The 40k March FAQ is delayed. And is now named spring FAQ so that means it could very well be onanther month befor it comes out. I am not sure this is good thing. They probably want to include Flyrants other stuff that over performed at Adepticon

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater

We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...

This is explicitly a good thing, as when they do release the FAQ it will last until november or december and gives them feedback from one of the biggest WAAC events in NA.
It sucks to wait, but this was the right call. No reason to suffer broken builds for another 6 months.

While this is a good thing – taking into account the lists used at Adepticon, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed and frustrated.

I’ve been holding off updating/expanding my army along with holding off potentially starting a new army until after this FAQ drops, and I guess I’ll just keep waiting. I don’t have access to unlimited funds, so I can’t just go out and buy what I want, when there is a high possibility of it becoming an illegal list in the near future. I’m far too practical to just throw money away like that

I just hope it gets sorted this week, as it effectively puts every event in the next 2 months in limbo as everyone is sat around waiting.

I'm not expecting anything earth shaking, so I really don't care. I know how the Chaos forces play and don't expect any major changes, just rules clarifications.

I'd rather they take their time and get it right then rush something out that is incomplete or breaks the game.

"So much stuff came up at Adepticon that we cannot ignore it."

See what playtesting can do!!!

I know the wording means it’s a yes, but given it’s the very definition of a Frequently Asked Question, I really, really hope the Chainsword/Misercordia question is put to bed.

Hive Tyrant Spam nerf incoming.

 nordsturmking wrote:
The 40k March FAQ is delayed. And is now named spring FAQ so that means it could very well be onanther month befor it comes out. I am not sure this is good thing. They probably want to include Flyrants other stuff that over performed at Adepticon

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1998760827111213/?type=3&theater

We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...

And the award for "Biggest Lie of the past three millenia goes to..."

"We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever" which is why you spent exactly 3 femtoseconds proofreading and playtesting, requiring us to carry Rulebook, Chapter Approved and 3 forests worth of printed FAQs just to have a casual game.

Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

I know how they can fix it: More auras that cause mortal wounds on a 6.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

So I again call for gamesworkshop to make a tournament edition , full of 'balance' and rules written like a legal document and keep the current edition ticking along for the rest of us. Because these tournament armies don't represent the 40k universe at all. You might as well play any game with generic coloured pieces to represent the models. Maybe in a plain checkered board. But then people would still complain about first turn advantage.

Did Adepticon play with the previewed Beta Rules? I assumed the fine tuning around these and their official implementation in some variation (or not) would be at the heart of the FAQ.

Andykp wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

So I again call for gamesworkshop to make a tournament edition , full of 'balance' and rules written like a legal document and keep the current edition ticking along for the rest of us. Because these tournament armies don't represent the 40k universe at all. You might as well play any game with generic coloured pieces to represent the models. Maybe in a plain checkered board. But then people would still complain about first turn advantage.

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

I can't wait for the FAQ to be released. The salt will be immense.

Also most people play games by bunging together models that look cool. Tournament players are the minority so most people don't notice these problems.

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

Name one game that is truly balanced.

Andykp wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games. One that works really well for peop,e who want to play games that represent the universe it's set in and another that is a mess played by people who are competative and don't care about the setting or background of what they are doing.

Yeah, sums up my feelings as well. When I look at tournament lists I usually wonder why those people play the game or what's the fun in those lists. But that's my usual reaction to many dakka posts, too.

So.. are you saying that, if GW made a “tournament” version of the game that was completely balanced, you’d still prefer to play the previous unbalanced version of the game????

If the game is balanced across the board, and everything was at the point where an FAQ wasn’t needed for 25% of each army’s special interactions, then there wouldn’t be any problems.

The moment the game is balanced, and is balanced around the GW missions, is the moment we will see things start to move forward. Just because something is unbalanced in ITC or ETC doesn’t always mean it is unbalanced in GW chapter approved missions, but there is still the possibility of it being so. Also, just because a unit hasn’t won an event, doesn’t mean it isn’t unbalanced overall – as we all know, there are other factors involved in winning an event, besides how OP a unit is.

Once the game is balanced around the ruleset, you’ll see or formats start to disappear imo. For example, ITC Champions missions only exist because they are trying to create a balanced format in an unbalanced game. Noone wants to play a competitive game that depends on how many units you have in your army, or whether you can infiltrate onto the relic and run away first turn. ETC missions are just a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom – modified slightly in an attempt at balancing out a few issues.

But – until GW gets their ruleset into line, they will of course have to take things like ITC into account, as that is one of the most public faces of the game. Only time will tell what will happen.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

GW's "tournament edition" would be just same with slightly different meta. They aren't capable of doing one that would be truly balanced. That or they don't want to. If they could and wanted they could do it NOW and you know what? It wouldn't hurt casual players as balance helps both and indeed it's CASUAL players who need balance more than hardcore tournament players who have no issues with simply getting what's most broken combination ATM.

Maybe, but it's always tournament players that get their panties in a twist when things get nerfed to be truly balanced with all other armies out there.

That's the crux, no? If GW were to nerf Plagueburst Crawlers or Pox Walkers or something, the whole tournament scene would whine about how they weren't broken because they didn't win tournament X or Y.

But that's not balanced. To be balanced, they must to be balanced against ALL 40K armies, including little Timmy's 2x Dark Imperium Box Primaris or Neckberd Fred's 2nd Edition footslogging all-metal Aspect Warriors with an Avatar army or Special Steve's all-Kroot army. "Balacing" stuff only against the, say, top Million or 10 Million armies you see in tournaments isn't balance at all.

Ahahaha. GW hasn't nerfed anything to be truly balanced. Gw doesn't even CARE about balance. They just shuffle things around from one broken thing to another. GW isn't even trying to balance the game.

If armies on next tournament have different models than last time mission accomplished for GW.

Name one game that is truly balanced.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.

Don't misrepresent what people are saying Grotsnik. That's beneath you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.

Somewhat of a false equivalency. People aren't angry about GW doing FAQs, they are angry that so many are needed in the first place, when hiring a SINGLE Proofreader/technical writer would have fixed 90% of the issues.

I have a hard time believing GW didn't somehow purposefully want HQ spam. They put a detachment specifically into the game that allows massive HQ spam. In fact, all the detachments besides the standard one are designed to spam.

8th edition *is* about spamming, it's just maybe people are realizing that is a bad idea.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I like how you interpret people not being too fussed about absolute perfect balance as an attack on tournament players.

I like how you assumed I wanted 'perfect balance'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I used to think that, but the recent threads here demanding bannig of stuff like allies or index options in the name of balance have changed my mind. Frankly, I rather have a less balanced game with more options than a more balanced game with less options. Of course any balancing efforts which do not result de jure or de facto removal of options are welcome.

In theory, there are two types of army.

Type A is the pure fluff army that looks exactly like the game's lore states most armies in the setting are. The SM Battle Company. The Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and retinue plus stormtroopers and a squad of Deathwatch. The Craftworld Eldar army that's primarily Guardians.

Type B is the pure competitive/tournament army where fluff and model-coolness are irrelevant. Twinky special rule interactions and the absolute best bang for your points-buck.

In an ideal game system, A and B are the same. The armies that best fit the fluff also work best in the game. The factions in the game's setting are trying their hardest to win all their battles, so the armies they have decided are the best should also be the best in the game.

But the ideal game system doesn't exist.

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

 Sasori wrote:
Hive Tyrant Spam nerf incoming.

FAQs are normally there for clarification purposes.
They should not be abused to change rules and pt costs.

 Crimson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

I used to think that, but the recent threads here demanding bannig of stuff like allies or index options in the name of balance have changed my mind. Frankly, I rather have a less balanced game with more options than a more balanced game with less options. Of course any balancing efforts which do not result de jure or de facto removal of options are welcome.

There is a balance in the middle.

Having options is great. I like options. But, they shouldn't be of mind boggling complexity. But nor should they be sacrificed purely for sake of straight forward game play.

2nd Ed was the former. So many odd little rules (losing one point of your AP roll for every 12" of range to the target is a favourite anecdote of mine), and the wargear cards created ridiculous characters, especially if combined with pokey Psychic boosting.

3rd Ed? Well, the game was stripped right back, and for my money became somewhat anaemic, and lacking in spectacle.

3rd Ed was a far more playable game, and no mistake. But for me, 2nd Ed, despite its horrendous flaws, was more fun.

I can't and won't comment on modern 40k in that way, as due to work I've barely played since 6th Ed, so my point of reference just isn't there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
GW don't do FAQs? Complaining.

GW do FAQs? Complaining.

Deep breaths gents, deep breaths.

Somewhat of a false equivalency. People aren't angry about GW doing FAQs, they are angry that so many are needed in the first place, when hiring a SINGLE Proofreader/technical writer would have fixed 90% of the issues.

Do you not understand how the pace of codexes creates problems before they can tackle them? And, no, they can't playtest every spam.

If this was a year and a half from now and all the books were out you'd have a better point.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

There is a balance in the middle.

Having options is great. I like options. But, they shouldn't be of mind boggling complexity. But nor should they be sacrificed purely for sake of straight forward game play.

2nd Ed was the former. So many odd little rules (losing one point of your AP roll for every 12" of range to the target is a favourite anecdote of mine), and the wargear cards created ridiculous characters, especially if combined with pokey Psychic boosting.

3rd Ed? Well, the game was stripped right back, and for my money became somewhat anaemic, and lacking in spectacle.

3rd Ed was a far more playable game, and no mistake. But for me, 2nd Ed, despite its horrendous flaws, was more fun.

I can't and won't comment on modern 40k in that way, as due to work I've barely played since 6th Ed, so my point of reference just isn't there.

I like mind boggling complexity when it's fluffy, and don't really care about extremes of balance if it contradicts it.

I still quite like the current approach, the only issue is that GW won't sell me a set of digital rulebooks that are up to date and don't require traipsing back and forth to FAQs. I'd happily pay a sub for it even.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Do you not understand how the pace of codexes creates problems before they can tackle them?

That's not an excuse for poor proofreading and technical writing.

 Duskweaver wrote:


A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced, because after all those formation detachments created pretty fluffy armies. I'd disagree though.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:


A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced, because after all those formation detachments created pretty fluffy armies. I'd disagree though.

Balanced, no? But they attempted to emulate the background (along with being an aggressive sales pitch).

A lot of stuff in 8th Edition does as well.

Chapter Tactics (Craftworld traits, etc..) are anathema to balance. Two different, advantageous traits that are applied "for free" cannot perfectly equally apply to 50+ units and come out perfectly matched in all conceivable combinations. One's inevitably going to be superior, unless "add-on" rules are also priced in points (and different point values for different game sizes and for different units depending on how much or how little they benefit a given unit or combination of units).

For a tournament edition, something more akin to early 3rd or the 4th Edition Chaos book, where Chapters, Legions, Craftworlds are "only different paint jobs" would likely be inevitable. But people enjoy the nod to background in the rules, actually making one sub-faction stealthier and the other faster and the third one more resilient, or whatever.

