Greybeard86

While obviously MTG relies more on rules (inherently less value of card per se than model), GW also makes heavy use of rules in their business model. New editions, campaign books, army books, assorted supplements are an integral part of how GW conducts business. All good, thanks for checking though. Mistakes happen, but they do not invalidate the efforts of the companies in designing targetted products. Video games have bugs, some are unplayable, yet they put massive efforts into things like monetization and gameplay loops. Folks, I think you underestimate companies.

All "bad rules" and units are not by design, but they aren't all "mistakes" either. You call it 4d chess, this is the reality of current product development / marketing, in many areas of our lives. But if J haven't convinced you with direct examples from another company of a related industry, I feel there is not much left for me to say. Still, thanks for the friendly discussion, and happy to move back to actual rules.

Clothing companies design their products with specific demographics in mind, as do car manufacturers and many other companies / industries. I think that it is obvious that GW, a relatively large corporation, also has a department that carefully studies such options (and we know they do indeed have it). All those stories about "rushing products" and "mistakes" and happy/unhappy coincidences seem are, IMO, not well-aligned with how companies of this size operate. That is why I linked the MTG design explanations. Obviously the products are not identical, but it does give you a hint of how these companies approach product design. Some of you insist in calling such "product design" considerations "intentional malfeasance", when the truth is that this is common place among corporations of all types. They do not see it as manipulation, they think of it as conducting business.

Great reply, dropped a trophy for you since you make very good points. Yes, there are some differences between the games and you pointed them out well. My point with the link was to give insight on how those decisions are made, since it is very likely a similar "R&D" process is happening in GW's HQs. Your key question, out of respect for the time you took to write this: My claim: not only they are spotted, oftentimes they are left subpar by design. Here is something that, IMO, you discarted too quicky: You are right that the "bad feeling" from badly balanced models is way worse than that of bad cards. But that isn't stopping GW (this has happened for decades). This design approach is not exclusive to GW, it is called things like "rewarding system mastery" or "white tower design" (and similar things), though there are debates over technicalities on this. GW goes above and beyond though, to have obvious winners and losers among models (ocasional mistakes do happen). Your point that why design models that may not be used by people other than collectors has an answer too. GW can and often will rotate the spotlight on models and armies for them to have "good rules". Since we already established that under the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm you need to create imbalances, it follows that by rotating those imbalances you can get powergamers/spikes to chase the full range of models. So, to sum it up: i) GW targets different demographics, and those may chase things other than "effiency", ii) to have "efficient" units, you must have "inefficient" options, iii) GW can rotate love across models and armies, so they make sure they maximize sales.

¿...? I genuinely don't understand the comment. They follow, I am sure, similar design principles, but obviously the product is different. For example, it does not have its rules printed on the model.

Then nerf support heroes. But the ability to snipe officers from range is immersion breaking and frankly a feel bad moment.

I think everyone needs to read that MTG article to get an idea of how these things are designed. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03 GW is designing with different target players in mind. This is thus a complicated balance, and they cannot simply make all units "mostly balanced" and thus sell to all types at once. If that was the profit optimizing strategy, they'd follow it. It doesn't take an advanced degree in math to figure out undercosted or broken combinations in AoS (or 40K). Do you think they do not detect outliers same as you do? They need good and bad units to please powergamers, same as they need good and bad armies. The good thing for GW is that they can and do tweak rules regularly, meaning that they can switch which units are designed for powergamers at will. Here some on designing good and bad units: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28 When GW pushes a new army, or a new set of rules, they do it after deciding on a target demographic, and on how it will interact with the rest of the armies and units out there. There is a reason why Kragnos is currently regarded as "very crabby" from a competitive standpoint, and it is not that they don't know how to design powerful centerpieces. Same for SoB not dominating tournies. Sometimes, they make mistakes. They think something will be appealing to some crowd, and it is not. Other times, they have armies that tank because they were designed under a different paradigm (FS). So, mistakes are made, but design is deliberate.

Well that’s sad. I was hoping for actual protection to mini heroes, as in untargetable. Not only it makes more sense, I believe it would also make the game better.

They forecast sales when they produce units. We know there must be "bad" units in order for there to be "good" units. They run a tighter ship that most think but of course they aren't perfect. At this point though I think our positions are clear and we can move on to talking about rules, not their business

So over the course of decades GW has been pushing models and rules, does anyone believe they don't have a good sense of the relationship? And that in understanding it, it won't be part of their business strategy? I mean, I don't know if I am saying something too obvious. Yet every single time I see someone saying X and Y was bad on release, this must mean GW are incompetent and don't use rules for sales.

I don't know anyone taking grots, but I know plenty of other units got point reductions. From bullgryns, to the majority of custodes units.

No. I suggest you read the link I provided. Having BAD units is a necessary part of the process.

