How does GW work?

[Scribe]

How does GW (rules writing for 40K) work?

Layer on enough systems to obfuscate any potential issues, while making sure new kits are pushed to meet sales quotes, and later 'update' the points costs to demonstrate that they 'care' about balance.

[Medjugorje]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

How does GW (rules writing for 40K) work?

Layer on enough systems to obfuscate any potential issues, while making sure new kits are pushed to meet sales quotes, and later 'update' the points costs to demonstrate that they 'care' about balance.

sometimes maybe. But not usually. I can imagine that some parts of GW will have impact into it. But as my example before it shows thats not always the case.

[Medjugorje]

5 hours ago, Brother Adelard said:

It's not just Ace, and Bob for that matter. Many others rate them too. I asked one of the comp players I know what he thought and he said:

"Yeah they’re good value for the points, just a high skill unit so difficult to use well and not very forgiving, So lots of mediocre players whine about them."

The last thing is always true except you have 2++ with rerolls.  Or Custodes with -1 to hit and no rerolls allowed. But your super strong tourney players... where are this great successful Sword brethren lists???

You have to bring it now. Show me some

 

I can say that Sanguards were played in Karlsruhe  -  the biggest event in germany so far and one player were undefeated with them. You can watch a battlereport with him on blackhydra YT channel in a test game before the event against a Black Templar player ( who btw won a tournament last week ). 

 

[Scribe]

56 minutes ago, Medjugorje said:

sometimes maybe. But not usually. I can imagine that some parts of GW will have impact into it. But as my example before it shows thats not always the case.

We have had past examples of authors/writers who have moved on, to validate that sales absolutely has a say in the rules process.

We also can simply observe, that 9th is a convoluted mess of a game, to the point where yes, a units power is 'hidden' or unclear without enough context, rendering balance a meaningless metric.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

1 hour ago, Medjugorje said:

You have to bring it now. Show me some

Look, I'm not going to go trawling BCP for BT lists, because we all know that high performing Astartes lists haven't been that common these past months. But even a quick search of the more recent Goonhammer articles pulled up this: https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-godzilla-mode/

Which references a Black Templars list that went 4-1 in March (when Tau were dominating) which featured a big squad of Sword Brethren.

Anyway, let's be honest here. This thread has run its course Medj. The purpose of it was to moan, indirectly, about Sword Brethren by questioning something we really cannot answer: the process GW employs to balance points. The answer you want is that they must be idiots, as only idiots cannot see that Sword Brethren are sub par, but that's a subjective view that's not universally shared, so you're not going to get the answers you seek.

 

[phandaal]

After my Deathwing Knights receiving a points drop to be the same cost as TH/SS Assault Terminators for no apparent reason, I can confirm that everyone Games Workshop has on this team is a scholar and a gentleman. Their methods are beyond reproach.

[Medjugorje]

27 minutes ago, Brother Adelard said:

Look, I'm not going to go trawling BCP for BT lists, because we all know that high performing Astartes lists haven't been that common these past months. But even a quick search of the more recent Goonhammer articles pulled up this: https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-in-9th-godzilla-mode/

Which references a Black Templars list that went 4-1 in March (when Tau were dominating) which featured a big squad of Sword Brethren.

Anyway, let's be honest here. This thread has run its course Medj. The purpose of it was to moan, indirectly, about Sword Brethren by questioning something we really cannot answer: the process GW employs to balance points. The answer you want is that they must be idiots, as only idiots cannot see that Sword Brethren are sub par, but that's a subjective view that's not universally shared, so you're not going to get the answers you seek.

 

And as it shines you have a problem with.

 

Why?

 

The reason why I ask it is clear. But its interesting to me.

[MegaVolt87]

Hard to say. Codex to codex its hard to believe its the same rules team that writes them at times. I don't think they credit individuals for each 40k codex anymore. I am still convinced they are palmed off to individuals but they are no longer credited so we don't know if its a Gav dex vs a Ward dex like in the old days. 

EDIT- As far as SB, they suffer because of fixed loadouts that plauge all new codexes and units these days. If its not in the box, can't do it. Its too hard for Timmy to buy extra units he is buying anyway and manage a bitz box to do it. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by MegaVolt87

[Antarius]

11 hours ago, Scribe said:

How does GW (rules writing for 40K) work?

Layer on enough systems to obfuscate any potential issues, while making sure new kits are pushed to meet sales quotes, and later 'update' the points costs to demonstrate that they 'care' about balance.

I don't like 9th edition, precisely because I find there are too many systems layered on top of each other, but I think this explanation (assuming it is seriously meant and not just snark) is both too cynical and not cynical enough.