The downside is, as these cannot be balanced (as long as they are free), that the 0.01% of the player base that is the tournament scene will abuse these traits in list building, but that's a small price to pay for giving the other 99.99% of the player base that more immersive gameplay experience.

 Duskweaver wrote:

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

I agree 100%

I can't speak to nitty-gritty balance issues, but how about GW just gets rid of HQ spam detachments, or spam detachments in general? Sure, someone will inevitably complain about not being able to field an army made up entirely of tanks, Hive Tyrants, etc, But if the game is supposed to be representative of "war in the 41st millennium", having the ability to spam the types of armies we're seeing doesn't seem very fitting or make much tactical sense. No general would field such armies and an actual invading 'nid force wouldn't look like the Tyranid army that won Adepticon.

I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

 gorgon wrote:
I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

Because GW is fully embracing and supporting the tournament scene? Or have you missed that they have been streaming every round from every major tournament lately? Proper fixes at the top level of game play trickles down to ALL levels as you tend to notice major balance problems when you're playing competitively.

I for one am happy about this, taking feedback for FAQS for matched play at tourneys is a bloody good thing and if such a massive issue was shown at Adepticon, then damn right they should delay the FAQ to take that into account!

Always happy to bash GW for being stupid, but also happy to praise them for doing the right thing.

Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

zamerion wrote:
Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

What about the weakest armies in the game? i hope they don't limit themselves only into balancing only the armies that are under the spotlight.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:Well, then you are basically saying 7th was well balanced

Umm... no? I honestly have no idea how you got that from anything I said. What I'm talking about is really orthogonal to the issue of 'balance'.

Balance is about how big a variance there is between the 'good' and 'bad' choices. I'm more concerned with making the 'good' choices match the lore (or, rather, to ensure that fluffy choices are generally also 'good' ones). I agree that 7th edition had awful balance, but that would have been the case even if the rules hadn't tried (incompetently) to encourage fluffy armies.

Whazgog Da Despot wrote:how about GW just gets rid of HQ spam detachments, or spam detachments in general?

I think this is the wrong approach. I don't want to ban non-fluffy choices. I want to make sure that the fluffy choice is generally superior, so that people won't want to field non-fluffy armies.

Rather than banning the five-Flyrant detachment, I'd rather change the Flyrant to make taking five of them not be worth it.

Scaling points costs might be a solution. E.g. your first unit of a particular type costs X points per model, but your second unit of that same type costs X+y points per model. So spamming multiples of the same thing gets expensive quickly. Obviously, your basic core units (like SM Tactical Squads) would be exempt, because they're supposed to be taken in multiples.

But I've not thought this through at all, so there's probably some massive flaw I've not realised.

 Kirasu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I'm not sure why some of these issues in tournament play are in GW's court to fix, when it's the tournament organizers who embrace a fairly unlimited format without restrictions on detachment types.

It would be an incredibly easy thing for TOs to reduce the detachment limit and/or restrict players to Patrol/Battalion/Brigade detachments or whatever. They don't, so apparently they don't see any issues. So why should we?

Because GW is fully embracing and supporting the tournament scene? Or have you missed that they have been streaming every round from every major tournament lately? Proper fixes at the top level of game play trickles down to ALL levels as you tend to notice major balance problems when you're playing competitively.

You're not making any sense to me here. GW has structured 8th edition 40K to support *three* formats for play. HQ spam and similar constructions aren't an issue at the open and narrative play levels since those formats are self-policed and not focused on balanced gameplay.

Issues with army construction are only possible in a matched play format, and it's highly questionable whether they're bonafide issues there. As I stated, the TOs of the largest tournaments EASILY could have addressed it, but they've chosen not to. Attendance also seems to be doing just fine at these events. And we've seen that the metas at different events lend themselves to certain armies and constructions and not others.

So if the point being advanced here is that GW needs to step in because (apparently) some non-competitive players don't like the look of competitive armies at certain events...yeah, that doesn't make even a little bit of sense to me. I'm all for addressing unclear rules and fixing abuseable rules loopholes. Those fixes do help everyone. But HQ spam isn't either of those two things. The tools to address that are right there in the rulebook already.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

zamerion wrote:
Sorry if this was posted, from ATT
"fwiw poxwalkers are changing to cost reinforcement points and tide of traitors is only going to reinforce 10 models to the unit. That coupled with 0-1 flyrant limit ala commanders and likely changes to reapers in the March faq should bring down some of the strongest armies in the game. "

What about the weakest armies in the game? i hope they don't limit themselves only into balancing only the armies that are under the spotlight.

Well, if they nerf the more powerfull armies by default the weaker ones will become more competitive. But yeah, I think, for now, GW has done a good job in 8th with nearly all Codex Armies. Barring Grey Knights, and not-Guilliman Space Marines, all armies with a Codex are playable and in a, relatively, nice place, even if many can't compete with the most busted lists made of 2-3 units of 3-4 Codexes out there.
We can see the balance is much better than past editions because theres not two tournaments with the same armies at the high tables. just changing missions, secondary objetives, etc... changes completely what armies are at the top. Thats a good thing. (And its not like the top tables of big tournaments are the only thing one should look at to decide if the game is properly balanced)

I don't see why GW has to monitor the meta/tournament scene......do it yourselves. Don't want Command spam, disallow the Command detachment, simple. I'd rather GW keep an open environment and let tourny organizers determine what type of event they want to run. Change the points, change the detachments, etc. Don't be stale.

I'm glad they are considering tournament results when thinking about their game and potential FAQ issues. It's skewed data, but a large amount of it under relatively controlled circumstances relative to how the game is played generally. I think tournament performance can help them see the problem spots for units and armies that isn't really possible without large amounts of people purposefully trying to min/max to extremes.

As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

It may very well could have been the most playtested edition, but you cant completely eliminate human error and catch every issue now matter how much its tested.

I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

Because 8th was advertised as "The most playtested edition. EVAR!" so GW are simply being hoisted by their own petards.

It may very well could have been the most playtested edition, but you cant completely eliminate human error and catch every issue now matter how much its tested.

No you can't, but when you go from virtually zero playtesting to making it one of the cornerstones of marketing for your new edition then you are going to be held in a higher regard and should expect the criticism that should come with it.

PP also caught a huge amount of flak from their playerbase from doing a similar thing from Mk2 to Mk3 by touting "3 years of playtesting", which many players threw straight back in their faces after (in their opinions) this was not the case. PP took this on the chin and made the Community Integrated Development (CID) system to let the players be the beta testers prior to release.

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree

-

Kdash wrote:
So.. are you saying that, if GW made a “tournament” version of the game that was completely balanced, you’d still prefer to play the previous unbalanced version of the game????

If the game is balanced across the board, and everything was at the point where an FAQ wasn’t needed for 25% of each army’s special interactions, then there wouldn’t be any problems.

The moment the game is balanced, and is balanced around the GW missions, is the moment we will see things start to move forward. Just because something is unbalanced in ITC or ETC doesn’t always mean it is unbalanced in GW chapter approved missions, but there is still the possibility of it being so. Also, just because a unit hasn’t won an event, doesn’t mean it isn’t unbalanced overall – as we all know, there are other factors involved in winning an event, besides how OP a unit is.

Once the game is balanced around the ruleset, you’ll see or formats start to disappear imo. For example, ITC Champions missions only exist because they are trying to create a balanced format in an unbalanced game. Noone wants to play a competitive game that depends on how many units you have in your army, or whether you can infiltrate onto the relic and run away first turn. ETC missions are just a mix of Eternal War and Maelstrom – modified slightly in an attempt at balancing out a few issues.

But – until GW gets their ruleset into line, they will of course have to take things like ITC into account, as that is one of the most public faces of the game. Only time will tell what will happen.

When I play none of the issues come up so the game is balanced enough for me already. My mates don't take and army of spores and tyrants or nothing but dark reapers so. Most of the rules queries on here don't come up because we wouldn't dare try and twist wording to ludicrous levels. Played for fun the game works fine and balance isn't an issue. These issues around balance only come in when people play to win regardless of setting or fluff. At which point it stops being 40k. Also to the original post copy and pasting internet power lists isn't imagination, my armies all have huge back stories and make sense. That takes imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

Buy and paint things because that are cool and fun and fit your armies style. Even if you never play them! Things YOU like. I glance a FAQs but pay more attention to errata. FAQs tend not to change how we play.

Andy is describing the "catch" in all of this.

One game for two audiences. When people ask me how 8th is, I say "good fun, with the usual caveats". The caveats are that it sucks as a competitive/tournament minded game. The game is as broken as it's ever been. So to me, "competitive" 40K is a sham. However, as a basis for creating a fun game between friends, it's well above some previous editions.

If you play 40K hyper competitive, or your enjoy beat-face tournaments, you really have little room to complain, as you've elected to play the game in that fashion. You don't "have" to play it that way, and honestly GW never posited that it was supposed to be played that way. So when you choose to play a competitive game of 40K without reigning in the nonsense with your own common sense...you're kinda asking for trouble.

The game is always in the hands of the players. We're not beholden to anything unless we choose to be (i.e. tournaments, and even GW's rules etc.). 40K is not, and has never been, a properly balanced game suitable to serious competitive play. I don't think GW will change this in the future, regardless of the people who want it to.

Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Or, they could simple use the past few months worth of 250-500+ player events that last 8 games and save thousands of billable man hours and have it done in no time.

This is a good thing, I would rather they use community play testing then try to tackle the impossible behind closed doors by themselves. Or would folks rather they take 10+ years to put out a balanced FAQ again/errata again?

This is a very good sign, I am fine with rules being less then perfect so long as they are willing to correct them. Expecting them to get it right the first time is a mistake. Chess isn't even balanced and is FAR less organic then 40k with a fraction of the moving parts.

 Duskweaver wrote:
In theory, there are two types of army.

Type A is the pure fluff army that looks exactly like the game's lore states most armies in the setting are. The SM Battle Company. The Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and retinue plus stormtroopers and a squad of Deathwatch. The Craftworld Eldar army that's primarily Guardians.

Type B is the pure competitive/tournament army where fluff and model-coolness are irrelevant. Twinky special rule interactions and the absolute best bang for your points-buck.

In an ideal game system, A and B are the same. The armies that best fit the fluff also work best in the game. The factions in the game's setting are trying their hardest to win all their battles, so the armies they have decided are the best should also be the best in the game.

But the ideal game system doesn't exist.

A well-designed game system should, however, have a large overlap between A and B. A SM Battle Company should be a reasonably competitive army, because Roboute Guilliman is presumably not a moron. Most competitive tournament armies should look sort of vaguely like how armies work in the lore. Specific unit interactions should be similar in the game to how they are in the fluff. If the lore says Inquisitors usually field stormtroopers as the backbone of their personal armies, then Inquisitors and stormtroopers should combine well in the game.

But what we have now is not that, is it? There is almost zero overlap between A and B. And that's a fundamental problem with the game.

