"Rule changes caused by sales or play balance?" Topic

I finally got around to purchasing 8th ed.
Now I only ever play solo (live in the wilderness) but I like the new changes. But some of them got me curious – which rules were caused by play balance concerns and which were caused by economical ones.
For example: Units are now set up to be in files of five – instead of the previous four. Is there a play balance reason for that, or is it simply because the manufacturer produces their figs in boxes of 5 or 10 (not eight)?
I am sure there are other examples.

It's all about the money – more ranks, more files, more figures, more sales. Same with 40K. Rules changes to sell new models.

Did you skip 7th? The rank change came in 7th. But the horde rules are certainly made to sell you more figures. Most of the plastic sets for the armies I collect still come in 16 a box, 4 ranks of 4 files.
I have switched to playing 1st (solo) and 5th (a couple friends I visit once in a while) editions myself. So the change in rank rules doesn't bother me.

I think there is a fair amount of desire for changes from players.

A ruleset is an incredibly complex system. It will never actually be balanced because somethings might be much more effective against one thing than another.

For example, in FoW, the lightest tank is about as effective as the heaviest at killing infantry that don't have AT weapons.

So in an early war game where it was tanks vs. infantry a tiger would be about as effective as a panzer II.

The same is true, although more difficult to show, with armies.

My Grey Knights army in 40K was unmerciful to my friend's Kroot army. They were unbalanced. The Kroot did well against other forces, the Grey knights had a mixed result against other troops, but no matter what we did those Kroot couldn't stand up to the Grey knights, even with 2/3rd of the points.

So changing the rules changes the game and stirs things up a little. This might keep the tournament players happy in some ways.

I know I was glad when they revisited the Obliterators from the 3rd edition codex, because they sucked in that. They were a little overpowerful for the point cost in the next edition I thought. And so on.

If, in a tournament system, you kept the rules the same there would be one army and one way to play that army that would be the best one out there. It would win all the time* and there wouldn't be any point to playing.

So in a tournament based system you need to change the rules. It not only drives sales but it also keep people interested and coming back to play.

* or rather most of the time for the pedants.

New rules are in themselves a profit boost.
Even players who have settled with their collecting will buy new rule books.

Where GW is concerned, it's to sell minis -- they're a minis company, not a game company, so the games exist to drive sales of the minis.

That said, Pictors' point is spot on: there are units and match-ups that just stink, and rules changes that are designed to boost sales those units or armies will, as a side effect, change the balance of the game.

If I was still playing the game, I'd welcome any rules changes that made cannons more effective -- I sank money into them because I thought they were cool, but discovered that (in the edition I was playing) they were usually a waste of points. Conversely, I'd have been annoyed if my knights were suddenly downgraded because I'd have to go buy more of them for them to be useful.

So whether you like the new edition depends a lot on what your collection looks like, and what you'd like to add to your field army.

To be fair, I'd bet that many GW fans enjoy the change and look forward to it.

For every old crank who wants to continue to play with the models and rules he bought in 1985 and resents having to spend another penny, there are 10 guys who get bored with the rules/models after 2-3 years and are ready for something new, but not completely new.

It happens with historical gamers too. Just ask yourself how many unpainted figures you have, how many projects you'll never get to. Most people get bored with what they have--even if they've never or only rarely used it -- and just buy new things for the sake of buying new things (yes, we delude ourselves into believing that this time we'll actually finish that army).

Only GW and FOW get crap for this.

To be fair, I'd bet that many GW fans enjoy the change and look forward to it.

Depends on how you define "many". My guess is that GW has roughly 80% turnover in their audience every three years no matter what they do. 12-to-15-year-old boys are their primary market, so their customer base constantly churns.

The company is always selling to the new player, and their policies are geared towards maximizing their purchases before they tire of the game … or have a force that they're happy with. So it's no surprise that everything is revamped (I'm thinking army lists, primarily), because then the new players will think they're getting the New Thing.

Only GW and FOW get crap for this.

Well, yeah. Anybody who's successful in this industry is going to get crap, because the techniques necessary to win have nothing to do with why adults play these games.

And if they're smart businessmen, they'll keep doing what they're doing and ignore the complaints. The worst thing they can do is listen to us -- it'll shrink their market smaller than they're currently built to support, which is a Bad Thing.

My guess is that GW has roughly 80% turnover in their audience every three years no matter what they do. 12-to-15-year-old boys are their primary market, so their customer base constantly churns.

I see this said a lot, and I know ths isn't scientific, but I don't see many 12-15 year olds in the FLGS playing 40k. It's mostly 20 somethings. Guys who have jobs and some disposable income.

Bede, from what I understand, the situation is much different in the US as compared to the UK FREX.

Damon.

I see this said a lot, and I know ths isn't scientific, but I don't see many 12-15 year olds in the FLGS playing 40k.

It's said a lot is because GW has been known to say this to their investors. (Privateer Press also uses this marketing strategy for Warmachine.) Not every customer will be a teenage boy, but there are reasons that ad execs refer to them as the lowest common denominator.

Rule changes caused by sales? GW? Never!

Regarding what Pictors has said, it's interesting to note that the designers behind early Warhammer were well aware of the problem of game balance as sort of an inevitability. A good example is the Points Value section of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 2nd Edition, which was tucked away in the advanced rules section and given a pretty healthy caveat explaining that point systems never really work anyway and that the gamemaster should use good sense when it came to scenario design.