GW probably isn't an evil empire in reality (although the fact that their business is making money from customers should be pretty obvious to anyone) and it would obviously be in their best interest to make a game that is actually good (while also encouraging further sales), simply because that would be the best sales policy. Here you might say that I'm not cynical enough, as I actually believe that having a good product is a good strategy, but stick with me.

What most of the "GW messes up the game on purpose to sell the new kits"-takes tend to miss is that we often see new units, even entire new factions be the target of "this is underpowered" complaints. I mean, it's not like BT doesn't have a new codex and SB is a unit that GW put out years ago - on the contrary they are apparently less powerful than a unit that has been out for over a decade. I would think that it's probably quite easy to make new units OP, so I don't think underpowered units crop up because the designers don't know how to make something too powerful. A likelier explanation would probably be that it's hard to make a unit exactly right, as it has to be measured against every single unit in a game with literally hundreds of units.

We might of couse conclude that SB (or other new units that aren't up to par) are devious decoys to keep us from uncovering the grand plan of "make new kits OP, sell lots of'em", but Occam's razor suggests that a simpler -and therfore likelier- explanation is that it's pretty difficult to actually balance a game of this size and that they can't really do what is needed (at present anyway). So, answering the OPs question as well, it seems to me that they look at the data they have from competitive events and try to adjust the stuff as best they can, aiming for an outcome where the factions are at roughly the same "win rate", which is an imperfect method and doesn't necessarily solve internal balance problems but which is probably the best we're going to get untill a hypothetical new, thoroughly playtested edition resets everything.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Antarius

[alfred_the_great]

And it’s a 10% spread over that win rate (45-55%) in tournaments in a six month bracket.

[BrainFireBob]

49 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I don't like 9th edition, precisely because I find there are too many systems layered on top of each other, but I think this explanation (assuming it is seriously meant and not just snark) is both too cynical and not cynical enough.

GW probably isn't an evil empire in reality (although the fact that their business is making money from customers should be pretty obvious to anyone) and it would obviously be in their best interest to make a game that is actually good (while also encouraging further sales), simply because that would be the best sales policy. Here you might say that I'm not cynical enough, as I actually believe that having a good product is a good strategy, but stick with me.

What most of the "GW messes up the game on purpose to sell the new kits"-takes tend to miss is that we often see new units, even entire new factions be the target of "this is underpowered" complaints. I mean, it's not like BT doesn't have a new codex and SB is a unit that GW put out years ago - on the contrary they are apparently less powerful than a unit that has been out for over a decade. I would think that it's probably quite easy to make new units OP, so I don't think underpowered units crop up because the designers don't know how to make something too powerful. A likelier explanation would probably be that it's hard to make a unit exactly right, as it has to be measured against every single unit in a game with literally hundreds of units.

We might of couse conclude that SB (or other new units that aren't up to par) are devious decoys to keep us from uncovering the grand plan of "make new kits OP, sell lots of'em", but Occam's razor suggests that a simpler -and therfore likelier- explanation is that it's pretty difficult to actually balance a game of this size and that they can't really do what is needed (at present anyway). So, answering the OPs question as well, it seems to me that they look at the data they have from competitive events and try to adjust the stuff as best they can, aiming for an outcome where the factions are at roughly the same "win rate", which is an imperfect method and doesn't necessarily solve internal balance problems but which is probably the best we're going to get untill a hypothetical new, thoroughly playtested edition resets everything.

You forget outside influences.

 

If Sword Brethren were designed, sprue-wise, before the "restrict it to the kit" policy, it quite possibly would have been excellent. We know that strict change is recent- it was applied to the Plague Marine kit years after release, the CSM range refresh makes more sense if it predates it, etc. Further, the DA Vengeance Speeder with plasma loadout would have been a brilliant vehicle released one edition earlier; and the Gladius tanks as well. So you are trying to understand through a single lens, when there are several systems at work:

 

1) When a product was developed- what was the game state?

2) When it was playtested, same?

3) Has a new design philosophy been implemented since conception to execution? After all, development is in parallel, not discrete for the rules team

4) Is there a separate paradigm shift? New edition, new CA, rules pack, etc?

5) Lot of factions and in-faction variance. Is playtesting adequate? Scope of playtesters? I remain convinced Chaos was kneecspped for years because of a Graham (IIRC) who worked at the Studio (Logistics, IIRC) who was a terror with Chaos in in-house tournaments (noted in several WDs). If he was a better player, a 50% winrate against him by much weaker players represents kneecapping his faction or boosting others. 