This.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Chapter Tactics (Craftworld traits, etc..) are anathema to balance. Two different, advantageous traits that are applied "for free" cannot perfectly equally apply to 50+ units and come out perfectly matched in all conceivable combinations. One's inevitably going to be superior, unless "add-on" rules are also priced in points (and different point values for different game sizes and for different units depending on how much or how little they benefit a given unit or combination of units).

Wrong. What traits should do is to encourage fluffy armies by boosting particular playstyle of faction you're interested in. Say, White Scar hit and run, BT assaults, Ultramarines tactical planning and coordination. BT trait might make their assault squad 'better' than UM one, but who cares, you picked up UM because you like thinking combined arms force, not berserkers, and you get bonus to that. One combination is better than other? Buff weaker one, done. You have nice and fluffy force because your units synergize well, not because you were limited in choice.

In encouraging character, the traits in 8th edition succeeded pretty well, I think. The problem is not traits. It's the ridiculously stupid decision to then throw away the playstyle focus by allowing allying cherrypicked detachments consisting only of units well meshing with Trait X, when detachment next to it spamming units that want Trait Y. It never happens in the books, so why it should happen in the game? IMO, the only detachment that should be allowed to have different trait to your warlord's is patrol/auxiliary one, if that.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Scaling points costs might be a solution. E.g. your first unit of a particular type costs X points per model, but your second unit of that same type costs X+y points per model. So spamming multiples of the same thing gets expensive quickly. Obviously, your basic core units (like SM Tactical Squads) would be exempt, because they're supposed to be taken in multiples.

Eh, that would increase book keeping significantly. I do like Tau solution (limiting certain rare units to 1 per detachment), but then you get loud whine you're not allowed to spam your broken OP gak anymore, instead of being glad you got to keep it in at least some form. I suspect scaling price would elicit the exact same WAAC response, sadly, while not being better in any way.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Translation: "We finally realised our game doesn't function when armies are built by people who are trying to win and actually put some thought into it rather than just bunging together a pile of models they think look cool like we do, so we need a bit longer to figure out how to patch our mess back together with the game design equivalent of duct tape and baling twine."

You do realize that this game is not built first for Tournament Play? Right? They make more money off of all player types.....Tournament players are the only ones who pull a "New England Patriots" win at all cost attitude.

Since I played in both world's I understand the allure of Tournament play and that of Casual.....unfortunately, many do not and they are the ones who piss and moan the most.

Andykp wrote:
Buy and paint things because that are cool and fun and fit your armies style. Even if you never play them! Things YOU like. I glance a FAQs but pay more attention to errata. FAQs tend not to change how we play.

I just want the units to fit into the army and not go up in points forcing me to cut models I just painted y'know

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

There is no such thing! Period....never will. It's like saying that you can please everyone in the world or that the Internet can be fair and balanced!

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

This is true, but I would rather them making decisions based on a thousand tournament games than the 6 games they played in the studio when "play-testing" the Codex.

 rollawaythestone wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

This is true, but I would rather them making decisions based on a thousand tournament games than the 6 games they played in the studio when "play-testing" the Codex.

When it comes to making calls on what unclear rules need amending, or what actual FAQs are needed? I heartily agree.

Balance decisions, on the other hand, should be based on games played using the rules as sold, not as house-ruled by others

You mean 1000 games based on a thousand different versions of 40k. Data taken from a tournament will be biased to reflect the parameters of the tournament - and might not look like any one particular table out there in the world, but at least it's a consistent environment to minimize all that noise by utilizing the same rulesets, generally consistent tables, etc.

You're maximizing internal validity at the expense of external validity - but I would argue that basing balance decisions off games played in the studio with the designers, playing games "using the rules as sold", lacks just as much external validity.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

You're not seriously suggesting Blizzard's fans are more courteous about balance changes, are you? If anything the vitriol in their community is worse.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
You mean 1000 games based on a thousand different versions of 40k. Data taken from a tournament will be biased to reflect the parameters of the tournament - and might not look like any one particular table out there in the world, but at least it's a consistent environment to minimize all that noise by utilizing the same rulesets, generally consistent tables, etc.

You're maximizing internal validity at the expense of external validity - but I would argue that basing balance decisions off games played in the studio with the designers, playing games "using the rules as sold", lacks just as much external validity.

He's not saying that it should be based on games played in the studio, he's saying it should be based on data from events(such as those run at Warhammer World by GW) where the rules as written are played rather than whatever homebrew set that event X or ITC pretends is 40K.

Unless you are in the studio playing with a designer, I can guarantee you that you are playing some homebrew version of 40k. Even at a GW event at Warhammer World.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
As far as FAQs and balance changes and the sort go, why is GW being held to a higher standard as say...a game dev with a similar living 'ruleset" service like a MMO?

All the QA in the world for a company like Blizzard, issues still make it through, they get fixed, balance happens, people are happy, people are mad.

But GW isn't afforded the same courtesy? Bit silly

You're not seriously suggesting Blizzard's fans are more courteous about balance changes, are you? If anything the vitriol in their community is worse.

Yeah. Go and read the forum of any game that is minimally "mainstream". You end up with the idea that the game is the worst one ever

 Elbows wrote:
Andy is describing the "catch" in all of this.

One game for two audiences. When people ask me how 8th is, I say "good fun, with the usual caveats". The caveats are that it sucks as a competitive/tournament minded game. The game is as broken as it's ever been. So to me, "competitive" 40K is a sham. However, as a basis for creating a fun game between friends, it's well above some previous editions.

If you play 40K hyper competitive, or your enjoy beat-face tournaments, you really have little room to complain, as you've elected to play the game in that fashion. You don't "have" to play it that way, and honestly GW never posited that it was supposed to be played that way. So when you choose to play a competitive game of 40K without reigning in the nonsense with your own common sense...you're kinda asking for trouble.

The game is always in the hands of the players. We're not beholden to anything unless we choose to be (i.e. tournaments, and even GW's rules etc.). 40K is not, and has never been, a properly balanced game suitable to serious competitive play. I don't think GW will change this in the future, regardless of the people who want it to.

This guy gets it!
Apologies if you're a girl, it's hard to tell with a name like elbows!

It is worth pointing out that GW were not simply taking data from the tournament at Adepticon. They had several long meetings with both the 40k and aos playtesting teams, who they don't usually get to meet on the flesh. I can't imagine they didn't look at the faqs. There were also more than 300 40k players gathered together from the American scene where 40k is the most popular. It would have been a great opportunity for GW to take the temperature of the room with regards to 40k.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Why are some people surprised at GW using large tournaments for feedback? I mean, did you really think they could possibly playtest everything in this massively bloated game? An average game where your policing rules and searching for holes would take 4-5 hours minimum. That's two guys per game then you would need to replay the same mission and armies multiple times to account for variance/randomness...

Because each of these events has a little thing called a tournament pack, filled with house rules, and new missions, and secondary objectives, etc.

At that point, your data isn't coming from games of 40k - you've got data from Adepticon's version of 40k, which may well be telling you different things to what LVO 40k told you, or Grand Tournament 40k told you.

And to add to that, the feedback from any of them is different to what you're observing in casual games at Warhammer World...

That is partly true, but missions have little to do with unit to unit interactions. In fact, you don't even NEED a mission to play two armies against each other and see how certain units dominate over others. So it's not really true to suggest the data collected from these events is somehow tainted.

By the way technically terrain needs to be discussed and agreed upon by both parties prior to any games I have ever played. That right there is a house rule as you call it.

Nobody needs to go that far though, it's perfectly fine to use data from adepticon and draw the conclusion that flying hive tyrants were a massive mistake. Jesus, when the book came out and they got a 4++ AND deepstrike most players already new that, now we have multiple tournaments worth of games to support that claim.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Of course GW wants to appraise tournaments for the viability of their rules.

Here's the thing, if a change in the rules via a FAQ can cause people to change up their armies, GW will do it for one small reason and one big reason.

The small reason is that people will see that GW is at least attempting balance and will get more satisfaction out of the game by perceiving multiple army builds as feasible.

The big reason is that changing up the rules means changing up the meta, which means that more kits are sold as everyone scrambles to try out new armies or fit the new netlist. A big fat FAQ is a way to shake up the game without releasing a new edition and to get people to buy more kits.

GW isn't dumb. They know that there are lots of people that gravitate towards the netlists. But if lots of people build netlists, that means that there's hundreds of kits that GW produces that aren't being bought. If all the competitive Tyranid players only bought Rippers, Flyrants, and Mawlocs, then all of the Hormagaunt, Termagaunt, Carnifex, Lictor, Venomthrope, Zoanthrope, and half a dozen other kits will go unbought.

Shift the meta, add a rule that limits the number of Flyrants you can have, and boom, you've got people filling out their Tyranid lists with other things, which means sales of other kits.

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

 Da-Rock wrote:
There is no such thing! Period....never will. It's like saying that you can please everyone in the world or that the Internet can be fair and balanced!

What is no such thing? Your entire reply is a non sequitur.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

I'm a casual player. My interest in competitive play died when 5th Ed 40K came out. Or maybe when I first heard the phrase 'Hull Point'.

Yet I understand the need for a tight and balanced* ruleset, well-proofread, well-tested, and willing to make significant changes to fix problems (preferably before publication). If someone doesn't care about that then that's their own deal (but as I said, having what I described doesn't hurt them, so there's no reason not to), but being actively against a better ruleset makes zero fething sense to me.

I also don't think that tournaments should have phone-books worth of special house rules to 'balance' the game to whomever wrote it's specifications. No game should require that.

*Balanced. Balanced. Not perfectly balanced. Not a 'perfect' set of rules. Just balanced.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

even as someone whose mearly been playing with 5th edition, I've learned not to be too focused on such things. with 40k as it stands now it chanegs so fast chances are by time you finish a 2000 point army the meta will have changed anyway

 Azazelx wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
I will not be building/buying/painting/whatever until this damn FAQ drops. If I build something only for it to immediately get nerfed I'm going to have a conniption.

While I can certainly relate to this sentiment, after playing for over a decade, I can say this is not the game to expect to be static.

Even if you wait for the FAQ before buying something, there is a ticking time limit on when something else will eventually change those rules.
On average, I would say most units only have about 2-3 months of "safety" before they are fair game to be altered by some kind of change, whether directly (FAQ/Errata the unit) or indirectly (some other unit gets better or becomes a hard counter to that unit).

In my experience, you just gotta buy what you want and not be too upset if it isn't "competitive". Eventually most units become good to some degree
-

I'm going to continue building and painting whatever I think is or looks cool, because I'm not concerned to the extent of others about having a fully-optimised or WAAC-style army. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and gak changes constantly anyway. I'm more concerned about having a good time with toy soldiers in an aesthetically-pleasing situation.

I'd like to echo this sentiment. I collect, paint and play with what I like the look of on the table. Rules come and go every edition.

