, so they adjust for that sometimes too


There may be more but it was informal so people weren't exactly recording or taking notes so if I find anymore I'll add to this.

Link to comment
https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/374138-seattle-open-gt-qa/
Share on other sites

A little bit of power creep:laugh.: :laugh.: :laugh.:

 

This ed is going down in history as the most bananas, bonkers, craziest power creep that there's ever been, to the point where bolt on rules such as armour of contempt and hammer of the emperor have to keep being added on to stop certain factions being utter trash:laugh.:

A little bit of power creep:laugh.: :laugh.: :laugh.:

 

This ed is going down in history as the most bananas, bonkers, craziest power creep that there's ever been, to the point where bolt on rules such as armour of contempt and hammer of the emperor have to keep being added on to stop certain factions being utter trash:laugh.:

Well when you balance a bunch of stuff off the same level of power and then have to nerf that thing means everything after it needs some kind of nerf.

Their unintentional argument falls a bit flat for me. I’ve no trouble believing codex tyranids was balanced against tau and Eldar and maybe Orks. However it’s evident not a single one of them was balanced against Necrons or marines, the first codexes of the edition. There’s no way anyone, even a novice game designer, could look at something like nids and necrons side by side and think they were on the same planet let alone in the same league.

 

They may have balanced the latest ones against themselves but they’re all intentionally a massive step up from the early codexes.

Would like to see what Necrons and Space Marines were supposed to look like when balanced against this version of 40k that only exists at GW HQ.

 

Gauss weaponry auto-destroys any model on a 3+? C'tan shards can actually warp reality? Space Marines can beat 2000 points of the enemy with a single combat squad?

 

Kidding aside, not a good look. Launching a rulebook out into the world knowing it is balanced against a version of 40k that does not exist is negligent and unprofessional. With the first couple of times it can be forgiven due to printing schedules and whatnot. By this point though, no excuse.

Would like to see what Necrons and Space Marines were supposed to look like when balanced against this version of 40k that only exists at GW HQ.

 

Gauss weaponry auto-destroys any model on a 3+? C'tan shards can actually warp reality? Space Marines can beat 2000 points of the enemy with a single combat squad?

 

Kidding aside, not a good look. Launching a rulebook out into the world knowing it is balanced against a version of 40k that does not exist is negligent and unprofessional. With the first couple of times it can be forgiven due to printing schedules and whatnot. By this point though, no excuse.

I think people forget that the rules for most of the current codexes would have had their rules worked on during Covid as well. With lead times and how many projects they work on at a time we're likely looking at the rest of the year at least being written during that time frame, if not some next year as shipping delays keep delaying releases as well.

 

I think people forget that the rules for most of the current codexes would have had their rules worked on during Covid as well. With lead times and how many projects they work on at a time we're likely looking at the rest of the year at least being written during that time frame, if not some next year as shipping delays keep delaying releases as well.

 

 

Not forgotten so much as not relevant, unfortunately. Even if the contents of the book were locked in a year ago, FAQs can go out whenever Games Workshop wants.

 

If they flat out said "here is a free Day One FAQ, we balanced these against a different internal meta and cannot change in time due to Covid, mea cupla," people would be annoyed but they would at least believe the story these folks are trying to sell.

 

Should be pretty clear by now that GW allows the current situation to continue because it gives a nice temporary boost to model sales. Any other excuse is just hot air.

The problem is you assume they have time while devoloping future releases to go back and make balance passes for upcoming releases based on changes they made to past releases. That'd throw off their deadlines for future releases.

The problem is you assume they have time while devoloping future releases to go back and make balance passes for upcoming releases based on changes they made to past releases. That'd throw off their deadlines for future releases.

 

Please do not argue against your guesses at my assumptions. Unless you really are a mind reader, in which case - is it possible to learn this power?

 

We actually do not know how much time Games Workshop has allocated to make updates to codexes. We do know that their team knows the codexes are not balanced, and we know that GW is capable of identifying and FAQ-ing the most broken parts of books after those books go live. Based on that fact, we know they do have enough time to make those FAQ changes at the very least.

 

 

The problem is you assume they have time while devoloping future releases to go back and make balance passes for upcoming releases based on changes they made to past releases. That'd throw off their deadlines for future releases.

Please do not argue against your guesses at my assumptions. Unless you really are a mind reader, in which case - is it possible to learn this power?

 

We actually do not know how much time Games Workshop has allocated to make updates to codexes. We do know that their team knows the codexes are not balanced, and we know that GW is capable of identifying and FAQ-ing the most broken parts of books after those books go live. Based on that fact, we know they do have enough time to make those FAQ changes at the very least.

Time to make changes from data gathered from the community events is not the same as timr to internally test and rebalance. You're conflating the two in order to claim they should have it done.

Time to make changes from data gathered from the community events is not the same as timr to internally test and rebalance.

We do not know how much time it takes for the rules team to figure out what is and is not broken, nor do we know how much data they use from community events compared to their own assessment of the rules they create.

 

We do know, based on what they shared at the GT, that they are aware their books are broken before release. If they are aware the books are broken, it would stand to reason that they have at least some idea how they are broken.

 

Also, casual observers tend to point out the most broken combinations of rules from each book within hours of reading new Codexes, well before they appear in tournaments. And before a list with abusive combos of units and rules can even be brought to a tournament, someone has to figure out that combo in order to bring it.

 

We can give GW's professional rules team the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are at least as good at reading their own rules as those casual observers and tournament players are.

 

You're conflating the two in order to claim they should have it done.

Again, stop with the personal stuff. You are not in my head, I am not in yours, none of this is personal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.