 

To me, Sword Brethren were the first development victim of "force them to use it like the box of example modelling opportunities on the box." It can't ever be balanced to the efficiency of a dedicated purposed squad like Sanguard. Nothing to do with points or selling, everything to do with paradigm shift midprocess. 

 

Regarding points- they're slow walking us to power level. Plasma guns are worth more than flamers in nearly any TAC configuration, levelling their cost simply undermines the relative microbalance of points vs power level. Once everyone is playing the box as it is on the tin with no significant wargear variation, the by-unit pricing of power level makes sense. (That's the paradigm I actually think SB experienced.) So they'll adjust points a bit to level tourney lists, but it's not their balance focus anymore, IMO.

[Antarius]

I think you make good points about paradigm shifts and that there are many factors and variables at play (I also don't think we really disagree about anything, as fas as I can tell). But I'm not sure I get what you mean about sword brethren? The whole "just the gear that's in the kit" thing has been a target of complaints for years.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Antarius

[Sword Brother Adelard]

It also doesn't make sense, as the Sword Brethren kit actually allows a lot of options within that box. It's not one set loadout, you can build them all with chainswords or power swords, or start throwing in one each of the other special weapons. What you can't do, which does attract complaints, is give them all hammers, or all claws.

 

8 hours ago, Medjugorje said:

And as it shines you have a problem with.

 

Why?

I do not understand what you're asking here.

[tychobi]

My suspicion is your logic is sound but your premise is flawed.  I fear GW does not strive for a balanced game.  To believe otherwise requires leaps of logic that would cause me great distress. 

[Arkhanist]

I think GW does strive for a *roughly* balanced game, but 

a) doing so with the ever-growing huge list of units, codexes and metas is inherently hard

but also b) they're not that great at it

At its heart, 40k is a beer 'n' nibbles game played between friends with nice miniatures, and disputes can be sorted out with a minimum of fuss. When you look at battle reports, they inherently push the narrative angle of games most of the time, even when playing matched points. Tournament play is nice and all from GW's point of view, but it's not where the majority of the studio or the modelmakers are really focused. Hence the amount of rules tweaks that only apply to matched play, or even tournaments (though people then decide to also apply them to more casual games)

If you really wanted to balance the game a lot better, you would have to *severely* prune some of the codexes (looking at you, marines) and strip out a lot of the options for them. to have a sane level of units to balance against. Ironically of course, they are doing the latter to fit what's in the box - not for balance purposes but to reduce demand for 3rd party produced bits or bitz resellers.

They clearly have some kind of algorithm by which they tot up points based upon profile, role (transports attract a hefty premium, for example, jump packs did too for a while), comparable units in the same codex, and some kind of faction adjuster. Then based upon internal testing and feedback apply a fudge factor for individual units that over or under perform. That fudge factor is inherently going to be a mess across the vast number of units between different codexes, and you can't directly compare units between codexes either. And even based on a units profile or options, it's going to be hard to compare because you also have to factor what else is in the codex. And it may be that they occasionally lean on the points a bit to push sales for particular kits, but that could also just because they're making it up as they go - there are many examples of new kits, such as primaris being seriously overpointed at launch compared to the opposite.

[phandaal]

7 hours ago, Antarius said:

What most of the "GW messes up the game on purpose to sell the new kits"-takes tend to miss is that we often see new units, even entire new factions be the target of "this is underpowered" complaints. I mean, it's not like BT doesn't have a new codex and SB is a unit that GW put out years ago - on the contrary they are apparently less powerful than a unit that has been out for over a decade. I would think that it's probably quite easy to make new units OP, so I don't think underpowered units crop up because the designers don't know how to make something too powerful. A likelier explanation would probably be that it's hard to make a unit exactly right, as it has to be measured against every single unit in a game with literally hundreds of units.

GW certainly does not mess up the game on purpose. It is not their goal to mess their game up, because that would be insane.

It seems more like their people simply care less about balance than they do about adding flashy or cool things that will get people excited about a faction. Hence the reason why we end up with rulesets that read like an excited kid describing his OP character to his friends on the playground.

Short term it seems to work. People buy the bonkers new stuff en masse. Long term, the plan is probably to reset everything with a new edition.

[Slave to Darkness]

9 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

It seems more like their people simply care less about balance than they do about adding flashy or cool things that will get people excited about a faction. Hence the reason why we end up with rulesets that read like an excited kid describing his OP character to his friends on the playground.

 

Ive said for a while now its no longer GW, its fanboys pretending to be GW, but they wont fix anything because no matter what people keep paying for half arsed games and incomplete rules on release. 

