I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.
I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.
I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.
Isengard wrote: Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.
Which would be great if anything they'd added to the index factions was of any consequence whatsoever.
The factions that got comprehensive points adjustments aimed at fixing existing balance problems were the ones who already had codexes.
The warlord traits, stratagems, and relics they added for the index factions were of such shockingly low effort that it's difficult to believe the rules were even looked at by more than one person or that the one person who came up with them actually bothered to look at the existing rules to see how they stacked up.
As an example, take the warlord trait that they added to the Dark Eldar Wych Cult.
This is a trait specifically, ONLY for a single HQ choice, because they have only one non-named HQ, the Succubus.
"any roll of 6+ to hit in the fight phase counts as three hits".
The succubus' base weapon, the weapon that only the succubus can use, again the ONLY MODEL ELIGIBLE FOR THIS TRAIT, is the archite glaive, which causes her to subtract 1 from all to-hit rolls.
They legitimately wrote a rule for one single model and it passed through whatever quality assurance process they have that does nothing. Nothing at all. the trait does not work. The only way this could possibly have happened is if one person was responsible for the rule, they came up with it, didn't check the existing rules for the Succubus, and then checked it with exactly nobody and sent it to the printers. And this isn't the only example (it's just the funniest one) of hilariously low effort going into this book. It reads worse than the first draft of something written by a freshman in a game design course.
I don't fault GW for any kind of malicious intent. What I do fault them for is a staggering degree of unprofessional lack of detail in a product that we pay a huge premium to use. It'd be like if you paid for a brand new Mazeratti and got a car that worked about as well as a 15 year old hyundai you picked up from a used car dealership, and when you complained about it someone was like "I don't get your negativity, Mazeratti is really TRYING to make a good car, they're really excited about it!"
Most people don't believe any of these guys are "out to get" anyone or punish any army or anything like that.
What most people have issues with is that their rules are often borked in one way or another, transparently so, to the point that anyone (new blood or old vet) who picks up a book can spot insanely powerful or dramatically overcosted units or broken mechanics with casual glances, and that they seem to make the same sorts of mistakes over and over for many years and editions that even a modicum of effort would have identified and solved. Even worse when they seem to go out of their way to do so.
They're not monsters, theyre not out to get anyone, but they are *really* bad at some of what they do (seemingly intentionally so), are really bad about fixing it, and really have no excuse for wither at this point. Even when they try, they end up making so many incomprehensible decisions that nobody really knows what they're doing (e.g. as with many recent CA changes) or why.
Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.
Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.
Yeah but they've pitched 8th as a more balanced, organized play, competitive friendly game so I don't think this holds up.
I think my issue is not malice, but more neglect when it comes up.
For example, the CA update really neglected races that needed updates (I don't play Necrons/Tau) and hadn't gotten needed attention; further GW had used marketing that was somewhat misleading in the nature/degree of the "updates" they got.
I'm not mad, I'm disappointed. They've been doing so much better lately but this was a huge step back.
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.
Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.
I don't think you'll find B&C any better. They're just dicks in a different way.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.
Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.
I don't think you'll find B&C any better. They're just dicks in a different way.
This is the unfortunate consequence of the internet. People can anonymously post anything they want without having to actual interact with anyone face-to-face. Ultimately people will just be pricks because they can, even though they wouldn't act that way in real life to someone.
chimeara wrote: I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.
the problem is that lots of stuff that didnt need it got increases, particularly FW stuff, and gobs of stuff that needed decreases or other help didn't get it. They touched a couple big offendors, nuked half the FW line whether it needed it or not, and all the units and options that sat on shelves before will largely still be sitting there.
chimeara wrote: I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.
the problem is that lots of stuff that didnt need it got increases, particularly FW stuff, and gobs of stuff that needed decreases or other help didn't get it. They touched a couple big offendors, nuked half the FW line whether it needed it or not, and all the units and options that sat on shelves before will largely still be sitting there.
The community is largely at fault. There's been a big push that said "Forgeworld units are by and far overpowered". Whether they were or not isn't even the issue. It's that so many people were saying it. Now, GW bashed Forgeworld in the face with Lucille and people are crying foul again. I think GW went overboard with it, but they were giving the community what so many wanted. Now those Forgeworld units aren't going to be used.
I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.
Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.
Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.
It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.
But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.
Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.
GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.
I think that most of the designers are either overworked, not experienced/caring enough of a given faction, and without the top-tier math skill, to put it mildly. I often criticize the design team but I don't think that there is malice, most times. Perhaps Vetock came closer with the 6th edition Tau, winner of the "the least fun army to play against" prize. And Kelly with his weak spot for Eldar. But that is more excessive love than hate toward the others
Martel732 wrote: It's not. Starcraft balance is crowdsourced as well. It's just that blizzard can patch and unpatch very quickly.
I don't think this is a good comparison.
Blizzard doesn't have to make rules for "legacy" units that people still have the sprite (or whatever) for (see the issue about non-Codex wargear). Blizzard has to balance 3 factions. Blizzard lets you rebuild your army on the fly each game, so essentially you can list tailor on the fly. This makes games easier to balance, as you only need to build a counter to a unit in the tech-tree, which can sit there and be literally nothing else besides a counter unit. Computer games are easier to get data for. Computer games have more data available for them. Blizzard pre-designs the starcraft maps to ensure there's enough cover and LOS blocking terrain. Blizzard fundamentally controls the resources the enemy has access to to buy units. Blizzard doesn't have variant win conditions and has only one mission objective on any given map.
It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.
Hoodwink wrote: I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.
Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.
But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?
Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.
I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.
Martel732 wrote: It's not. Starcraft balance is crowdsourced as well. It's just that blizzard can patch and unpatch very quickly.
Reading Starcraft 1 and 2 forums one would think that the balance in that game is even worse than in Warhammer40k. Players in forums are prone to hyperbole and exageratting. Thats why the player feedback of the vocal minority isn't a good measure for balance. Thats why you should wait at least 1-2months for the dust to settle after a change, to see the reactions of the silent minority and the more technical data, to analize it and reach a better conclusion. Panic balance patches, unless theres something that is really broken, aren't any good for the game.
Thats why leaving the balance patches to three different points a year (2 FAQ's and one CA) is a good thing. Yeah, something will be "broken" for 6 months. And in that time the meta will settle and counter tactics will emerge and much more reliable data will be collected.
Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.
But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?
Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.
I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.
Berserkers and Noise Marines are the primary units for their respective groups. People shouldn't be forced into taking generic CSM in World Eaters or Emperors Children. That's the whole point of the detachment changes in 8th. You get obsec due to the streamline rules for troops. It makes sense for Berserkers that you charge a unit on an objective, if not outright killing them, then you control it. This is one of those times where the fluff and the rules coincide together well.
This is also the reason that GK can take Terminators as troops. The rules match the fluff.
As much as various forums, Dakka especially it seems, get criticized for adopting a given attitude or acting like an echo chamber, I don't think any site on the internet is going to replicate that as strongly as a 40K Open Day at the HQ of the company that makes it.
Then there's the fact that I've seen many people with great attitudes and real enthusiasm either fail to get or retain a job due to a pure lack of aptitude. PMA is great, but it will only get you so far in a job that, ultimately, boils down to hard data and mathematical formulae. The guys in charge of creating fluff and designing models can go far on their excitement for their craft, but somebody eventually will have to sit down and crunch numbers if they're serious about balance.
But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?
When there's some 1000 Terminators that make up a chapter you can give me a point. There's entire warbands dedicated to the pursuit of noise.
Azreal13 wrote: As much as various forums, Dakka especially it seems, get criticized for adopting a given attitude or acting like an echo chamber, I don't think any site on the internet is going to replicate that as strongly as a 40K Open Day at the HQ of the company that makes it.
Then there's the fact that I've seen many people with great attitudes and real enthusiasm either fail to get or retain a job due to a pure lack of aptitude. PMA is great, but it will only get you so far in a job that, ultimately, boils down to hard data and mathematical formulae. The guys in charge of creating fluff and designing models can go far on their excitement for their craft, but somebody eventually will have to sit down and crunch numbers if they're serious about balance.
There's also a disconnect in local metas to the picture as a whole. Many people who complain about a particular unit or model are doing so of their perceived views on it. Largely, this will be because of local perception as opposed to perception of the unit as a whole across the world. Metas are strikingly different just in local tournaments. Look at the difference between east coast and west coast in the US alone. Tournaments there are very different to each other. You will have the strong outliers who are definitively good or bad, but everyone in the middle will vary.
Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.
But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?
Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.
I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.