To collect an army specifically to jump on a netlist bandwagon is always going to be a recipe for disaster.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

The thing I always find funny is that people bandy the word 'balanced' like some kind of incantation.

What do you really mean when you say 'balanced'? Do you mean that the average variance of power between units is equal to or less than whatever arbitrary percentage you decide on? Do you mean all the units 'feel' balanced when you play with your friends? Do you mean you want to be able to plonk any 2000pts out of your collection down on the table and have the same chance at winning as any other combination of 2000pts?

There's no such thing as a balanced game. The best you can hope for is one where player skill makes a bigger difference than list strength across the board. Even chess favors the player who goes first.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

Perfect balance will never happen. Never. That doesn’t mean you don’t try to get as close as possible.

No amount of playtesting will achieve the number of games played in the wild in the first week of release, and players Will find everything you missed, and you definitely missed Something, and they Will abuse it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

I never said 'balance' was bad or hurt the game but what I'm saying is the game is balanced and plays well if you don't abuse it and try to eek every advantage you can out of it. This idea of balance you are all on about is rubbish, it's meaningless. At the minute the game has a great feel, flows well and each army is getting more character than since 2nd edition. Just look at the dark eldar pre release stuff, sounds great, Custodes play like an army of heroes. My marines play like an elite superhuman army. Even my orks play like they feel right. They don't win every game and some units do better than others but all in all I still love them. When I win a game I can tell why and what happened and likewise when I lose a game, it tends to be clear what went wrong. But I play against nice people who love the setting and story as much as I do, we talk about the back ground of out units, name them come up with stories for the battle, consequences of the result. Win or lose its enjoyable and a fun rich experience. If my mate placed 7 flying tyrants on the board and a load of spores I'd ask him to explain why that army was there and what it's background was and it'd better be good otherwise I'd pack up and leave.
When these tournament armies play each other with powerful lists from Internet the background and stories that make 40k so great become irrelevant. It takes away the best part of the game and you're left with a soulless experience. In the early days of tournaments it was a chance to play new people and see amazing armies but now I haven't seen a single picture of these armies from any events, just the lists. It might as well be a paper exercise. A maths problem. If GW focus too much on trying to please these types of players they will ruin the game for everyone else. If you want balanced games at tournaments then maybe the organisers could provide he army,it's and pick the armies and you turn up and play with what you're given.

ERJAK wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

The thing I always find funny is that people bandy the word 'balanced' like some kind of incantation.

What do you really mean when you say 'balanced'? Do you mean that the average variance of power between units is equal to or less than whatever arbitrary percentage you decide on? Do you mean all the units 'feel' balanced when you play with your friends? Do you mean you want to be able to plonk any 2000pts out of your collection down on the table and have the same chance at winning as any other combination of 2000pts?

There's no such thing as a balanced game. The best you can hope for is one where player skill makes a bigger difference than list strength across the board. Even chess favors the player who goes first.

I agree, one thing most people tend to forget when playing this hobby is lists aren;t rock paper scissors.

It is very much also depending on your skill as a tactician. Do you choose the right unit to shoot at the right time? Have you brought your guys in at the right time? Did you split your shots correctly? How did you place your men?

Yes there is cheese out there but you rarely come up against that in actual games, majority of the time it's how you strategically move and use your units. My list style hasn't changed much since I was 13 (Obviously models have because of evolutions of models and codex, but overall theme has stayed). But now 15 years on I am winning way more games than I used to. Because I'm not charging troop choice down the middle of the board anymore. I'm being conservative and placing them where I think I can get the most.

Yes we need FAQ's and is it frustrating it's delayed? Of course I want to know just as much as the next guy whats changing, But that doesn't mean the game is broken or unbalanced until then, if your struggling with what you have consider evolving your list or change how you use units. When I was younger and I played my best mate all the time who had the Mephiston combat jump list, I had a book of tactics, with MEPHISTED crossed over it. The models stayed the same but I learn't how to deal with Mephiston and he ended up having to change how he used him.

The way you use your models play a big part in this.

Wow I see the Pew Pew gamers are out in force there turning in to the AoS cultists who must stamp on any discussion of issues with the game.

Balance helps a game no matter the target audience and if your that casual that you think otherwise then why bother with rules just keep push8ng models around going pew pew.

Andykp wrote:

I never said 'balance' was bad or hurt the game but what I'm saying is the game is balanced and plays well if you don't abuse it and try to eek every advantage you can out of it.

This is pretty meaningless though. To be clear, you're exaggerating quite a bit here, right? It's not just at the very, very peak of WAAC-ness that issues arise. What you mean is more like: "if you play casually, without trying particularly hard to produce an effective list, then the game works fine".

And that's true, but it's true because balance doesn't matter very much when no one is particularly trying to win. If everyone is just bringing units that they think look cool, then you're probably ending up with some strong units, some weak units, and relatively little synergy. Imbalances between units will often average out. Certain interactions which are responsible for otherwise-fine units being overpowered just won't come up. You'll still occasionally run into trouble -- some armies are just overall much weaker than others, or have advantages against particular other armies -- but mostly this works. Likewise, the bigger the gap in skill between players, the less the lists will matter. Actually, if both players are relatively unskilled it's going to be much more likely that the game comes down to tactics. I've seen casual games where someone just deployed Predators at the front of their deployment zone where they could easily be charged and locked up. That's an identifiable mistake that cost that player the game, and would have even if that player had been spotted an extra 200 points in list-building, but stuff like this happens much less as players get better.

I'm a little confused at your complaining that GW attending to tournament balance will ruin the game for everyone else. I think that so far almost everything they've done in pursuit of balance should have had no effect on you at all. Mostly they change points, but what do you care about points? If you're even using points at all -- and I'm not sure why you would be -- why is the original set of point values preferable to points that are better balanced for competitive play? They also sometimes introduce weird little rules like the Tau Commander fix, but they're very clear that these rules are only for games where players are trying to build powerful lists. These rules specify that they only apply to Matched Play. That's one of the 3 ways of playing 40k, and it's one that emphasizes "your strategic ability to choose an army that can defeat all opponents" (BRB p212). I assume that's not what you're playing, since you're opposed to its whole reason for existing, so these also shouldn't impact you at all.

SeanDrake wrote:
Wow I see the Pew Pew gamers are out in force there turning in to the AoS cultists who must stamp on any discussion of issues with the game.

Balance helps a game no matter the target audience and if your that casual that you think otherwise then why bother with rules just keep push8ng models around going pew pew.

A bit less rudeness please.

A reasonable level of balance is good, turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

I think it would almost certainly lead to a loss of character and flavour across the board and that would be a real shame. The flavour of the armies is what makes 40k appeal (to me at least).

The thing that I first thought when I saw the adepticon winning tyranid list as a tyranid player myself was, when have you EVER heard of a tyranid swarm in the fluff that consisted pretty much of hive tyrants and mawlocs?! The answer to the best of my knowledge is never.

When 8th dropped they said they wanted to reward players for fielding armies that represented how that army plays in the fluff and I think this is where GW have failed if they've failed at all so far. To me it should be:

Battleforged - +3CP
Battleforged and all TYRANIDS - +3CP and access to tyranid stratagems

After that, there should be faction specific detachment charts with associated restrictions and rules to reflect the way that swarm or chapter or whatever fights. Want the hive fleet behemoth army wide special trait, warlord trait, stratagem etc? Well then you have to have at least one behemoth battalion detachment in your army. What's a behemoth detachment? Well it could be that they get +3CP for each spearhead detachment they use instead of +1 to represent the fact that behemoth specialises in monstrous creatures. For Kraken you could do something around the battalion and troops, or the outrider detachment for Jormungandr or whichever is meant to specialise in raveners and fast attack. Make unfluffy detachments like supreme command -1 or more CP to make them less desirable. Would someone take 7 hive tyrants if they lost a load of command points as well as access to hive fleet traits, strats etc for doing So? Maybe but it's a much less desirable option straight away.

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

I'm pretty sure the easiest way to prevent things like HQ spam is to say you can't take a 2nd detachment until the first one is full.
That should resolve most of the soup issues too.
Add in a limitation that prevents the CP battery effect, like, you can only spend CPs from a detachment on that detachment.

Improving tournament balance isn't complicated. Though as noted by many, perfect balance is impossible.

When 8th First came out, the way the page on detachments was written [Doesn't it specifically say they'll introduce new ones later?] suggested to me when Codex's came out everyone was going to get their own unique non generic detachments that came with themed bonuses and rewarded fluffy styles of army.

I am still amazed this hasn''t come to pass.

Zustiur wrote:
I'm pretty sure the easiest way to prevent things like HQ spam is to say you can't take a 2nd detachment until the first one is full.
That should resolve most of the soup issues too.
Add in a limitation that prevents the CP battery effect, like, you can only spend CPs from a detachment on that detachment.

Improving tournament balance isn't complicated. Though as noted by many, perfect balance is impossible.

Define 'full'. I don't think any of the top 16 lists were using understrength detachments, unless you mean that all the optional slots must be filled out, in which case pretty much 99% of lists would become illegal except for that one guy playing a brigade...

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Are you saying that there should be 2 different rule sets?

I am all for a balanced and playtested game. But I am also convinced that if GW produced a "watertight and (almost) perfectly balanced" game system including codexes it would be so watered down and bland that there would be very little left for casual players.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
When 8th First came out, the way the page on detachments was written [Doesn't it specifically say they'll introduce new ones later?] suggested to me when Codex's came out everyone was going to get their own unique non generic detachments that came with themed bonuses and rewarded fluffy styles of army.

I am still amazed this hasn''t come to pass.

They got burned hard by this in 7th. Stragnely, the this is the same time that theme lists became the predominant idea of play in WMH. Goes to show what a couple broken themes can do if you aren't careful. WMH nerfed theirs when it happened and the players loved it. GW didn't and now the players form a pitchfork mob at the slightest chance of it coming back.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

But it can lead to overly sterile rules. And gw being crap at rules ensure they would be

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't know that it'd kill it. But I think there is a real risk that the 'perfect' balance demanded by some would see some of the character of the game lost.

I think it would almost certainly lead to a loss of character and flavour across the board and that would be a real shame. The flavour of the armies is what makes 40k appeal (to me at least).

The thing that I first thought when I saw the adepticon winning tyranid list as a tyranid player myself was, when have you EVER heard of a tyranid swarm in the fluff that consisted pretty much of hive tyrants and mawlocs?! The answer to the best of my knowledge is never.

When 8th dropped they said they wanted to reward players for fielding armies that represented how that army plays in the fluff and I think this is where GW have failed if they've failed at all so far. To me it should be:

Battleforged - +3CP
Battleforged and all TYRANIDS - +3CP and access to tyranid stratagems

After that, there should be faction specific detachment charts with associated restrictions and rules to reflect the way that swarm or chapter or whatever fights. Want the hive fleet behemoth army wide special trait, warlord trait, stratagem etc? Well then you have to have at least one behemoth battalion detachment in your army. What's a behemoth detachment? Well it could be that they get +3CP for each spearhead detachment they use instead of +1 to represent the fact that behemoth specialises in monstrous creatures. For Kraken you could do something around the battalion and troops, or the outrider detachment for Jormungandr or whichever is meant to specialise in raveners and fast attack. Make unfluffy detachments like supreme command -1 or more CP to make them less desirable. Would someone take 7 hive tyrants if they lost a load of command points as well as access to hive fleet traits, strats etc for doing So? Maybe but it's a much less desirable option straight away.