[Medjugorje]

and B2T

 

Another perfect Unit is the Heavy Intercessors. They are also not good. New and expensive ( money ) so that GW would have a win situation but they are terrible since their release.

5 minutes ago, Medjugorje said:

okay - then lets hear what the best players talk about Blood Angels and right after that Black Templars:

 

 

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

SB with power swords is a solid unit. I’m just happy we finally got a codex, and new models . BT are decent for competitive play imo .

[Dr. Clock]

It seems like the approach in ongoing points adjustments is pretty much faction focused more than unit focused.

Looking at this points update specifically, it could be summarized as "Eldar points up; Sisters points down; Help for some overpointed vehicles". Hilariously, "Maleceptors kneecapped" is clearly the most targeted single change.

Remember that generally any testing is performed within the current competitive game state, whatever that is... It makes no sense to test 'diverse and specific potential changes' much before publication because there are infinite permutations of 'what could be tested', and there are very short effective windows for testing in any case because Codexes themselves will always be disrupting the game at least once or twice within any cycle. 

So it makes sense to triage the worst offenders and help out the most lagging factions rather than get down to the individual unit level if you can avoid it, and once you've made a decision about the most substantive changes, it's best to just make those changes and then see how it sorts out again before flipping other switches. 

So quite seriously, it's most likely that they just never got around to Black Templars considering their relatively recent release.

Maybe sour grapes if looking at a Primogenitor Legion's fancy lads perhaps, but my advice is generally that if you have a Codex, focus on what you like inside of it rather than how specific things stack into completely different lists. I also don't know why Sanguinary Guard should have come down, but it's critical to accept that some things in a list are pointed low to literally encourage multiples as a 'backbone generalist' unit, and some are pointed high to make them a 'niche/utility' pick. There's no formula specifically that causes a fire dragon to now be 3 points more than a plague marine with any weapon because it's 'objectively better'. The utility of a fire dragon can't account for that difference in a vaccuum, and while I'd definitely argue that they did not need a 2 point bump, on the whole I accept the 2pt bump on aspects. It's something I can work around, which says alot about Asuryani as a whole.

So I think the Brethren vs Guard debate comes down to Guard being seen as a 'core line unit' that competes with Intercessors, i.e. something that you are encouraged to build a whole list around if you want, while the Sword Brethren are more of a 'nice to have' in a list that is kind of all about the Crusader squad from the get go. So SB are the fire dragons of your codex... classy, spendy fire dragons... and there's nothing stopping you from chiseling efficiencies in other parts of the book to afford the 10-20pt premium that you might have to pay to use a favored unit in an off season.

Me? I'll be over here saving 2 whole points per fully upgraded Reiver lol.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

[Medjugorje]

good point.

 

There is another thing i want to give GW credits for.

They not just reduce prices for the unit but to makes them attractive but makes the options cheaper for them. So That there wont be spammed.

For example they made assault squad to make sense. Just 5 points cheaper but with 2 plasma pistoles + Powerfist with jump pack variant.

[Captain Idaho]

It's important to note that we shouldn't focus on just a single unit being weak or powerful when we consider the size of the game. Whilst there is always going to be personal bias (I'm an Ultramarines player so want MY toys to work) we have to consider the fact GW are looking at it as an overview with dozens of issues to trawl through.

I'm often hyperbolic when I talk about things, especially in real life or WhatsApp groups and folk often misunderstand my meaning through no fault of their own, but consider the following statement saying butchered for this purpose:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Now I don't think the designers are stupid or incompetent. Far from it I actually think they do a good job under circumstances forced upon them. The game still works despite it's myriad of flaws. It was hyperbole to make a point.

There are a lot of plates in the air so things get missed. Or all the angles don't get fully considered because humans aren't omnipotent.

It is frustrating when some things get missed hard of course. I will be the first to point out things I don't like about 40K, but when I talk about it I usually talk from a company perspective rather than individual designers.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is it's far from likely that a unit is deliberately being kept in the mud.

Except for Reivers. 

[Orange Knight]

It's very simple, unfortunately.

They want to sell as many Sanguinary Guard as quickly as possible, before they retire the unit into Legends once a Primaris replacement in unveiled.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Orange Knight

[Captain Idaho]

That's quite possible, though I'd say that's a business decision rather than the games developers doing it on purpose. 

[twiglets]

The conspiracy that they misbalance the game intentionally is just tinfoil conspiracy.

Age of Sigmar is consistently decent to very well balanced and is exploding in popularity. If this grand tinfoil conspiracy to intentionally misbalance the game was actually worth doing then we would be seeing the exact same balance problems in AoS that we see in 40k as it would be free money up for grabs.

We do not.