Berserkers and Noise Marines are the primary units for their respective groups. People shouldn't be forced into taking generic CSM in World Eaters or Emperors Children. That's the whole point of the detachment changes in 8th. You get obsec due to the streamline rules for troops. It makes sense for Berserkers that you charge a unit on an objective, if not outright killing them, then you control it. This is one of those times where the fluff and the rules coincide together well.
This is also the reason that GK can take Terminators as troops. The rules match the fluff.
You can be a "primary unit" and not be a troops choice. The Sentinel is the primary unit for IG recon companies, and that doesn't mean one whit. And no, Berzerkers don't secure anything. If you charged a unit on an important objective with Berzerkers, you'd:
1) netter hope they don't trammel it if it's important
2) follow up with some defensive troops, while the berzerkers pursue the broken and fleeing enemy because you can't stop them from doing that. Blood-crazed madmen are not the types to dig in and set up perimeters around valuable assets.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?
When there's some 1000 Terminators that make up a chapter you can give me a point. There's entire warbands dedicated to the pursuit of noise.
Yes, and they can still exist. That's the point. If you want an all-noise-marine warband, you could still do it with them as Elites.
The only reason to make Zerks or noise marines troops was for an in-game mechanical advantage, and has nothing to do with fluff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.
Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.
Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.
It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.
But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.
Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.
GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.
This doesn't really read like "too much community interaction" is a meaningful contributor to the problem. First, it's not clear what the problem is supposed to be with the cult troops -- why was this a bad change?
But with Conscripts, the obvious conclusion to draw from your story -- just assuming that you're exactly right about what happened here -- is that they're really, really stupid. Like, yeah, if the game designers never had any contact with the outside world maybe Conscripts wouldn't have been over-nerfed. But people pointing out that Conscripts were too good doesn't seem like something to blame for that -- GW knowing that there's an imbalance in the game is a good thing, even if there's a sense in which becoming aware of an imbalance is a first step towards over-correcting.
Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that someone at GW actually looked at all the changes to Conscripts and thought to themselves "yeah, this looks about right". You've got a really low opinion of whoever signed off on that, I guess. I mean, they cost the same as Infantry and the only advantage they get is a larger max squad size. On the other hand, I can buy that the thinking here was just "3 ppw might still be too good in some cases, so let's just effectively remove them from the game". But that seems like a perfectly defensible design choice where there's not a clear problem which requires assignment of blame.
Hoodwink wrote: In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.
For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.
If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.
But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.
Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.
Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.
It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.
But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.
Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.
GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.
This doesn't really read like "too much community interaction" is a meaningful contributor to the problem. First, it's not clear what the problem is supposed to be with the cult troops -- why was this a bad change?
But with Conscripts, the obvious conclusion to draw from your story -- just assuming that you're exactly right about what happened here -- is that they're really, really stupid. Like, yeah, if the game designers never had any contact with the outside world maybe Conscripts wouldn't have been over-nerfed. But people pointing out that Conscripts were too good doesn't seem like something to blame for that -- GW knowing that there's an imbalance in the game is a good thing, even if there's a sense in which becoming aware of an imbalance is a first step towards over-correcting.
Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that someone at GW actually looked at all the changes to Conscripts and thought to themselves "yeah, this looks about right". You've got a really low opinion of whoever signed off on that, I guess. I mean, they cost the same as Infantry and the only advantage they get is a larger max squad size. On the other hand, I can buy that the thinking here was just "3 ppw might still be too good in some cases, so let's just effectively remove them from the game". But that seems like a perfectly defensible design choice where there's not a clear problem which requires assignment of blame.
The Cult troops thing wasn't a bad design change per se, but I think it does have ramifications for GW's plans. I think the way GW envisioned 8th Edition was to make it super simple - no weird slot-changing shenanigans, for example. I think this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.
The conclusion I drew from my story was the Game Designers went "good thing we nerfed them in the codex, looks like they're about right" and the screaming of children could be heard through the windows, so they went "feth it" and removed them (and commissars) from the game, with nary a few moments to even see if the codex changes to Conscripts made them more balanced. (I think, honestly, it did, as the next AM tournament winning list didn't have many, if any, conscripts, and was mostly veterans IIRC).
Can we avoid pointless nitpicking about the Berserks?
Berserks as troops was a nice move, an attention from the designers toward people with a weak spot for world eaters and/or that started in 3rd.
I can criticize the design team when is inattentive but this is attacking them when they actually gave a crap about something almost inoffensive that was important only for those involved.
How can one be mad about that, is beyond me.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Can we avoid pointless nitpicking about the Berserks?
Berserks as troops was a nice move, an attention from the designers toward people with a weak spot for world eaters and/or that started in 3rd.
I can criticize the design team when is inattentive but this is attacking them when they actually gave a crap about something almost inoffensive that was important only for those involved.
How can one be mad about that, is beyond me.
I'm not mad about them being inattentive. I'm mad about them being too attentive.
And everyone conveniently forgets that there was a detachment already for 3-6 units of berzerkers led by a khorne lord.
It's not like keeping them Elites would have somehow made it impossible to field an all-World-Eaters berzerker army. All it does is net you two more CP and grant a comparatively irrelevant special rule. Purely in-game mechanical advantages. No one who loved World Eaters since 3rd would have shelved their models over that, I guarantee you, if they lived through the prior codices.
Cult troops are troops in their legion warbands. Plague Marines and Rubrics have it. Why whouldn't Berzerkers and Noise Marines?
But to be honest I shouldn't even enter this discussion. This is one of the biggest problems of Dakkadakka. Some guy comes with his personal crusade about something totally asinine, and then the thread just is derrailed, be it conscripts, tacticals, IG sargeants, Skitarii vs Admech, AM vs IG, etc...
The community interaction issue isn't to with interacting too much or too little, it's who they have been interacting with. They get a lot of their feedback through their facebook page, which often functions more like an echo-chamber of its own community. We're similar here, but the problem comes in the disconnect between players who interact within these certain communities having drastically different opinions on the game, its models, and how it could be improved, whether legitimate or not.
The Cult troops thing wasn't a bad design change per se, but I think it does have ramifications for GW's plans. I think the way GW envisioned 8th Edition was to make it super simple - no weird slot-changing shenanigans, for example. I think this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.
The conclusion I drew from my story was the Game Designers went "good thing we nerfed them in the codex, looks like they're about right" and the screaming of children could be heard through the windows, so they went "feth it" and removed them (and commissars) from the game, with nary a few moments to even see if the codex changes to Conscripts made them more balanced. (I think, honestly, it did, as the next AM tournament winning list didn't have many, if any, conscripts, and was mostly veterans IIRC).
Ah, so we basically agree on what their thinking probably was ("feth it, just remove them from the game"). I guess it's just not clear to me that this was the wrong call. Like, if they couldn't come up with a way to make Conscripts good but not too good, then it plausibly makes sense to trim the number of units down and save everyone the trouble of having to think about them. Or: surely it's perfectly legitimate to just decide that Guard don't need a unit whose only role is to act as a meatshield for artillery. It also strikes me as odd to try to blame people being mad about Conscripts for this, when you really didn't have a significant number of people saying that Conscripts were too good post- Commissar nerf, except possibly when combined with that one relic (which was just the one Commissar rule that survived the nerf). It doesn't seem like it takes that much to realize that if people think your game is unbalanced, and you've got some changes ready to go but which aren't public yet, maybe they won't find your game unbalanced once they hear about those changes -- there's no reason to just keep nerfing as long as you hear complaining, when there's this lag time. I guess your theory is something like: they want to make absolutely sure that the whiners shut up and so intentionally over-nerfed Conscripts just because they're worried that people will still complain that balanced Conscripts are too good. I dunno. I feel like this is a pretty common way of explaining alleged over-nerfing -- you see a similar sort of "[company] gave in to the complainers" line with a bunch of video games too -- but there's rarely that much reason to think it's actually what's going on.
But I do want to emphasize that the community actually seems to have been pretty responsible about its complaining, all told. Again, nobody was still complaining about Conscripts after the Commissar nerf. I'm not really sure what examples there are of the community hating something even after it got balanced, which would give anyone reason to think that you have to over-nerf things to satisfy the complainers, at least to the extent we saw with Conscripts. I mean, sure, you can find individuals who do that. I remember someone arguing that Windriders were still too good at the start of 8th. But this was hardly the consensus position. Likewise you have people who seem offended that Russes can shoot twice, but there's an awful lot of pushback on that. Obviously you could just point to anything that there's a consensus on and say that the only reason I don't agree that it's an example of irrational hate is that I'm part of the group-thinking hivemind, but is anyone actually going to defend the stuff that there's been a consensus on?