I think the bolded part of this is important but I'm not sure it is withing GWs ability.

In addition to balancing outperforming/undercosted units the detachment system really needs an overhaul.

The generic detachment system just doesn't work, IMHO. You want to play ultra marines, +1cp for each detachment that includes a tac squad, +3 cp for each detachment with 3+ tac squads (for example) White Scars, bike units +1cp. Eldar farseer council +1CP...

Each army should have unique detachments and bonuses. Basic +3cp for battle forged. No +3 battalion. All detachments 0 cp and then a bonus if your detachment meets faction specific requirements?

It would require a lot of work on GWs part and this is where I get skeptical but it would allow GW to push more thematic armies while not preventing people from playing what they want?

It would probably turn into 7th ed formations...

White scars 1 for bike squad? Why? Certainly bikes aren't core of white scar armies so unfluffy

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Are you saying that there should be 2 different rule sets?

I am all for a balanced and playtested game. But I am also convinced that if GW produced a "watertight and (almost) perfectly balanced" game system including codexes it would be so watered down and bland that there would be very little left for casual players.

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup. Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness? The systems and factions can be wildly disparate, so long as they function together on reasonably equal footing. Plenty of other games do this just fine, GW should not be an exception.

Lets be honest here. All the "balanced and well written systems" have the flavour of a potato. Not because factions don't have interesting tactics and strategies, they have, but THOSE tactics and strategies normally are very mathematical and... yeah. Precise. Sterile.

Yeah yeah, they offer another rewarding experience about tactical choices... but thats not for what Warhammer was created.

I'll agree that with 8th many of that flavour has been lost, but is being brought back with the Codexes.

I just miss crazy rules like the old Steam Tank ones or the Fantasy Giant. Those kind of rules aren't find in "competitive" and balanced rulesets. Now, to this I'll add, that this does not excuse the poor balance GW shows. They could, with the current rules they have, have a much better and well written game. But they are definetely improving.

tneva82 wrote:
White scars 1 for bike squad? Why? Certainly bikes aren't core of white scar armies so unfluffy

And yet their Chapter Tactics have always been about bikes....

We get it, they're not ALL bikes... Buy Cmon. Blood Angels aren't all Jump packs but what do you really think is their signature unit...

 Fafnir wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
turning 40k into a watertight tournament ruleset will kill the game for the vast majority of people that plays it (the hated casual gamers). 40k has always been about the story.

This exactly what H.M.B.C. is talking about.

Watertight rulesets are in no way preventing anyone playing the game in a casual way and there is absolutely no reason to believe it does.

Are you saying that there should be 2 different rule sets?

I am all for a balanced and playtested game. But I am also convinced that if GW produced a "watertight and (almost) perfectly balanced" game system including codexes it would be so watered down and bland that there would be very little left for casual players.

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup. Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness? The systems and factions can be wildly disparate, so long as they function together on reasonably equal footing. Plenty of other games do this just fine, GW should not be an exception.

Yes I agree that a balanced and well written system is good for both casual players and the tournament crowd... but thats not the same as a "watertight tournament rule set". It is not possible to make a watertight and balanced ruleset while maintaining the flavour and diversity of 25+ different factions.
A lot of playstyles, units maybe even factions will nedd to be taken out or watered down to such a level that the effect would be the same.

Galas wrote:Lets be honest here. All the "balanced and well written systems" have the flavour of a potato. Not because factions don't have interesting tactics and strategies, they have, but THOSE tactics and strategies normally are very mathematical and... yeah. Precise. Sterile.

Yeah yeah, they offer another rewarding experience about tactical choices... but thats not for what Warhammer was created.

I'll agree that with 8th many of that flavour has been lost, but is being brought back with the Codexes.

I just miss crazy rules like the old Steam Tank ones or the Fantasy Giant. Those kind of rules aren't find in "competitive" and balanced rulesets. Now, to this I'll add, that this does not excuse the poor balance GW shows. They could, with the current rules they have, have a much better and well written game. But they are definetely improving.

What balanced and well written systems with the flavour of a potato are you even citing? If a system has no flavour to it, then it's clearly not well-written. Expecting each faction to have basic tools needed to function competently, and that no unit is worthless in their own book is not a huge ask.

jhnbrg wrote:
...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup. Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness? The systems and factions can be wildly disparate, so long as they function together on reasonably equal footing. Plenty of other games do this just fine, GW should not be an exception.

Yes I agree that a balanced and well written system is good for both casual players and the tournament crowd... but thats not the same as a "watertight tournament rule set". It is not possible to make a watertight and balanced ruleset while maintaining the flavour and diversity of 25+ different factions.
A lot of playstyles, units maybe even factions will nedd to be taken out or watered down to such a level that the effect would be the same.

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering that most of those factions are just different colours of Space Marines, it's not that difficult to work with. While not a tabletop example, Street Fighter 4 had over 40 characters in it by the end of its run, and was still reasonably well balanced, with most characters feeling like entirely different games (far more variation than you'd see across Space Marine factions, that's for sure) and catering to a very wide degree of playstyles. Now, the 40k community might not be the competitive environment that has tournaments that offer $30,000 prize pools, but that should not stop it from being able to do balance and flavour at the same time.

If each faction had just one unit and one playstyle then street fighter might be a relevant comparison but each faction has a lot of different units with different playstyles. A Trukk is not the same as a rhino, stormboyz does not play the same as assault marines. With your wiev each faction will only have one defining playstyle and for example each and every ork army would be the same.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering that most of those factions are just different colours of Space Marines, it's not that difficult to work with. While not a tabletop example, Street Fighter 4 had over 40 characters in it by the end of its run, and was still reasonably well balanced, with most characters feeling like entirely different games (far more variation than you'd see across Space Marine factions, that's for sure) and catering to a very wide degree of playstyles. Now, the 40k community might not be the competitive environment that has tournaments that offer $30,000 prize pools, but that should not stop it from being able to do balance and flavour at the same time.

If each faction had just one unit and one playstyle then street fighter might be a relevant comparison but each faction has a lot of different units with different playstyles. A Trukk is not the same as a rhino, stormboyz does not play the same as assault marines. With your wiev each faction will only have one defining playstyle and for example each and every ork army would be the same.

And different people play streetfighter differently. Daigo's Ryu is going to be completely different from Ryan Heart's.

Considering 40k's huge imbalance, it actually encourages far more restricted playstyles, since only a few options are ever relevant.

 Fafnir wrote:

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup.

In theory yes, and as long as that's whats a happening, I certainly support such balancing efforts. However, you only need to read prominent demands of 'balance fixes' people want to understand how it can lead to blandness. There are recent threads about banning allies and banning index options for the sake of balance.

Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness?

It doesn't. But several people's misguided idea of good game design does.

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering 40k's huge imbalance, it actually encourages far more restricted playstyles, since only a few options are ever relevant.

I totally agree with you here and as i have stated before i am all for a better balanced rule set. The problem is that for every step towards a watertight and perfectly balanced rule set some flavour and diversity have to be sacrificed.

We can never have both a perfect tournament ruleset and keep the depht and flavour of 40k.

I have played in tournaments and i know people that do it on a regular basis and making a ruleset aimed towards that kind of game will ruin 40k for a lot of people.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

...but... How? Why? A balanced and well written system not only makes a game more competitively interesting, it means that casual players get more viable tools to work with without having to worry about making their armies too strong or too weak for their playgroup.

In theory yes, and as long as that's whats a happening, I certainly support such balancing efforts. However, you only need to read prominent demands of 'balance fixes' people want to understand how it can lead to blandness. There are recent threads about banning allies and banning index options for the sake of balance.

Where does good game design have to necessitate blandness?

It doesn't. But several people's misguided idea of good game design does.

I haven't heard anyone trying to ban index options, but allies comes from them having caused some problems before. Most of it now is just whining for the sake of whining, but we cannot pretend it didn't need more restrictions. Everyone and their mother taking Riptide Wing was the absolute worst example of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Considering 40k's huge imbalance, it actually encourages far more restricted playstyles, since only a few options are ever relevant.

I totally agree with you here and as i have stated before i am all for a better balanced rule set. The problem is that for every step towards a watertight and perfectly balanced rule set some flavour and diversity have to be sacrificed.

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
When 8th First came out, the way the page on detachments was written [Doesn't it specifically say they'll introduce new ones later?] suggested to me when Codex's came out everyone was going to get their own unique non generic detachments that came with themed bonuses and rewarded fluffy styles of army.

I am still amazed this hasn''t come to pass.

They got burned hard by this in 7th. Stragnely, the this is the same time that theme lists became the predominant idea of play in WMH. Goes to show what a couple broken themes can do if you aren't careful. WMH nerfed theirs when it happened and the players loved it. GW didn't and now the players form a pitchfork mob at the slightest chance of it coming back.

The problem with WMH is that themed lists seemed to be the way to go unless the model/jack was outright broken enough to be taken. Some units were quite literally only usable within the theme they were given.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

The problem is that you cant put a points cost to everything. How much is army wide -1 to hit worth?
Points cost is only a part of the balancing, you need to ensure that all the different factions with all their various options have the same chance of winning against all the other different options if you are aiming for a perfect tournament balance. At some point you must begin to eliminate options if you are aiming for a perfect balance.

I agree that the point costs as they are can be better balanced (and GW is at least making an effort at adjusting them).

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

The problem is that you cant put a points cost to everything. How much is army wide -1 to hit worth?
Points cost is only a part of the balancing, you need to ensure that all the different factions with all their various options have the same chance of winning against all the other different options if you are aiming for a perfect tournament balance. At some point you must begin to eliminate options if you are aiming for a perfect balance.

I agree that the point costs as they are can be better balanced (and GW is at least making an effort at adjusting them).

Dunno that every army should be a straight 50/50 against any other army.

Part of the challenge of the game is coming up with contingencies against ‘worst nightmare’ matches. Now that’s not to say you should be in a position where you’ve got no chance whatsoever. But one can’t run say Pure Imperial Knights, and say the game isn’t balance when you come up against a Green Tide, or a wall of Astra Militarum Lascannons.

Just that sometimes you need to accept you can’t win ‘em all, and on occasion you’ll be on the back foot from the start.

Balance to me is no one list being all conquering. Whether that’s an overly flexible army, wonky points or abusive list writing, that sort of thing needs to end,

What worries me is all the talk of limiting HQs and allies or removing FOC. in a way a lot of people on here are right, most the changes won't impact me or my mates the way we play. But more and more I see the division between competative and casual play the more I think we should have separate rule sets, slimmed down codexs for tournaments, reduced numbers of weapons. A bit like epic 40000 when it came out.