They are fairly comparable, as those type of players exist in GW's games too. If you read the reference, you'll see how they don't represent players as exclusively power gamers, or collectors (though those exist) but rather leaning in one direction or another (a continuum). You cannot cater to everyone with everything, and that's why they have armies and units that aren't good for WAAC players. GW absolutely studies sales data with care, I am certain of that, and the way they release is, I'd bet, heavily informed by that. When / whether to release a new army, the number of models in such army, the pace of updates, everything is a business decision. I am not saying that business analytics have infallible answers for all of the above, but it most certainly used in informing decisions. I think there is a regular TGA poster who did some sales data analysis around here. I guess he can't disclose, but you'd be surprised. Rules affect sales, this is a corporation selling models, people assuming they are incompetent at that should re-think what is going on.

Point reductions have been widespread since 9th started, so I am not sure armies are smaller in 40k.

I don't think that is true. As I said, I don't believe they write all rules or design or models to sell to WAAC competitive players. But they certainly design models and the supporting rules with sales in mind. I'll link the classic reference: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03 I am pretty sure this applies to GW too. And that's why it is not a simple "du duh just make everything new OP". Finally, collectors / painting oriented folk and rules are not insulated, since popularity drives instagram likes, comissions, and so on. We are all aware that GW has business analytics people on sales data, right? Google search Gamesworkshop + business analytics for some of the profiles doing the job.

I always see this argument and I am surprised it is still used. GW does not design all models to target all publics. They design models and rules for powergamers, for collectors, for people who like big flashy monsters, for those who prefer efficient units, and for many different publics in general. There is the MTG design explanation of the timmies and jacks and what not that explains this design approach well enough. That said, they absolutely do use rules to push models, they simply don't do it for all the models all the time. They are pretty smart about it. They also use frequent point and rule changes to push selectively certain models. This sophisticated behaviour, admitted by MTG designers, is a far more likely explanation for what we observe from GW than the "oh well mistakes were made!" and related versions that come up in these threads. PS - They are big company, they do have people analyzing sales.

A couple comments. First, I think we should all be cautious judging names, as some are acquired tastes. Tomb Kings is a bit derpy too, IMHO. That said, I am with you that sometimes less gimmicky for the sake of brands works better, specially in fantasy. The names seem to have a tad too much business oriented flavor, over truly good loreful names. For example, Vampire Counts is a better name, IMHO, than Grave Lords, because it truly captured the fantasy trope it played into.

I hope the battalions become the equivalent of 40k detachments. All "demigryphs trollololol" or other spams is not something I particularly enjoy, and battalions currently encourage narrowly focusing your army.

I agree that better balancing is possible. However, I do not like MTG as the benchmark. They bake in imbalance in their design to reward "system mastery" and also attempt please certain types of players with smoke and mirrors (flashy cards), but ultimately do not design the cards to be balanced. I think warhammer should aim for balance, and to create a wargame that reflects the lore. That means that armies should ressemble their lore counterparts in composition, for the most part, and that units ought to deliver in line with what they portray. No unit should be worse at everything, per point, and we do have such things right now.

Precious, not weird I really want some normal things to bring contrast to AoS. Freeguild militia types of units, knights on true horses, you know, normies to fight the beasties!

Is this a NORMAL horse? Oh dear, I am digging this picture! :D

What is truly awe inspiring is the number of warscrolls they have. Do we need another "generic fantasy figurine with mega armor"? Sorry to hate on them, but I took a look recently and I was shocked.

Saying rules don't matter in a thread on "good" rules feels out of place. Let me give you 3 reasons why rules matter a lot: Have a look at how many players are selling their chorfs after they got squatted. In some case, they sold them right before they got squatted 🤔. So rules support matters, and "legends" is understood to be the kiss of deaths for armies. That "good rules" matter was made crystal clear by players / buyers with AoS 1. And thus GW has reacted to that by completely changing the rules for the game. Finally, GW acknowledges that rules have a big impact on the whole hobby experience and are one of the drivers of purchases. Otherwise, why bother releasing new editions? They could simply sell new models within the same edition and release new warscrolls. Now, with the current boom in sales, can we say that "balanced" rules are important? Of that, I am not so sure. Some armies are popular even though they are bad rules wise (gitz), others seem to be driven by tournament wins (BR, seraphon), and finally some have good rules and are also popular because of their models (lumineth). So, to GW, what is the value of balance?

Is the copy right protection worth the silly names, though? 3rd party legit minis who want to copy them get away with it anyway. And we end up with names that are sound like a bad joke.

At this point, what are black knights supposed to represent? Both black knights and grave guard are supposed to be more powerful undead than skeletons, and they were elite/nobles in life. The lore description is a tad different, with grave guard being depicted as "housecarls" (retainers), whereas black knights are "princes and nobles". So based on the lore, it seems black knights should be at least as powerful as grave guard. Are they, per point? Then, they are also shock cavalry. How do they stand in that role against blood knights? Are they supposed to be "less elite", but still somehow comparable in cost-effectiveness? Should they work better in combination with a Wight King?