I'd also point out that Conscripts were one of the only things that got put into the ground. And I'm not sure they were even the most complained-about unit. Surely Guilliman is ruining more people's games, since you're so much more likely to actually run into him in a pick-up game and it's so easy to squeeze so much synergy out of him. And CA only gave him a tiny little nudge upwards in cost. I feel like it's telling that the two units they decided to nuke from orbit -- Conscripts and Malefic Lords, and also Razorwing Flocks if we go farther back -- are units where they plausibly didn't really intend for them to be as central to their armies as they turned out to be. It strikes me as likely to have just been a design decision to get rid of them, not a caving to complaints. Meanwhile they do intend for Guilliman to be a major factor in Space Marine armies, so they're being much more cautious with his nerfs.
The issue is that GW writers consistently show they aren't even playing the same game as everyone else, or know the actual rules to their game. It's like watching a MiniWargaming battle report; the battlefield looks cool, the models look cool, but the gameplay is a clusterfeth because the dudes playing don't actually know how to play and are just kinda mucking about in something that vaguely resembles the game, but once you look under the surface is completely wrong.
Nobody thinks it's on purpose, it's just laziness. People like Cruddace (he's lead designer now isn't he?) seemingly just comes up with something that sounds good, and then doesn't really check how it interacts with the game to see if it really works; the aforementioned Wych Cult warlord trait springs to mind, as even a cursory glance at the current rules would reveal "Hmm, this won't work". Now maybe the -1 to hit is gone in their Codex (you have to assume the designers are at least thinking of the Dark Eldar Codex, even if it's months away) but still, that shows even more incompetence/laziness because they aren't checking it against current rules, which are what matters right now anyways.
The reason most of us veterans seem so jaded and negative is, basically, because we are tired of it. GW has had some 20+ years to perfect their game, and yet we see the same lackadaisical approach to rules design, lack of using math and formulas to stat things out, seemingly nonsensical buffs/nerfs over the years that may fix one thing, but break three others because nobody seems to actually have a fething clue about what they're doing. After a while, it gets tiresome, especially when the product is a "premium" product that you expect a certain level of quality based on the price.
Admittedly, 40K units not having a temporal cost is a serious balance limitation that Blizzard uses on units like reapers.
I still think it's trivial to do a better job than GW, but almost impossible to get as good as Starcraft for your stated reasons.
"3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly "
This is the single biggest thing I hate about 40K. 40K is like having protoss be able to start off with carriers and not have to tech to it. Again, temporal cost.
hink this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.
Except they would be weird if they didn't given that
A: Rubrics and Plague are troops in their respective codex
B: It was done in the index.
Having the other two Cult Factions be restricted from the same benefit is just weird because we may never see a codex for our respective cults. (At least I don't have any for EC anyways, given how they want to avoid Slaanesh usually)
Problem being a Con organised by a company purely to promote their products is largely only be preaching to the indoctrinated
And whilst slapping some giant dark wallet emptying conspiracy on GW is unfair I do think much like the IoM a lot is still driven by ancient dogma that even they no longer understand why or what they are doing
I also doubt that the 'haters' really want GW to die, its just being repeatedly disappointing people causes friction which vents via forums like Dakka
Hoodwink wrote: In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.
For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.
If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.
But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
I find DakkaDakka to be pretty generally negative. I actually pretty much stopped reading it because of all the negativity. I am only reading today because the college clas I teach has a “work day” today and none of the students seem to have questions for me.
My advice, go play real games with real people and leave the negativity to the internet.
Should see /tg/
Although Im sure most of it isn't serious and just the result of group culture thing. Just like dakkadakka. There's a silver lining. Forums like this exist on people posting. At least they are keeping the place alive..or kicking a dead horse...it's subjective.
Glad you posted
Wayniac wrote: The issue is that GW writers consistently show they aren't even playing the same game as everyone else, or know the actual rules to their game. It's like watching a MiniWargaming battle report; the battlefield looks cool, the models look cool, but the gameplay is a clusterfeth because the dudes playing don't actually know how to play and are just kinda mucking about in something that vaguely resembles the game, but once you look under the surface is completely wrong.
Nobody thinks it's on purpose, it's just laziness. People like Cruddace (he's lead designer now isn't he?) seemingly just comes up with something that sounds good, and then doesn't really check how it interacts with the game to see if it really works; the aforementioned Wych Cult warlord trait springs to mind, as even a cursory glance at the current rules would reveal "Hmm, this won't work". Now maybe the -1 to hit is gone in their Codex (you have to assume the designers are at least thinking of the Dark Eldar Codex, even if it's months away) but still, that shows even more incompetence/laziness because they aren't checking it against current rules, which are what matters right now anyways.
The reason most of us veterans seem so jaded and negative is, basically, because we are tired of it. GW has had some 20+ years to perfect their game, and yet we see the same lackadaisical approach to rules design, lack of using math and formulas to stat things out, seemingly nonsensical buffs/nerfs over the years that may fix one thing, but break three others because nobody seems to actually have a fething clue about what they're doing. After a while, it gets tiresome, especially when the product is a "premium" product that you expect a certain level of quality based on the price.
^This, pretty much. Over the years the developers have demonstrated over and over again how out of touch they are with how their customers play the game. They have admitted to overlooking strong and weak combinations and when White Dwarf was still worth reading, battle reports were often a joke of misplayed rules or exceptions to written rules to make for a better game.
Nobody truly hates Inspector Clouseau, they are just tired of having his equals write rules for a game they where they spend time, money and love.
Isengard wrote: I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.
I am new to this forum, but not to 40K nor to Internet forums. These places tend to have the ends of the bell curve (the really happy and the really mad) as the middle ground are happy to play and not talk about it. Some folks are just plain mad at the game and they can tend to repeat the same point again and again. Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ. Those opinions are absolutely valid, but they do not necessarily represent the gaming community at large. What is cool is that they come from a wide variety of gaming communities. What is more, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
I started 40K in 1996 and left in 2014. The new direction of 8th Edition brought me back, and I am still very happy. I play in a good community that, while not perfect, is a great place to play 40K. Perhaps I am the glass half full end of the bell curve, but I was on the other end a year ago.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ.
Very nice of you. Very nice implication that the most bitter are the waac-guys that got their OP options removed. Poison-coated post, my friend.
What about people that had Chaos in 3rd and have seen most of their options removed. What about the Lost and he Damned players, unable to play a similar army for years. What about the hobbyists that slowly and lovely build an army just to see the options removed in the next codex. See inquisition. What about players of armies ignored and neglected by years by the designers, given to people that did not care. Orks and Tyranids. What about the players of armies that got only token updates, like GK now or SoB from.. it looks like forever. What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of some of all of the above What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of a combination of prices and unreliable investment in an army. What about warhammer fantasy players.
People are bitter because they felt their time and money repeatedly ****wed over by GW lack of care and the completely erratic, amateurish attitude of the design team.
I like a lot of the new stuff gw is doing, but Robbin Cruddace is the WORST. He has a history of a VERY poor concept of game design and the books his name has been on have either been incredibly full of cheese or incredibly broken/ unplayable.
RC really shouldnt work there any more. Why he continues to be employed is beyond me.
Hoodwink wrote: In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.
For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.
If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.
But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.
You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.
It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ.
Very nice of you. Very nice implication that the most bitter are the waac-guys that got their OP options removed. Poison-coated post, my friend.
What about people that had Chaos in 3rd and have seen most of their options removed.
What about the Lost and he Damned players, unable to play a similar army for years.
What about the hobbyists that slowly and lovely build an army just to see the options removed in the next codex. See inquisition.
What about players of armies ignored and neglected by years by the designers, given to people that did not care. Orks and Tyranids.
What about the players of armies that got only token updates, like GK now or SoB from.. it looks like forever.
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of some of all of the above
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of a combination of prices and unreliable investment in an army.
What about warhammer fantasy players.
People are bitter because they felt their time and money repeatedly ****wed over by GW lack of care and the completely erratic, amateurish attitude of the design team.
I think that you are being sarcastic calling me friend. "Moving your cheese" is business metaphor/fable where things have changed and the cheese is no longer is the same place in the maze for the mice. I can see how you would think I was referring to "cheese" in a gaming sense - that would have indeed been a clever if convoluted double-entendre! I apologize for offending you. The idea with the expression, though, is that things change and some folks are unhappy (whether because they lost their entire army or had a single unit toned down - its a wide range). The unhappiest take to the forums.
Hoodwink wrote: In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.
For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.
If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.
But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.
You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.
It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.
Haha I admit I'm wrong when I am. I misread the rules she had. But your response simply backs up why dakka has the reputation it does. Being rude and condescending against me when I did absolutely nothing like that to you. I even specifically stated Lelith wasn't in a great place or that good and you chose to ignore that for the sake of whatever reason.
Let's put it in this way: I agree with he fact that that happiest and unhappiest are the ones most noisy. The rest would be a pointless fight. Sorry for misereading the cheese, but you have to admit the context was perfect for the misunderstanding.