I think we are all expecting way too much.

Lets all remember what the FAQs usually entail. A wonky question and a wonky answer

Tourny list players are going to break the game regardless. That is the game for them.

With all the push GW has for casual gaming, open war, and narrative, they dont play the same ways.

Trust me, the broken builds will keep coming long after the new FAQ.

Now, my gaming club does have Tournaments every so often. I dont enjoy that play every game, but it is a fun opportunity to show off a collection.

Naturally, when I read a new codex i can sense the strong units and builds. But does than mean i want to use them?

I play daemons. Bloodletter bomb and Horrors look amazing but I play Nurgle.

I can see the build, but opt not to use it.

Lets not start nerfing things just for the sake of it, because they wont stay down for long, and when one thing gets fixed, another thing gets broken.

Guard players adapted to Conscripts. And it made the Cultist bomb more appealing. Now we are seeing Tzaangors in place of cultists.

Im not looking forward to whatever Cheese factory genestealer cults are gonna bring. A new faction, with new models? No doubt they will get some great rules to push the boxes.

Andykp wrote:
What worries me is all the talk of limiting HQs and allies or removing FOC. in a way a lot of people on here are right, most the changes won't impact me or my mates the way we play. But more and more I see the division between competative and casual play the more I think we should have separate rule sets, slimmed down codexs for tournaments, reduced numbers of weapons. A bit like epic 40000 when it came out.

Of course that would mean practically cutting those options from most games anyway much like people are mostly concerned with matched play rules as it is.

Turny players are breaking ANY game.
Its outright impossible to make a game perfectly balanced unless all players have identical starting positions, taking simultaneous turns-and even then you only make perfect balance between players, not between options.


The purpose is to make the breaks as complicated or as small as possible in order to assure said breaks wont be too hardful.

I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.

I actually think it's okay for tournament players to take a portion of the available units and make the best lists possible.

I think GW should stick to evoking the lore as much as possible and simply allow competitive players to find their portion of the pool of units they think are best. Let those who are going to an event do the balance work in the form of choosing the best units just like how Magic players don't expect every common and uncommon to be playable in tournament decks.

The delayed FAQ will hopefully means GW actually looks at the numbers. If the top tables had certain kinds of lists but those lists are also present throughout the rankings, then there's not actually a problem. If those lists are consistently in the top quarter of finishes, then there might be a problem.

From an evoking the lore point of view, I think flyrant spam sucks, but tournaments are not about evoking the lore but identifying the best parts of army lists, building the best possible army and playing it better than anyone else. So if it's not actually causing a problem by having multiple lists in the top quarter of results, then there's no reason to ban it yet.

Unless GW wants their competitive side of things to evoke the lore. Then they're going to have to patch and ban and tweak and do all sorts of things both here in this update and in the next Chapter Approved.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.

Game still broken unbalanced junk. But now you screwed other armies, basically removed other armies and go toward blandness for sake of balance several have noted worry about and still end up with unbalanced broken game. GJ.

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.

This essentially makes the top armies better and everyone else worse. It accomplishes little other than forcing others to play within the confines of your own self imposed limitations.

Are the current top armies actually top armies? Or is it that the guy who won has a similar list to many that are distributed throughout the rankings? Same goes for every list in the top 8. The LVO had an eldar problem. The representation in the top 8 was disproportionate. Is that the case with the Adepticon results?

Smellingsalts wrote:
I'll balance the game right now, "All of the units in a tournament legal army must come from one codex", there, done, balanced. And before I get flamed by people who say that not all books are even, let me say that is easier to bring a codex even with the others than it is to balance the unlimited permutations of armies created by combining codices. You would also get fluffier armies. Of coarse GW will not do this because they want to sell models.

Armies without a Codex?

One idea could be providing two point costs for units. Use the normal value for armies that have all the same faction keywords, while using inflated values for mixed forces or detachments.

I wouldn't say it would accomplish nothing. The armies that are not up to par would be obvious and the armies that were too powerful could get nerfed, but it would still be easier to balance one codex vs another than to balance all of the permutations found by mixing books. I get that some people would find this to be bland, but for tournaments it would be the easiest fix. Most tournament players that I have met don't seem to care about what they take in their army as long as it wins. I don't hear them complaining about bland, especially when I see unit spam, now that's bland.

This forum is full of the most uncompetitive group of posters on the internet. I don't understand why everyone worries or cares about what goes on at large tournaments like this because you clearly aren't playing in these events. I was at adepticon and played in 2 of the "casual" events and had a great time with fluffy lists. If I would've played in the championship I would've brought different stuff and a different mindset. The game is what you make it and who you decide to play with. You can still play competitively and to win in a friendly game, the things aren't mutually exclusive.

Armies without a codex don't get to play in tournaments. But I don't know what army you are referring to because all of the armies with rules for the new edition have codices, maybe not individual books, but in the get you by codex (5 of them) that GW put out. This rules out Forgeworld and Imperial agents, but those could be added to existing codices later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I took this discussion to be about competitive tournament play. All other forms of play are naturally up to the players to derive their enjoyment. The difference is that in a fun game I can still play competitively, but if my friend rolls up to the table with 3 Baneblades and Mortarion and that's his army, I can say "Dude, I'm not going to have fun playing against that and I didn't bring an army that could play against that, in tournament, you just have to play against whatever shows up.

Orks no get codex :(

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
I'm pretty sure the easiest way to prevent things like HQ spam is to say you can't take a 2nd detachment until the first one is full.
That should resolve most of the soup issues too.
Add in a limitation that prevents the CP battery effect, like, you can only spend CPs from a detachment on that detachment.

Improving tournament balance isn't complicated. Though as noted by many, perfect balance is impossible.

Define 'full'. I don't think any of the top 16 lists were using understrength detachments, unless you mean that all the optional slots must be filled out, in which case pretty much 99% of lists would become illegal except for that one guy playing a brigade...

That is exactly what I mean by full. Full. Every slot before you can take another detachment.
Getting rid of the supreme command detachment may also be a good idea but I don't think it would be necessary. Maybe limit it to not being your first detachment.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

the fact that you include video games in the list makes you look silly.

 Kommisar wrote:
This forum is full of the most uncompetitive group of posters on the internet. I don't understand why everyone worries or cares about what goes on at large tournaments like this because you clearly aren't playing in these events. I was at adepticon and played in 2 of the "casual" events and had a great time with fluffy lists. If I would've played in the championship I would've brought different stuff and a different mindset. The game is what you make it and who you decide to play with. You can still play competitively and to win in a friendly game, the things aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you. To think only national players can decode and optimise lists is obtuse and shortsighted. Now because a few players may have been overwhelmed because their Reaper spam was demolished many of us may have to spend time and money to retool our army lists to comply with any changes.

I don't won't/like 16 WAAC players(example) deciding how I can play 40k.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You're assuming options must be cut. OR we could make sure the proper points are paid for said options. It isn't either/or like you're making it to be.

The problem is that you cant put a points cost to everything. How much is army wide -1 to hit worth?
Points cost is only a part of the balancing, you need to ensure that all the different factions with all their various options have the same chance of winning against all the other different options if you are aiming for a perfect tournament balance. At some point you must begin to eliminate options if you are aiming for a perfect balance.

I agree that the point costs as they are can be better balanced (and GW is at least making an effort at adjusting them).

It's worth is dependent on the army you face, but it also shows how bad they balanced the Chapter Tactics as well. It should encourage fighting against them with more than just a gunline, but there ya go.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Comments like this one make me realise more and more that 40k is two games.

It's more case of two different types of players:

1. Those that understand a balanced, well-tested ruleset hurts nobody.
2. Those that don't.

This is really the gist of it, and the fact so many casual players don't understand this is bizarre.

Balanced and playtested compared to what? You can argue that 8th as it is now is very balanced and playtested compared to how 7th was at some point. Its not black and white, the more we gat a tournament centered 40k the less fun it will be for the vast majority of players.

Compared to what other companies in the industry are doing. Wizzards of the Coast, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, Fantasy Flight Games, Privateer Press, pick one. None of them are creating flawless games, but all of them are lot closer to how games should be than GW currently is. The good news is that the new management at GW is trying to get there.

the fact that you include video games in the list makes you look silly.

The fact that you think the 40k ruleset is anything more than a very simple video game makes you look silly.

Is it possible for a forum to jump the shark? Cause I feel like Dakka is at least standing on the shark's back at this point.

Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

And this is exactly why a 40k designed by tournament players is a very bad idea.

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

-Sentinel- wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

This wouldn't fix anything, just shift the balance from armies that have a few great units to armies that have more balanced codices with lots of competitive choices (I'm looking at you Nids). At the same time you'll screw over some of the thematic armies that people like to play: mono god demons are the most obvious losers.

kaptin_Blacksquigg wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

1. Write codex for orks so they would not be 1 unit army
2. Apply limit like 'take 1 copy of unit for every 750 points of format'
3. profit

This wouldn't fix anything, just shift the balance from armies that have a few great units to armies that have more balanced codices with lots of competitive choices (I'm looking at you Nids). At the same time you'll screw over some of the thematic armies that people like to play: mono god demons are the most obvious losers.

I don't believe that mono god daemons with 3 units of this and 3 units of those won't make 2k army. If it would not be competitive - thats another question. But when all armies at top tables having 6+ same squads - it is just bad for game health. Cause you nerf those squad, people choose another and make list of 6+ another squads.

That balanced codicies would dominate - thats a bad argument. Cause thats a purpose of game designers - make that people use different units and had to make choice between them.

tneva82 wrote:

-Sentinel- wrote:
Just limit number of same units up to 3. This will stop "all Flyrants" or "all hellhound" armies from appearing at least. After that you can move forward and fix most broken combos like poxwalkers + cultists or reapers and serpents.

Screws some armies(bye bye orks for example) and scales ridiculously bad.


Highlander rules are horribly broken rules that leads to very unbalanced armies. No thanks.

I agree. Even if troops are exempt I would much rather see a solution that isn't just an artificial limit. The Tau fix is terrible and destroys army building. Imperial/Chaos armies with larger pools of units to draw from will shrug it off like nothing, Soup will be even stronger since variety is more important. Harlequins are effectively unplayable without turning to soup.

I hope the FAQ bans the term "meta".

So it's just named differently. Whopedoopedoo. That would be such a ridiculous ban.

They copy-pasted the error from the Necron beta version that Deathmarks and Praetorians are troops to the new codex.
Proof reading is something that GW never really did.

A perennial problem is that people simply spam the best units. This leads to uninteresting lists. One solution would be to assign points costs based on how many of each unit you take. If you take a single unit you pay the printed cost. If you take two of the same unit, the second costs an extra x percent. Something like an extra 15 percent. If you take three then you pay an extra y percent on the third, and x percent on the second. Maybe an extra 30 percent.

It certainly would not solve everything, but would lead to more variety.