Hoodwink wrote: In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:
I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.
Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.
This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.
People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.
...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.
For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.
If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.
But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.
You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.
It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.
Haha I admit I'm wrong when I am. I misread the rules she had. But your response simply backs up why dakka has the reputation it does. Being rude and condescending against me when I did absolutely nothing like that to you. I even specifically stated Lelith wasn't in a great place or that good and you chose to ignore that for the sake of whatever reason.
I apologize if I come off as rude. I just get frustrated by the level of apologism that goes on when it comes to certain armies always consistently getting the shaft when it's incredibly clear that whoever is in charge of their rules just has no idea what they need to be successful.
GW has been making some big wins and some big mistakes, and while I do definitely hope for a Codex: Tyranids level of life being breathed back into my favorite factions, Chapter Approved inspires exactly 0 confidence in that ever being the case.
I don't try to focus exclusively on the negative, but there is a lot more negative here for what I play than positive. Court of the Archon units got a price adjustment - awesome. Corsair units got a price reduction too, meaning Skyreavers and Sky Dancers are back to their traditional role from the last 2 editions of allowing you to use the pretty Dark Eldar Hellion and Reaver models without dealing with their Dark Eldar rules. My orks got a couple random weapons and units adjusted, and if the rumors are true, may get one good stratagem and a decent relic.
But (again, if rumors are to be believed) everything the dark eldar got, everything the Thousand Sons got, and half of what the orks got, is handily worse than the basic traits and stratagems already in the main rulebook. Several xenos factions (you know, the ones sitting around with their thumbs up their butts while we wait for 80% of the imperium and chaos codexes to be done) got no points adjustments at all, in a book which was stated to be intended to help close the gap between Index factions and Codex factions. The statements GW made (like "Points adjustments to each and every faction!") are now known to be false, and you're coming after people for being frustrated with that.
People are saying stuff like "clearly this means that the factions that didn't get any adjustments are getting codexes Soon(tm)! Clearly? how do we know that? Just like we knew months ago that Celestine's release meant Sisters of Battle would be coming out in plastic with the release of 8th? Oh wait, that was the release of Biglymarines. or how 8th would be the most balanced edition ever? oh wait, the number of factions represented in tournaments got cut in half.
If you continually disappoint people and perform below expectations for decades, expect some pessimism to build up.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length.
In other parts of the Internet, Dakka gets referred to as "GW's complaint box". This is not a recent occurrence.
I'm guilty of it from time to time too, but I can get over it, as have most in times past. The times I haven't been able to get over it were the times I just checked out and did something more enjoyable with my life, like most of 7th edition.
The current behavior is definitely louder and more aggravated than it's been previously. We have four posters I can immediately think of who will pop up into virtually any thread and echo the same variation on the same theme and just repeat it constantly to the point where anymore I can't help but wonder if they're not just chat bots someone set up to spam the forum.
Life is too short to continually be that angry with something that you're clearly that much involved with. It tends to bring other people down, and even if you don't care about that, it's really unhealthy for yourself. If you're that unhappy with how things are going, don't post about it in any thread you can get away with, instead take a break for a few months. It's still pretty nice out, at least in the midwest US. Even if it's not, go outside. feth, build a snowman or something if you have snow. Maybe hit up a gym. Get a hobby. Get a girlfriend. Read a book. Get a job.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.
You just made the op's point in one sentence.
There is no such thing as too much community interaction outside of letting neckbeards graze freely around the GW offices making pointed comments to developers.
My favorite is "8th is the worst!".....what edition are you playing?
99% of peoples problems can be traced back to that persons choice in how they play. If you attend events that legitimize everything you hate about the community, that's your fault. If you play armies that have not been released in a codex yet and expect GW to hand you free stuff, that's your fault. If you expect rules to be absolutely airtight, that is your problem.
The fact of the matter is, there are great games with terrible rulebooks. (Twilight Emperium before this last rules update and Dropfleet Commander) There are terrible games with great rulebooks. (Dreadfleet and Monopoly) Both survive only if the community is strong and willing to adapt to changes or issues with the game.
Lets be real, Dakkadakka is not that bad. It's certainly a dramatically better behaved and more constructive forum than say, 4chan or especially much of the Warhammer presence on Reddit, or boards and online communities like those for Blizzard games or League of Legends or Call of Duty or the like.
Dakkadakka is relatively tame board by comparison to most others big gaming forums.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.
Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.
Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.
Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.
Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.
Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.
Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.
Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be
4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.
For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.
Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.
Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".
As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.
Elbows wrote: DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.
What does that make 4Chan?
An STD.
Vankraken wrote:
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".
As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.
I'm confused by these kind of posts. If all you get out of GW games is disappointment, why continue?
Elbows wrote: DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.
Well since whineseer got nuked.
Warseer is back, but the community is pretty much dead.
What happened?
M.
They banned one too many posters lol.
In all seriousness - they got hacked and taken down. And then they stayed down for so long that their community moved off to other forums or facebook and haven't returned. Or are banned, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Isengard wrote: I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.
I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.
I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.
My personal issue with GW is how poor quality their rules are. I can live with imbalances, I knew I wouldn't be choosing the top army when I picked up orks in 5th edition - in fact, that ork codex was the very reason I started playing WH40k, so I'm happy to hear Phil Kelly is still around.
However, the last ork codex was very, very poor. First of all, anything even remotely good got nerfed to the ground for no reason whatsoever, with no replacement for the things we lost. Kanz were made paper-thin overnight and got an additional rule to make them even more terrible, KFF was nerfed (while the very same KFF that was too strong for orks was given to DA), the deff rolla was completely neutered, nob bikers almost trippled in costs and lootaz got moved from elites to heavy support for no reason besides making it impossible to field them alongside battlewagons or walkers.
So they actually knew what was making orks tick in 5th and 6th - and they actively decided to kill all that, despite orks not being a overly strong army at all.
On top of that, it was blatantly obvious that many rules from the codex were never used on the table top before the rule got printed. Not even once!
The new Orkanauts got a transport capacity of 6 with no way to charge out of them (One of the codex writers did charge out of them illegally in the WD battle report), leaving ZERO units which could efficiently use that transport option.
The deff rolla would only ever trigger when a model would declare DoG against an AV 14 vehicle, which no one would do even without the rolla. The wrecking ball was using BS and had d3 shots which meant it would never do anything. Stikkbomb chucka gave stikkbombs all units disembarking from the vehicle - but all units in the codex but gretchin and weird boyz already had stikkbombs.
Not to mention how time consuming the new mob rule was. If they had just play one or two games with every unit in that codex, such things would have become evident.
When you think it couldn't get any worse, the the supplement was released.
The supplement forced your Warlord to kill himself against any character, since he needed to accept any challenge and warbosses would always strike last. Slay the warlord was as easy as charging two tactical squads into his units and have sergeants with powerswords.
The second 'benefit' of that supplement was that all units with less than 10 models basically lost mob rule, those with more than 10 models took more casualties from it and all formations basically forced you to buy more models because they all required you to field more models than you could possibly fit in an army before.
The flash git formation made all those assault 3 guns master crafted - forcing you to roll every single flash git one by one, in order to track how many dice you can re-roll. They also were a unit of 21, unable to fit in a battlewagon.
The dread mob formations was 1500 points minimum and forced you to field a big mek without a unit to hide in and a pain boy that literally did nothing for anything in that army.
The storm boyz formation, that was 46 models minimum that you were forced to deep strike and still scattered d6.
The council of da Waaagh! allowed Ghazghkull Thrakka to generate two additional warlord traits from the supplement table - but four out of six had no effect on him. Not to mention that the formation forced you to sink at least 1200 points in a single unit.
The goff killmob gave every infantry unit the ability to re-roll charge ranges - despite all of them having 'ere we go
Almost every single formation in the supplement forced you to spent a huge amount of money on models no ork player would have in the required quantity:
- Bully boyz is 245€
- Blitz brigade is 260€
- Badrukks Flash gits are 188€
- Green Tide is 247€
- Dread mob is 495€
- Council of da Waaagh! is 143€
- Da Vulcha Skwad is 222€
and so on. Do they think we're idiots? And no, kitbashing is not an excuse. Space marine players didn't need to kitbash their formations either.
Later, after everyone got their Dekurion, GW decided to update the supplement to provide the orks of their own "Orkurion" and even updated the supplement ebooks for free. Great, right?
Except the Orkurion didn't offer any buffs at all, every unit got the two "benefits" described above (if you just wanted to cripple your army, you could have fielded a CAD from the supplement), and the other two rules can be gained by simply fielding one of the formations that can be used as core detachments. So the Orkurion simply did nothing except waste space on my hard drive.
Basically the whole thing was an insult to all ork players. Not because it didn't have any awesome formations like tau or space marines had. Not because the orkurion didn't hold up to what necrons or eldar got. Not even because it was a blatant cash grab.
It was an insult because obviously no one at GW could be bothered to think if rules actually make sense. No one actually bothered to test those rules even once. No one cared about whether a player buying those rules would be having fun with them.
None of these problems have anything to do with talent, enthusiasm or mathematical knowledge. There simply was no effort put into it - anyone can do effort. I sincerely hope for whoever was responsible for WAAAGH! Ghazghkull turning out the way it did that he or she has lost his or her job, because I never want to see anything like it ever again.
I know for sure that I haven't spent a single cent on ork miniatures since that book has been published and will not do so until I see a codex that even remotely resembles the love for the ork faction that has been seen in the codex that made me pick up this game in the first place.
The index was a good start, CA was... nothing to put it nicely - so we're still at a good start.
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.
Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.
Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.
Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.
Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be
4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.
For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.
Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.
Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.
It's both with the new trait.
It's a script that rolls dice for each round of attacks and does that 100,000 times, which simulates a much closer view to reality - especially for random shots and damage weapons.
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".
As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.
I'm confused by these kind of posts. If all you get out of GW games is disappointment, why continue?
6th and 7th (the editions i played) where fun despite GW being incredibly incompetent at game balance. I enjoyed the models, the social experience of playing the game, the game itself (usually have to be considerate to each other about finding a good balance between armies to have a good game) and I really enjoy the universe. Disappointment requires a certain level of caring and I do care about 40k because its...was a fun part of my life and something i enjoyed.
Sadly now its harder to care due to 8th edition being a colossal failure to me because it lost the fun aspects of the game and its now boiled down to a bland mess.
I'm very critical of gw, but i would sincerely hope that the people spending their time and money to go to gwhq for an event would be the ones that actually enjoyed the game (for whatever reason). Things would be very strange if the 'fans' avoided official events and only the 'haters' turned up to them.
As for dakka, well if this is the 'negative' forum, all i can say is you should avoid the internet because your head might explode if you found some of the truly 'toxic' forums. If enough people are saying negative things about gw, maybe it's because there's a problem (where there's smoke, there's fire) and not just because people are 'haters'.
I'm not invested in the game, but i *would* come back in a heart-beat if i thought they were genuine about fixing the quality of the rules. I'll play a crappy game that's cheap or a good game that's expensive - i won't play a crappy game that's expensive.
I first got introduced to the game in 1st edition. All the arguments/reasons i see the 'fans' post about the game or how it will improve i've seen for nearly 30 years. Goodwill will only carry me so far, and in my experience the 'fans' of today are the 'haters' of tomorrow.
sfshilo wrote: If you play armies that have not been released in a codex yet and expect GW to hand you free stuff, that's your fault.
Yeah, how dare people expect that, when a new edition arrives, they can continue playing the same faction successfully instead of spending $1000 on a space marine army.
If you expect rules to be absolutely airtight, that is your problem.
If you go to a restaurant and expect to get food that isn't moldy and full of shards of broken glass, that is your problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the OP, you're kind of missing the point. Nobody is saying that GW's employees are nasty, vicious people who make the game suck because they hate us and love to watch us suffer. The actual criticism is that GW's employees are incompetent. And there are a great many people in this world who are nice and polite and utterly incompetent in their chosen profession. Posting a story about how you met some GW employees and had a friendly conversation doesn't answer any of the criticism that we're making.
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.
Hollow wrote: they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design.
I'm sorry but i must strongly disagree with you on this bit. GW has a track record for YEARS of some horrible codex balance issues and some glaring issues in their core rules. In 7th edition we had armies such as Nids, Dark Eldar, Orks, Blood Angels, and Grey Knights in the same game system as Tau, Craftworld (and Ynnari), Necrons, Space Marines, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves. The former group of codexes do not even come remotely close to the power of the latter group. Also GW doesn't play the same game as the rest of hardcore members of the community, we see it in their battle reports, the way they talk about units and tactics in WD, and in the answers to questions people submit for FAQs. Quality is also all over the place with a fairly recent example of this being the Ad Mech codex that has the same incorrect vehicle damage chart for a vehicle that was also incorrect in the index. Two different publications had the exact same error so that means this slipped past their editor twice or they knew it was a copy paste job so they didn't bother looking it over to make sure their copy + paste was error free.
Now saying that ordering food and getting a meal with glass in it is a bit dramatic but its more like paying top dollar for premium food but instead sometimes getting a microwaved frozen dinner instead. GW is a company that is suppose to be making a premium product and while their models are top notch, their rules writing has been something that has been bad for a long time and shows little to no signs of improving.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
Did you read my post? Competence is irrelevant when they just don't give a feth about delivering quality product.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.
I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.
I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.
Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage. That isn't really what Warhammer is about. As stated by the company who makes it.
The game is roughly balanced. Every FACTION has a chance to compete with every other faction. Yes, there are very specific builds that edge a statistical advantage over other builds, when put into spreadsheets and argued to death on internet forums. However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.
Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage.
There's "this choice is 0.12% less optimal" and "this option is clearly simply inferior and literally nobody ever takes it", or, alternatively "wow this thing is stupidly good and everyone figures it out the first nanosecond they see it and every single army I see has them". Few are really talking about the former there and expecting GW to have perfect harmonious balance that works out to be mathematical perfection, it's the latter two instances that are constant and have plagued this game through every edition, often literally the same units/armies/wargear/etc through multiple editions.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
Uh no. I've followed this game in some capacity or another since 1996. GW has never played the "same game" as the rest of the community. They have their own views and styles of the game, but don't actually enforce them (they purposely leave the game wide open to a variety of styles, which has the consequence of leaving it open to abuse and satisfying nobody because it tries to be everything). It's not just a "small minority" playing the game wrong, it's GW. Just look at any battle report, any tactics article that they put out. The way they build armies, the way they play armies, the way they address rules, none of it seems to gel with virtually anyone else playing. It's not to say their approach is wrong, but it is very fast and loose and not really focused on power, when those things are important to the community (yes, even to non-competitive players). It's a fundamental disconnect when the designers have zero issue picking a random assortment of models and throwing them together with only a barest concern for how effectively they work on the table; they might still have fun doing it (they clearly must), but if that's how they intend the game to be played then it's also on them to make that the only way armies can be built.
It basically suffers from the fact they are unwilling to add heavy restrictions to army building to force building armies the way they build them (whether right or wrong), but also completely pretending that the other way of building armies doesn't really exist. I have yet to see any 40k battle report or tactics article from GW that really showed them playing the game well, building strong lists, etc. I've seen a small handful for AOS in part because Ben Johnson is a serious tournament player (who knows when to tone it down for friendly games, as it should be) so seems to have a hand on the pulse, as it were. But for 40k the current crop of designers don't seem to be interested in serious play at all, and it kinda shows in how they do things.
Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage.
There's "this choice is 0.12% less optimal" and "this option is clearly simply inferior and literally nobody ever takes it", or, alternatively "wow this thing is stupidly good and everyone figures it out the first nanosecond they see it and every single army I see has them". Few are really talking about the former there and expecting GW to have perfect harmonious balance that works out to be mathematical perfection, it's the latter two instances that are constant and have plagued this game through every edition, often literally the same units/armies/wargear/etc through multiple editions.
Right. Everyone understands that "perfect balance" is a myth. But there should not be a huge gulf between factions or even with units in a faction where X is better than Y such that there's basically zero reason (barring fluff/looks, things that don't affect gameplay) to take Y. That is bad design, plain and simple. It should not exist. There should always be a valid gameplay reason to take something, even if it's not the "optimal" choice, and even then there should be ways to improve it. For example, when I played Warmahordes there were (still are) a lot of units that just aren't as good as something else, but it was never a case of "Useless"; there were ways (synergies with other models, for instance) to make them work decently enough that you would not feel ashamed to play them and not be actively hurting yourself by choosing to use them. That's where 40k needs to go; if X is just better than Y in all regards, that's poor design. if X is better than Y but if you take Z and W, Y can be used effectively in a different way, then it becomes better design because there's a valid in-game reason to take Y over X.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design.
And would you like a side of troll with your Poe's Law?
Hollow wrote: I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.
Don't underestimate how much better McD is in the UK and Europe compared to the US
Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage. That isn't really what Warhammer is about. As stated by the company who makes it.