You go back to the issue of screwing over armies with poor internal balance, or worse army with a small unit pool.

As if IOM don't get enough benefits already.

Tournaments are about winning, not about interesting lists or variety. People go there to win. Period. There is no point in trying to force changes to make things "interesting". Not to mention that the definition of what is interesting is different between two people.

If the problem is spamming of specific units put an allowance cap on them. 0-2 Space Marine Scouts, 0-1 Monoliths, 0-3 Cultists, etc. (These are only examples)

If that displeases people because 'well I can't just take the best units now' then the point would be to adapt?

I'm not sure how you can add extra costs on top for each unit in a way that would penalize the tournament crowd for spamming but not harm everyone else for taking 3 or more tactical squads (example).

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Tournaments are about winning, not about interesting lists or variety. People go there to win. Period. There is no point in trying to force changes to make things "interesting". Not to mention that the definition of what is interesting is different between two people.

40k prize pools are not worthwhile enough to be just about winning. If it was just about winning, there are far more satisfying ventures out there. The people who go to tournaments don't just enjoy winning, they enjoy the game itself. They just enjoy it at a competitive level. If the game isn't interesting at a competitive level, competitive players will leave.

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

The issue with restricting spam is that GW doesn't want to prevent someone from buying as many of a particular unit as they can.
While putting a cap of, say, no more than 2 duplicate datasheets are allowed per Battle-Forged army in Matched Play (cap of 3 duplicates for Troops and maybe Transports) would be a fair way to reduce spam, it might hurt GW sales.
The mere perception of reduced sales is enough to make GW hesitate to implement a change, even if it promotes the general health of the game.

The solution has to be enforced by the TOs and competitive players themselves. And afterall, this makes perfect sense considering that those demographics are the ones calling for change. Casual players (which I suspect form the vast bulk of GW's actual customer base) either don't care too much about spam or rarely ever encounter it.

-

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

So is there any actual news or rumours here? Or is it just another balancing bitching thread?

My only response to all this is, the tournament scene affects casual, and the casual affects the tournament scene. Hell, I think the majority of the Guard nerfs came as a direct result of the majority of the player base complaining about things – sure, conscript spam appeared in a few event lists, but it was casual games where the imbalance was seen and complained about a lot more. I remember arguing with people who 100% believed that Guard were the “be all and end all” and would easily win every tournament out there, whilst failing to appreciate other players ability to counter it. IIRC, Chaos was still pretty much top in the tournament scene, but, because the average player only took “average fun” lists, they struggled massively in casual games.

People will always net list in casual games. These might be event winning list, or theory-crafted wonder lists, but these lists always make it into “casual” play at some level or another. Likewise, if a casual player created a super strong list unintentionally, or had a set of casual lists that just happened to counter your armies simply due to his style of army and units he’s brought, would you simply just continuously refuse to play him until he changed? Or are you going to bite the bullet and change yourself? I’m betting on the first option for 90% of the people that complain on dakka continuously about one thing or another.

It’s the same argument as using FW in casual games. People seem to think it is “OP” or “Unaccessable” across the board etc etc. If I ran a Carcharodons list against you, using the 3rd Company fluff as a basis to the list and then completely smashed you and then went and won a tournament with it, would that be considered worthy of a nerf? Or would you just ask me never to play that army again vs you?

People create unbalanced lists all the time in casual play, a lot of people do it unintentionally simply because they are new to the game and stumble upon things, get help of the net or simply build their own ideas and see how they work. You also have to remember that what is “strong” in casual not only depends on the area “meta” but also whatever random army your opponent brings and their understanding of the game.

For example, i’d expect some of the top top players to give me a good run for my money, regardless of the list they brought and how “broken” my list was.

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

What a remarkably convenient thing to say.

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Which group do you count yourself among, I wonder? You seem to be speaking on behalf of a lot of people, and I wonder what you think your justification for doing so is.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
So is there any actual news or rumours here? Or is it just another balancing bitching thread?

You don't like it? Complain to management, not here. You're only making it worse.

Well excuse me for coming to the News and Rumours sub forum for news and rumours.

 Fafnir wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Regarding good=bland, I think you may be reading too far into what people are saying.

You absolutely can have good rules which promote characterful armies, and where each individual codex has a very different feel.

Consider the forthcoming Dark Eldar Codex. Special rules which affect how you select your army - bonuses for lots of Patrol Detachments and allows for multiple Warlord Traits.

Whilst it's too early to say if that's unbalance, it certainly sounds cool to me, and does reflect their background.

But, some of those wanting better balance would say 'no more gimmicks. Everyone the same'. That is something I don't want to see GW do to please a small minority of hobbyists. Note that here, I am taking pains not to lump all those wanting better balance together. There are many different requests and ideas out there.

Do that, and you wind up with the tedium of 3rd Ed. All the soul sucked out of the game. Everyone forced into a single FoC which doesn't suit every army (Nids for instance, and to some degree Necrons with their two troops choices). Sure, it might be the most perfectly balanced game ever - but that doesn't mean it'd actually be any fun to play.

Hence my earlier comment. Balance shouldn't be having a straight 50/50 chance of winning game before player skill is taken into account. Instead, it should be about certain lists which abuse the openness of the game not being so dominant. Consider 7th Ed Imperial Knights. Unless you came prepared, you were more or less stuffed against them. Majority of weapons could do nothing, and many heavy weapons found them tough going. I enjoy fielding Knights, but never made a habit of it outside of Apocalypse, their natural home. That was genuine imbalance. Your average army against an average Knight army was at an immediate disadvantage. 8th Ed has seemingly helped there with everything being able to wound anything to some degree. Sure, I'm not exactly panicking about massed Lasgun fire - but it's 100% more effective now than in 7th.

If you've heavily themed your list in 40k, you just need to accept there's some army builds and tactical situations you're going to struggle with. It doesn't mean the game itself is fundamentally flawed and therefore unplayable, just that certain choices come with a price tag.

Gideon makes a point. This is discussion, not news or rumors. The news was reported, and until the FAQ is released, theres really nothing to discuss except supposed fixes and possible coming changes.

But that doesnt look like the discussion at hand.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Which group do you count yourself among, I wonder? You seem to be speaking on behalf of a lot of people, and I wonder what you think your justification for doing so is.

None. Because there's no reason for those distinctions. I enjoy the hobby in a lot of different ways, and for a lot of different reasons.

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Have you actually read this thread? Pretty much all suggested 'balance fixes' here have been ways to limit what models you can include in your army. That is not the sort of 'balancing' I want.

And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

To properly balance things, you can't deal with arbitrary restrictions on units. You need to go over every unit in the game and discuss what its purpose in a meta and within its own army would be (and the variance that we want it to be viable within), how it fills that niche, how it can be dealt with by opponents, and how its army can deal with those counters. You need to develop an underlying philosophy for the state of the game (which I don't believe GW really has), and how your systems can work to encourage that. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be dealt with in a single thread or post. That's some serious time spent rigorously developing, testing, and scrutinizing rules.

 Fafnir wrote:
And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

I really don't believe anyone thinks that balance in itself is a bad thing, merely that the means many people want to achieve it with it are bad.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

I really don't believe anyone thinks that balance in itself is a bad thing, merely that the means many people want to achieve it with it are bad.

There were literally people crying that attempts for balance were bad because it isn't a competitive game in this forum.

There's people that believe EXACTLY in the statement you made.

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

I should just ingore you for that, comparing opinions to cancer is beyond good manners and you really should feel ashamed.

First: I have stated multiple times in this thread that i also want a balanced and well written rule set. I am also convinced that aiming for a watertight tournament game written by tournament players will sacrifice too much of the depth and flavour of 40k.

Second: You are trying to force so many opinions on me that you cant see the forest for all the strawmen... I am in no way CAAC, i want balance as much as anybody. The only person acting toxic and patronizing is you, pretending that your game of toy soldiers is more impartant than mine.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

Dont bother answering if you cant keep cancer out of it.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

jhnbrg wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

And this is exactly why a 40k designed by tournament players is a very bad idea.

You two "get it". I wish more players and fans of the game would.

***For those that don't like the discussion. The FAQ was delayed due to an event results. So stop saying it doesn't matter. It completely matters. Don't complain in here that the discussion is about balance. Complain to GW. They're holding it up for "balance" apparantly.***

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

 jhnbrg wrote:


That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But, some of those wanting better balance would say 'no more gimmicks. Everyone the same'. That is something I don't want to see GW do to please a small minority of hobbyists. Note that here, I am taking pains not to lump all those wanting better balance together. There are many different requests and ideas out there.

I don't really think anyone involved with 40k wants to streamline all armies to become equal. Even 30k with its "everyone is Space Marines" vibe has lots of unique defining features added to each legion.

I also don't think that any competitive players want to remove the whacky fun things some armies have. I have yet to see a single person complain about the bubble chukka mek gun. Even the people playing in the most cutthroat environments possible acknowledge it to be good idea, but prefer the more reliable KMK instead. Same goes for the Chaos Boon or "The Lion and the Wolf" stratagems or the Murder Sword relic. No competitive player is ever going to touch those, but no one sane wants them removed.

As long as you don't force "lol random" down everybody's throat (hi 7th edition), there is room for both types of units, stratagems and relics in codices.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

Go back and read the discussion, I am arguing against people claiming that 40k should be designed as a watertight streamlined tournament game where casual players will be allowed to tag along.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

Sorry but "it's too hard" is not an excuse. That's what you're saying at this point.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

Go back and read the discussion, I am arguing against people claiming that 40k should be designed as a watertight streamlined tournament game where casual players will be allowed to tag along.

Sorry if these seems obtuse, but I fail to see the difference in what GW has recently done and with the general idea of that direction. GW is looking to make a balanced game. It will never be watertight, because that would be bland, but they can come reasonably close. GW will not sacrifice it's IP. A rising tide lifts all boats is the point, I think.

I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

SeanDrake wrote:

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

There's way more to it than that easily demonstrated by DE:


And while not "unit rules" it provides flavor to the army:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

Because you haven't play enough 8th if you believe Tau, Chaos SPace Marines, Space Marines, Orks and Tyranids play in any similar way ones with the others.

 Galas wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

HH is still more balanced than 40k even with a number of actual special rules even taking into account the core UNITs are the same but not on the whole the rules.

I see what your saying but I cannot agree even with the simplistic tool kit they built they still have on the whole managed to balance feth all. 8th edition has the worst of both worlds with bland simplistic rules and still very little balance.

I just struggle to believe that anyone at GW actually gives a feth about the rules other than they function at the most basic level and people buy models. Don't get me wrong even that low bar is an improvement on previous design philosephy used but meh.

As for different factions play differently that's sought of true but what you will see is that in a lot of cases actual successful armies are built fairly similarly using the tools available to them that may overlap with another faction.

I'd disagree at times, given factions like Mechanicum, Custodes, and Militia/Cults.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Galas wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

HH is still more balanced than 40k even with a number of actual special rules even taking into account the core UNITs are the same but not on the whole the rules.