I have provided multiple examples of rules that aren't just bad or statistically worse than other rule, but rather rules that simply don't work. A formation providing re-rolls to orks that have an army-wide rule that does the very same thing? Adding a rule to a unit that makes it take half an hour to shoot? Forcing 46 models to deep strike with scatter? Putting a transport capacity on a model that not a single unit in the codex can use? Giving +1 strength, rage, bs3, and FNP to a model with S12 (capped at 10), rage, FNP and no shooting?
That's not 0.3%. That's not even human error. That's simply not caring whether your rules actually do gak. If you give a damn about your work being good, you don't deliver stuff like that. No one involved in those rules even bothered to put those rules to use even once.
GW was fully willing to print a book full of garbage quality rules - and it's on them to prove that they won't try to pull something like that again.
The game is roughly balanced. Every FACTION has a chance to compete with every other faction. Yes, there are very specific builds that edge a statistical advantage over other builds, when put into spreadsheets and argued to death on internet forums. However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.
The current ork list that has a chance to compete with every other faction is neither fun, nor does it provide cool games. Thematic is good enough for you, I guess?
The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.
If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.
If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.
Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.
Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.
Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.
Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.
Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be
4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.
For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.
Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.
Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.
It's both with the new trait.
It's a script that rolls dice for each round of attacks and does that 100,000 times, which simulates a much closer view to reality - especially for random shots and damage weapons.
Just throwing this into excel really quick using the Randbetween(1,6) function, I get an average chance to wound that is much, much closer to the expected mathematical average for both weapons. Even looking to simulate the new trait on the agonizer by having the final column check for a "6" in the initial hit roll column and return "3" instead of "1" for the unsaved wound, you get extremely close to the expected average. Which makes sense, as this function has no random damage or random shots component where we're fudging by taking the "average" roll on a d6...this is pure multiplicative dice probability. I have to question what you're feeding into your script here to get half the expected mathematical average over 100,000 trials.
Also, simulating the Agonizer vs the Glaive with the new trait is going to be a false comparison, because as discussed the new trait does nothing for the Glaive. You should simulate the Glaive with the trait that actually works with it, the base rulebook +1A on the charge trait to get a real comparison.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
GW competent?-) When anybody with elementary school level math can point out glaring balance issues.
Sorry. Your white knight special ability failed utterly.
Not to defend GW, but I do get the idea that everyone's vaunted "math lets me balance the game" is a bit wrong.
I don't think math is the solution, because the game isn't played in a vacuum. To give an example, let me consider two mathematical units.
Unit 1 is twice as durable, twice as shooty, half as many models, for the same points as unit 2.
Mathematically, they really ought to be the same points; you get half as much stuff that's twice as good.
However, there's actually a benefit to Unit 1 on large boards, and a huge benefit to unit 2 on small boards.
Unit 1 takes up less space on the board, and so more easily can concentrate fire and achieve optimum force concentration. You need a dramatically larger board to take advantage of this over someone who has worse force concentration, but my point stands. Each model is also twice as durable, meaning that when force preservation is important (e.g. scoring an objective), you'll have to be hurt twice as much before losing any effectiveness.
Unit 2, on the other hand, is cheaper per model, allowing (and indeed compelling) it to take up more space on the board. This means that it is a more efficient screen than unit 1, while having severe, possibly crippling issues with force concentration and preservation. This means that Unit 2 should really be considerably cheaper than unit 1: mathematically it may have half-as-good shooting, but since these are models on the board and they take up physical space, Unit 2 may only likely get 1/3rd of itself in range of the opponent, or may be unable to bring its special weapons to bear, or the like. Conceivably, because of these force concentration issues, it may be possible for unit 1 to charge unit 2 from just 1.01" away, while being outside of flamer range (if unit 2 is unwieldy enough).
So, while mathematically they may appear to be balanced, the table top reality (that does not use math) is that they are not, unless unit 2 is dramatically cheaper than unit 1.
This can work with tanks, too: Consider the Baneblade vs. the Leman Russ. If you hold all things but model size and durability to be equal (i.e. if you somehow gave them the same weapon loadout), then the Baneblade should still rightly cost more (being more than twice as durable).
But there are other things to consider: Baneblades are Lords of War, and therefore require dedicated detachments to take, more severely restricting army options in Matched Play (given the 3 detachment limit) than Leman Russes do. Baneblades also lack Objective Secured, while a Russ has access to it but only in a very specific manner. Lastly, the Baneblade is very difficult to maneuver on close boards; with ruin walls being impassible to vehicles, this means that on some boards the Baneblade's movement is heavily restricted and provides obvious avenues of fire that the enemy can exploit to destroy it, while a Leman Russ can make better use of smaller spaces.
So anyways, I guess all I am trying to say is that "just use maths" is not how you balance 40k, though DakkaDakka seems to have some strange obsession with mathhammering.
EDIT: To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:
Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.
Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.
I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.
Hollow wrote: However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.
Nice generalization there to suggest that A) players who play in tournaments are WAAC (which in and of itself is a laughable insult) and that B) those players are either not important enough to make product for or more likely you've made an un-provable generalization about the player base. I am passionate about GW games and products and I am well within my rights to ask for a better product than they sometimes produce.
EDIT:
To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:
Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.
Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.
I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.
I think that is true that Dakka sometimes admits only a limited range of playstyles and that many people are stuck in a very efficient but very narrow mind-set, and that your example is spot-on.
I agree that math is only a part of the game.
Nonetheless, as always, Math is a tool to understand reality and even if it does not solve everything, it solves a lot of things and being weak at it is bad in a game of numbers.
EDIT:
To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:
Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.
Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.
I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.
I think that is true that Dakka sometimes admits only a limited range of playstyles and that many people are stuck in a very efficient but very narrow mind-set, and that your example is spot-on.
I agree that math is only a part of the game.
Nonetheless, as always, Math is a tool to understand reality and even if it does not solve everything, it solves a lot of things and being weak at it is bad in a game of numbers.
Yes; like I said, not an attempt to defend GW. Math is certainly not useless.
But I do not think a "mathematically perfect" game will actually be very balanced - especially given non-mathematical force multipliers like extra movement, the Fly keyword, Objective Secured, and whatnot.
No but math and formulae should be a solid foundation of game design. There should never be random balancing or stat assignment; it should follow a pattern and have an actual formula for determining it.
Not Actually Peregrine wrote: However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.
Nice generalization there to suggest that A) players who play in tournaments are WAAC (which in and of itself is a laughable insult) and that B) those players are either not important enough to make product for or more likely you've made an un-provable generalization about the player base. I am passionate about GW games and products and I am well within my rights to ask for a better product than they sometimes produce.
Got your quotes wrong there. You meant to quote Hollow, not me.
Wayniac wrote: No but math and formulae should be a solid foundation of game design. There should never be random balancing or stat assignment; it should follow a pattern and have an actual formula for determining it.
Yes, though I think people have actually whined GW off of this.
I suspect they started with basic formulae for units in 8th, which gave us 3ppm conscripts.
But the issues with 3ppm conscripts were entirely non-mathematical. It was board space and board control, and buffs from other units whose buffs were not included in the cost of the conscripts (commissars and orders) that truly caused the problem.
All the whining and shrieking about Conscripts probably made GW believe that their new formulaic method was garbage and bupkis, even though I think in a vacuum without buffs and without table-size problems the Conscripts were actually fairly balanced at 3ppm (perhaps 3.4 or so, but we can't have .4 points so GW likely just rounded).
Yes; like I said, not an attempt to defend GW. Math is certainly not useless.
But I do not think a "mathematically perfect" game will actually be very balanced - especially given non-mathematical force multipliers like extra movement, the Fly keyword, Objective Secured, and whatnot.
Because of these factors, not always get the point wrong is natural. Fly as an example should dictate the cost of your options in light of the better ability to deliver, say, an anti-tank weapon in the right spot. That is what a good designer should be able to assess, or at last to re-asses after the first 1-2 blunders. The issue I have is that it's years these people just add rules with bad proofreading and with a lot of faction bias. Plus changes in point and rules that sound completely arbitrary, plus absolute non-intuitive rules - we had editions in which it was better to snipe with artillery than with snipers.
Perfect balance is utopic in such a complex system, even "mirrored" games, as other said, like chess do not have a 100%. But even if the design team is made of nice fellow that is pleasant to listen to, as the OP said, the impression I have is that their job is sloppy, biased, and unprofessional, and there is not even an attempt to do a good job, because many factions/parts of the game are just left to rot. I have seen gaming groups splinter and go to hell because of this, pretty sure this is an economic damage for the company.
Yes; like I said, not an attempt to defend GW. Math is certainly not useless.
But I do not think a "mathematically perfect" game will actually be very balanced - especially given non-mathematical force multipliers like extra movement, the Fly keyword, Objective Secured, and whatnot.
Because of these factors, not always get the point wrong is natural. Fly as an example should dictate the cost of your options in light of the better ability to deliver, say, an anti-tank weapon in the right spot. That is what a good designer should be able to assess, or at last to re-asses after the first 1-2 blunders.
The issue I have is that it's years these people just add rules with bad proofreading and with a lot of faction bias. Plus changes in point and rules that sound completely arbitrary, plus absolute non-intuitive rules - w had editions in which it was better to snipe with artillery than with snipers.
Perfect balance is utopic in such a complex system, even "mirrored" games, as other said, like chess do not have a 100%.
But even if the design team is made of nice fellow that is pleasant to listen to, as the OP said, the impression I have is that their job is sloppy, biased, and unprofessional, and there is not even an attempt to do a good job, because many factions/parts of the game are just left to rot.
I have seen gaming groups splinter and go to hell because of this, pretty sure this is an economic damage for the company.
The problem with things like Fly though is that they're incredibly situational and essentially need to be "eyeballed" rather than mathed. For example, I don't think a Monolith has the same mobility as a Hammerhead, which is slower than a Falcon, which is slower than a Marauder Bomber, which is the fastest, but isn't actually very good, because it's bringing weapons that are less powerful than the Monolith... etc.
I think they need to be less transparent. I loved how Warmahordes started to have design notes when they'd change things, saying why they did, what their thought process and vision for the unit was. GW should do that on the community site IMHO; like after CA drops, have an article from Cruddace and others picking out a few choice options that were changed and stating what their reason was, how they came up with the increase, and what their vision of the unit in the game should be.
However, what I think would end up happening here is it would show more that the designers don't have a clue. If they state that their vision is that X unit has Y role, but in reality in the game it doesn't even come close to Y role, they would be ridiculed (perhaps rightly so) for not seeing how the unit actual interacts. I think, GW being GW, you would see more criticism leveled towards them for sharing their thought process because it would be shown to be intrinsically flawed, even though having them give their thought process would be better than nothing and, if they actually listened to criticism rather than, as many so-called "white knights" do here, dismissing it as "haters", they might improve.
I don't think I've ever really thought pure Math should be used when determining the cost of a unit, but they could certainly stand to do a little more math when it comes to the cost of some weapons, for instance.
Take the choices for generic anti tank weapons for the Dark Eldar, for instance. They all have a very similar number of shots (generally one) usually they're available pretty interchangably on different platforms, and they have generally similar ranges (18-24")
Their points costs, however, make one option of the three pretty much instantly superior, and it's not even close. The same thing happens when you look at a comparison between, for instance, the two pistols Harlequins can access. They can pay one point more to reduce the strength by SIX (9-3) and the damage by D3 (D6-D3) and lose the melta rule and the only benefit they receive is a paltry 6" of range.
It only takes someone a single second of looking at that to realize there is NO situation where a S3 gun is going to be superior to a S9 gun with melta and more damage. Forget math. I'd like for just a little bit of common sense to be applied.
The point of math isn't to get final numbers, it's to get you a starting point for iterative playtesting. You do the math on what your unit is capable of, compare it to similar units, and scale its point cost appropriately. Then you play a bunch of games with it. If it seems too effective you increase the points a bit. If it doesn't seem to be justifying the investment you drop the points a bit. Then you play more games and see how the changes worked. And you repeat the cycle until you don't have a strong case for a point change in either direction. It may not be 100% provably mathematically balanced, but you can be confident that it's balanced well enough for real-world purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: It only takes someone a single second of looking at that to realize there is NO situation where a S3 gun is going to be superior to a S9 gun with melta and more damage. Forget math. I'd like for just a little bit of common sense to be applied.
Unfortunately you haven't applied common sense yourself. Obvously a gun with STR 9 and melta is going to be superior to STR 3 with no melta, in terms of the to-wound roll and wounds inflicted, but you just handwaved away the 6" range advantage. You may not personally value that range, but there are clearly cases where having a STR 3 shot is better than having no shot at all because you are out of range. Your statement that there is "NO situation" is clearly false.
Peregrine wrote: The point of math isn't to get final numbers, it's to get you a starting point for iterative playtesting. You do the math on what your unit is capable of, compare it to similar units, and scale its point cost appropriately. Then you play a bunch of games with it. If it seems too effective you increase the points a bit. If it doesn't seem to be justifying the investment you drop the points a bit. Then you play more games and see how the changes worked. And you repeat the cycle until you don't have a strong case for a point change in either direction. It may not be 100% provably mathematically balanced, but you can be confident that it's balanced well enough for real-world purposes.
Yes, this game development style I agree with, and I think the part GW is missing is the "play a lot of games" part. They're so sneaky and secretive that they simply don't have enough people playing the books for a long enough time for inconsistencies/inaccuracies to crop up.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.
But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
Hollow wrote: The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.
And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.
But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
They wrote in tumbrl and personal blogs about how a 100% vegan diet is totally healthy for you.
A units points should be derived from a formula which places a particular emphasis on certain stats.
Points should be the canonical use case of mathammer in 40k.
However the problem here is that they seem to have multiple balance teams, to go with the rules writers. There is no other explanation of how you end up with Index Guard versus Index Tyranids/Necrons etc.
Crimson Devil wrote: But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.
I agree there is a disconnect between GW and the interwebs and customers in general, but its from there end not ours, there are a lot of us who have been fans for a long time and are quite sick of there crap, and rightly so, this "new" GW is not new at all its the same tired old beast, just with an amazing marketing department, the heralded 8th as an end to deathstars, better balance and a simpler game, they lied or didnt know there own product well enough, 8th is a side shift and nothing more.
The Disconnect comes in the way they play the game and the way we do, we playtest the crap out of this game, they barely test anything at all, if they actually do, we tell them what we want, they tell us what they think we want.
Its not all negative though, this monolithic company really does seem to have the will to change and move on from the bad old days, they just are not there yet.
Marmatag,
If you tried to build a formula that took in every possible rule and stat and scenario, you're either going to have some very strange results, or you're going to make curing cancer look trivial.
Sure, it seems like "He has +1S, so thats +2ppm" or somesuch would work. But then why does he care about S? If you gave a Maelific Lord +1S, is that worth the same amount as giving a Berzerker +1S? So now, for each stat, you need to consider, is it a unit that wants to be in CC?
Assuming you have +1S mathed out so its +3ppm on a CC unit and +1ppm on a non-CC unit, great. Now, why does that short-ranged super-fast non-CC unit pay 1ppm for +1S, whereas some other paper-thin backfielder pay the same?
So now, for the PPM for a +1S, we now need to factor in movement, weapon range, and durability.
For any given potentially-relevant feature (Stat/rule/gear/etc), to point it correctly, you need to consider every other potentially-relevant feature (stat/rule/gear/etc).
Lets pretend there are only 10 features total, in the whole game. So there are 9 additional factors plus the base cost in the formula for each of those features. So 10 formulas with 10 factors each. That's 100 terms. And an incredibly simple ruleset (only 10 features).
The math starts getting very, very complex even with small numbers. And then you need to quantisize the benefit and determent of each and every possible combination of everything. And not just the explicit rules; you need to factor in total points, overhead skew, probable table layouts, and more.
It's simply not possible to build those formulas in a reasonable fashion. Math like that actually is hard.
Peregrine wrote: The point of math isn't to get final numbers, it's to get you a starting point for iterative playtesting. You do the math on what your unit is capable of, compare it to similar units, and scale its point cost appropriately. Then you play a bunch of games with it. If it seems too effective you increase the points a bit. If it doesn't seem to be justifying the investment you drop the points a bit. Then you play more games and see how the changes worked. And you repeat the cycle until you don't have a strong case for a point change in either direction. It may not be 100% provably mathematically balanced, but you can be confident that it's balanced well enough for real-world purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: It only takes someone a single second of looking at that to realize there is NO situation where a S3 gun is going to be superior to a S9 gun with melta and more damage. Forget math. I'd like for just a little bit of common sense to be applied.
Unfortunately you haven't applied common sense yourself. Obvously a gun with STR 9 and melta is going to be superior to STR 3 with no melta, in terms of the to-wound roll and wounds inflicted, but you just handwaved away the 6" range advantage. You may not personally value that range, but there are clearly cases where having a STR 3 shot is better than having no shot at all because you are out of range. Your statement that there is "NO situation" is clearly false.
I handwave it away because it's so obviously not worth considering. A harlequin is a platform with 8" movement, access to a double-move psychic power and a very solid transport (which lets them move 11" on the disembark) who has most of their points value wrapped up in anti-elite melee power.
They have access to three pistols
1) Shuriken. 0 points. S4, Ap-, 12" range, rend on a 6 to AP-3. Here's what you use if you want a basic pistol to kill the occasional guardsman or something, and if you're hunting elites you can get a rend or two. Hey, it's free.
2) Neuro. 10 points. S3, Ap-4, 12" range, D3 damage, only 1 damage if shot at a vehicle.
3) fusion. 9 points. S8, AP-4, 6" range, D6 damage with melta.
The situation where my Harlequin is between 7" and 12" away from a target that has a good enough save to warrant the Neuro, but a low enough toughness that S4-S3 doesn't hurt me, and is nasty enough in melee that I don't just want to Advance to make my charge easier so I can butcher them with my 4 S5 AP-2 melee attacks and it isn't a vehicle because if it was the 0 point shuriken pistol would be better....that is so freaking slim that I can honestly say I will NEVER want to take door number two, unless I'm tailoring my list against an opponent who's playing only Eldar Howling Banshees or something.
So there you go. You caught me, I summarized a blatant rules issue. Cuff me officer. it's very clear that GW in their infinite wisdom realized that the situation of an opponent using an all-banshee or Emperor's Children Terminator army would arise and put that 10 point cost in there to make sure it was balanced.
Just like the Harlequins' extremely balanced melee weapon options
Part of the problem (addressing the OP, not all the dark eldar chitchat) is that people view Games Workshop as this all-conquering global business with hundreds of staff who should have the time and resources to get this stuff right, goddamit. Why are the Aeldari design team not talking to the Drukhari design team?
In reality there is only one team of <10 people doing all the rules. Yes, that means they should have a better grasp of them, but there's a lot of interlocking pieces and predicting these interactions is easy in hindsight but hard with foresight.
I think the challenge we have partly comes from their tradition of not playtesting for competitive/matched environments... it sounds to me from the conversations on Twitch with the Pete Foley and Robin Cruddace like their current playtesting is a little too "directed"
They were saying everyone thinks playtesting is fun but it's a job - you need to play a bunch of games every weekend and it's not always the armies you like. Sometimes you get allocated Blood Angels and need to play games with them and complete the lengthy feedback forms.
My fear is that they also need to develop playtesters who are able to be a bit moree freeform.
Anyway, I am no expert in game design but I liken it to incredibly smart software developers handing their software over to the public who immediately find glaring issues in it and cry "how can you not have realised I was going to do that weird thing that crashes the app??? It's literally the first thing I did!!!"
Anyway, rambling but these things are hard, they are trying, and it's just a game. Cool your freakin' jets.
GW just needs to implement a simple solution for balancing issues: give the GW stores preliminary rules that are being considered and have willing participants test them out. Have those participants send feedback through the store to GW, both players on either end of the changes. Then GW can change as necessary internally before releasing as an official change/rule.
Crimson Devil wrote: But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.
GW is the McDonalds of gaming. It's never going to be what you want it to be.
Hollow wrote: However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.
Nice generalization there to suggest that A) players who play in tournaments are WAAC (which in and of itself is a laughable insult) and that B) those players are either not important enough to make product for or more likely you've made an un-provable generalization about the player base. I am passionate about GW games and products and I am well within my rights to ask for a better product than they sometimes produce.
Erm... I think you need to re-read what I said. "in tournament ANDWAAC playstyles". I never suggested that all tournament players are WAAC, also, WAAC isn't an insult.
Silentz wrote: Part of the problem (addressing the OP, not all the dark eldar chitchat) is that people view Games Workshop as this all-conquering global business with hundreds of staff who should have the time and resources to get this stuff right, goddamit. Why are the Aeldari design team not talking to the Drukhari design team?
In reality there is only one team of <10 people doing all the rules. Yes, that means they should have a better grasp of them, but there's a lot of interlocking pieces and predicting these interactions is easy in hindsight but hard with foresight.
I think the challenge we have partly comes from their tradition of not playtesting for competitive/matched environments... it sounds to me from the conversations on Twitch with the Pete Foley and Robin Cruddace like their current playtesting is a little too "directed"
They were saying everyone thinks playtesting is fun but it's a job - you need to play a bunch of games every weekend and it's not always the armies you like. Sometimes you get allocated Blood Angels and need to play games with them and complete the lengthy feedback forms.
My fear is that they also need to develop playtesters who are able to be a bit moree freeform.
Anyway, I am no expert in game design but I liken it to incredibly smart software developers handing their software over to the public who immediately find glaring issues in it and cry "how can you not have realised I was going to do that weird thing that crashes the app??? It's literally the first thing I did!!!"
Anyway, rambling but these things are hard, they are trying, and it's just a game. Cool your freakin' jets.
I know that they're giving the rules to a small handful of people. That's what makes it more mind-boggling to me that nobody sits down and does a basic little bit of sanity check math. I'm not trying to exclusively focus on eldar stuff, it's just what I know offhand, but there are plenty of other examples (a basic Baal Predator being functionally identical to a Double Flamer Razorback but costing more, Genestealer Cult sergeants having power mauls with the exact same stats Guard sergeants pay 4pts for but costing 13pts, stuff that you'd think if you had a small team doing this you'd catch. If they had a Genestealer Cult department located in a different section of the building from the Guard department I'd be more inclined to understand, but one would presume with a 10 man rules design team someone comes in and they say "ok Old Chappy, your job today is to draft up the Genestealer Cult rules, and then we'll all sit down and look at them, toodle pip wot wot" in the sort of cartoony britishman voice one would presume that people who live on that weird floating rock that doesn't even have a mexico to staple it in place would talk like.
From what I've read, hearsay right now, the playtesters were given very specific situations to test, not actually able to test use cases to determine if things were good or not.
Isengard wrote: I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.
I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.
I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.
I have found that if you use the Ignore function on repeat negative posters dakka becomes a lot less negative after only ignoring about 10 people. !
Isengard wrote: I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.
I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.
I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.
I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.
I have found that if you use the Ignore function on repeat negative posters dakka becomes a lot less negative after only ignoring about 10 people. !
I love to discuss and arguee with posters that have different viewpoints than mine. They make reasonable arguments and they help me see things in a different perspective.
But then theres some posters that just spurt nonsense, write BS, ignore everything other people said to them, and just repeat month after month after month the same things in every damm thread breaking rule 2# all the time.
People can chose to ignore the second group and discuss with the first one, without making their vision of this forum a echo chamber.
Crimson Devil wrote: But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.
GW is the McDonalds of gaming. It's never going to be what you want it to be.
If they were their miniatures would be a lot less expensive. And I'm pretty sure the crew at GW would be offended to hear you say that. :p
Galas wrote: I love to discuss and arguee with posters that have different viewpoints than mine. They make reasonable arguments and they help me see things in a different perspective.
But then theres some posters that just spurt nonsense, write BS, ignore everything other people said to them, and just repeat month after month after month the same things in every damm thread breaking rule 2# all the time.
People can chose to ignore the second group and discuss with the first one, without making their vision of this forum a echo chamber.
I only have 2 people on the ignore list because they were an obvious baiter and the other was a sock puppet account that never got banned for some reason. As far as I can tell both have stopped posting
As for negative posts... yea there are many. But they all make sense in context. Because most of them are the result of REALLY poor balancing. So when a game is poorly balanced nearly 100% of the time it makes sense that there is a large portion of complaining. Sometimes that rolls over into threads... so just report them as off topic.
As I recall during the release of either 3rd ed 40k or 6th ed WHFB (I think it was WHFB). They stated that they used to use a formula to calculate points. But they stopped using it because it wasn't working properly and estimating and then adjusting worked better.
I am not going to search through my White Dwarfs to find it though.
Tygre wrote: As I recall during the release of either 3rd ed 40k or 6th ed WHFB (I think it was WHFB). They stated that they used to use a formula to calculate points. But they stopped using it because it wasn't working properly and estimating and then adjusting worked better.
I am not going to search through my White Dwarfs to find it though.
Fair enough, there comes a point where you know something and you'd rather have people call you out on it than do the tedious research needed to confirm it to people that aren't interested even if you can prove it in triplicate. Fully appreciate that. But they stopped trying to use a formula because it wasn't working out for them? How's that going? Like at this point, i would improve my estimation of their game creation abilities if they were throwing darts at a dart board to determine effectiveness.
Crimson Devil wrote: But the people who hate McDonalds don't generally hang out in the parking lot eating a Big Mac, yelling at people who do like eating there.
Probably because they understand that McDonalds, as a business concept, is inherently garbage and barely worthy of the term "food", while GW could potentially improve if they bothered to care. Most of us who criticize GW do so because we love some part of the hobby and want it to be better.
GW is the McDonalds of gaming. It's never going to be what you want it to be.
If they were their miniatures would be a lot less expensive. And I'm pretty sure the crew at GW would be offended to hear you say that. :p
Warhammer 40k is the Beats by Dre of the wargaming world.