I see what your saying but I cannot agree even with the simplistic tool kit they built they still have on the whole managed to balance feth all. 8th edition has the worst of both worlds with bland simplistic rules and still very little balance.

I just struggle to believe that anyone at GW actually gives a feth about the rules other than they function at the most basic level and people buy models. Don't get me wrong even that low bar is an improvement on previous design philosephy used but meh.

As for different factions play differently that's sought of true but what you will see is that in a lot of cases actual successful armies are built fairly similarly using the tools available to them that may overlap with another faction.

Is it though? Adjusted for how little variation there is between units (oh, but THIS unit of tacticals has OUTFLANK!&^&@!%&@%&!^!) you still have units that are totally worthless (the majority of vehicles) and units that are completely bonkers.

HH external balance seems fine because every army is basically the same (and even then there are still clear winners and losers) but the internal balance of each army is just as bad as 40k. If the different legions had to deal with even a tenth of the factional deviations 40k does, forgeworld would have collapsed under the weight of it's own ruleset by now. Add on to that the fact that the 7th ed ruleset is broken at a core, fundamental level, and you have a game that sneaks by because they only have to balance 1.5 armies.(and the exorbitant cost and small playerbase) And the moment they DO introduce a new army(custodes) it immediately breaks the game enough that several groups ban their use in RTTs.

So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

The London GT, the second largest Warhammer event in the world, and the largest in Europe, is in May, list submission is final at the end of April.

This could very well impact that event, particularly if it comes out after the deadline for list submission but before the event...

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

What he said! I'm seeing a lot of competative players claiming the casual gamers of 40k don't understand how important rules are. Ive been playing this game 30 odd years. The competative scene as is hasn't been around that long and all of a sudden they think that 40k wouldn't exist without them.

I appreciate that side now exists even though I don't get the point of it but it shouldn't be the developers focus. That kind of narrow tunnel vision is what killed off the old world.

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

Any event that mandates you follow rules that were released after the list submission deadline is just silly.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The London GT, the second largest Warhammer event in the world, and the largest in Europe, is in May, list submission is final at the end of April.

This could very well impact that event, particularly if it comes out after the deadline for list submission but before the event...

Lol. That would be awful. Hilarious too if there's a rule put in place like the commander battlesuit rule for tau but for other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

Ugh. That would suck. I suppose if they actually got things out in March like they said they would you'd have a couple weeks to scramble to come up with something.

Hopefully event organizers are understanding and put in a bit of a delay for when changes like that go into effect.

 Chamberlain wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The London GT, the second largest Warhammer event in the world, and the largest in Europe, is in May, list submission is final at the end of April.

This could very well impact that event, particularly if it comes out after the deadline for list submission but before the event...

Lol. That would be awful. Hilarious too if there's a rule put in place like the commander battlesuit rule for tau but for other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

Ugh. That would suck. I suppose if they actually got things out in March like they said they would you'd have a couple weeks to scramble to come up with something.

Hopefully event organizers are understanding and put in a bit of a delay for when changes like that go into effect.

While I hate unimaginative spam armies, I would still feel worse if the nerf wasn't a commander style nerf, but a direct Hive Tyrant nerf that didn't effect points.
It would suck a little to base your list around something, and then for that something to be completely changed after you submitted your list, but in such a way your list was still legal.

I'll likely be fine unless they do in fact repoint guardsmen or mess with allies, but given I have to ensure everything is painted to a high standard, I'm nervous about changes in April forcing me to make suprise changes that could lead to changes in models and thus paint jobs.

Thanks guys, Ill adapt if the unthinkable happens lol. 5 wonderfully painted Flyrants. However, I have got to play them for years.

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

 Byte wrote:
Thanks guys, Ill adapt if the unthinkable happens lol. 5 wonderfully painted Flyrants. However, I have got to play them for years.

Congratulations on finding a event that meets you rigorous standard for disciplinary action. Hope you don't get flogged for any transgressions.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

 quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

THat's pretty rude, considering it wasn't an issue for most people until Adepticon. Also, broken is a harsh word. Efficient and 'needing adjustment' probably, but it's not broken.

I also have an even on April 14th and depending on the FAQ could ruin my nid list.

I do have a secondary list ready just in case that happens though.

If they just limit us to one flyrant per detachment I'm good, if they nerf points I'm using the other list.

How and when did this thread get so hostile? Jeez guys, it's just a game, balance is balance and the way we play is up to the people playing on their own time. Casual and competitive games are very different things so let's all just chill and let people play how we want. Balance is good, washed out is bad, but GW are never going to wash the game out, look at all the codexes they're producing. But they seem to be trying to give everyone a more balanced experience, which is all we can really ask for in a game with so many factions and units.

Can we go back to talking about wish listing changes or something?

quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

Wow man. Quality input. Because I foresaw some clowns would play Flyrant spam and make Adepticon sad.

Crimson Devil wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Thanks guys, Ill adapt if the unthinkable happens lol. 5 wonderfully painted Flyrants. However, I have got to play them for years.

Congratulations on finding a event that meets you rigorous standard for disciplinary action. Hope you don't get flogged for any transgressions.

Thanks?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

They do look sweet, thank you.

Carnikang wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

THat's pretty rude, considering it wasn't an issue for most people until Adepticon. Also, broken is a harsh word. Efficient and 'needing adjustment' probably, but it's not broken.

Agreed, I played anti-meta and now its "meta". Try being me. Thank you for looking out. "Whack-a-mole" syndrome out of control right now.

Neronoxx wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

No sympathy. You know it's broken and you know you can expect a nerf based on the Tau precedent. I would suggest building another list.

Rude af, go somewhere else please?

Agreed, not a reasonable response. Thank you.

I'm now starting to see the problem with a delay like this. Everyone thought anything they needed to change would be known in March and now it's going to be some other time in the future. So all the event organizers who booked space/rented halls and took registration fees for their event have players that are in a state of uncertainty about what the rules for the event might be. And some will only have a very short time to adapt.

At least if it was done on the last day of March you'd have a couple weeks for the events in mid April.

Is GW going to put an "effective date" on the FAQ to give some people breathing room? Magic does this with their banned and restricted announcements. Changes to Modern, for example, didn't go into effect until the week after a major upcoming event. They actually stuck to their schedule though.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm now starting to see the problem with a delay like this. Everyone thought anything they needed to change would be known in March and now it's going to be some other time in the future. So all the event organizers who booked space/rented halls and took registration fees for their event have players that are in a state of uncertainty about what the rules for the event might be. And some will only have a very short time to adapt.

At least if it was done on the last day of March you'd have a couple weeks for the events in mid April.

Is GW going to put an "effective date" on the FAQ to give some people breathing room? Magic does this with their banned and restricted announcements. Changes to Modern, for example, didn't go into effect until the week after a major upcoming event. They actually stuck to their schedule though.

I think they would, if they knew exactly what their workload is.
Much of the FAQ writing workload seems hard to approximate. It could be 5000 responses + tournament results + testing, or 12, million responses plus the above.

Reason why I'm okay with being patient and it taking longer

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm now starting to see the problem with a delay like this. Everyone thought anything they needed to change would be known in March and now it's going to be some other time in the future. So all the event organizers who booked space/rented halls and took registration fees for their event have players that are in a state of uncertainty about what the rules for the event might be. And some will only have a very short time to adapt.

At least if it was done on the last day of March you'd have a couple weeks for the events in mid April.

Is GW going to put an "effective date" on the FAQ to give some people breathing room? Magic does this with their banned and restricted announcements. Changes to Modern, for example, didn't go into effect until the week after a major upcoming event. They actually stuck to their schedule though.

Check with your TO for the event. They probably already have a cut off date for new codexes and FAQs.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
I'm now starting to see the problem with a delay like this. Everyone thought anything they needed to change would be known in March and now it's going to be some other time in the future. So all the event organizers who booked space/rented halls and took registration fees for their event have players that are in a state of uncertainty about what the rules for the event might be. And some will only have a very short time to adapt.

At least if it was done on the last day of March you'd have a couple weeks for the events in mid April.

Is GW going to put an "effective date" on the FAQ to give some people breathing room? Magic does this with their banned and restricted announcements. Changes to Modern, for example, didn't go into effect until the week after a major upcoming event. They actually stuck to their schedule though.

Check with your TO for the event. They probably already have a cut off date for new codexes and FAQs.

Yeah, adepticon wouldn't of been using the FAQ even if it had come out in March. Most large tournaments have a 30 day moratorium on new rules.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The London GT, the second largest Warhammer event in the world, and the largest in Europe, is in May, list submission is final at the end of April.

This could very well impact that event, particularly if it comes out after the deadline for list submission but before the event...

Lol. That would be awful. Hilarious too if there's a rule put in place like the commander battlesuit rule for tau but for other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
I have an event Apr 15th. A Flyrant nerf would invalidate my army.

Ugh. That would suck. I suppose if they actually got things out in March like they said they would you'd have a couple weeks to scramble to come up with something.

Hopefully event organizers are understanding and put in a bit of a delay for when changes like that go into effect.

While I hate unimaginative spam armies, I would still feel worse if the nerf wasn't a commander style nerf, but a direct Hive Tyrant nerf that didn't effect points.
It would suck a little to base your list around something, and then for that something to be completely changed after you submitted your list, but in such a way your list was still legal.

I'll likely be fine unless they do in fact repoint guardsmen or mess with allies, but given I have to ensure everything is painted to a high standard, I'm nervous about changes in April forcing me to make suprise changes that could lead to changes in models and thus paint jobs.

Yeah, I emailed the LGT team the day after the delay announcement raising the potential concern this delay could have.

Zach responded saying he understands the potential concerns but doesn’t think it is a serious risk at this point. As a lead play tester they apparently drafted the deadlines around knowledge of these things.

He did also say

“Should there be an unforeseen delay with release of the FAQ then I will consider revising the LGT deadlines.”

So, while there is a possibility of it getting delayed and delayed and delayed, we should hopefully see the LGT deadlines get revised if required.

I do have sympathy for people like Byte who suddenly find a unit they have maxed out on is suddenly gutted in effectiveness just before a tournament.

HOWEVER
What were you expecting? This isn't the old days any more when an OP unit remains OP for X years until the next codex rolls around - you knew the unit you were spamming was OP, and rolled the dice to maximise on it before an FAQ came around.

People these days who spam OP units must expect their composition and strategy to have the shelf life of an FAQ window.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

So, figure the FAQ is going to be this week or? Right after Adepticon would have been last Saturday, so...

Sometimes I feel bad when a FAQ nerf someone, other times it's well deserved. Other times I have mixed feelings.

Obviously broken things need to be fixed. If even having one of something is an obvious "auto include" it needs the nerf bat.

If one of something isn't too bad, but a TFG taking 6 of them ruins the game, minor points adjustment or limitations isn't going to ruin it for the casual gamer that only took one anyway.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

Guy said he was going to tournaments. In tournaments you can bet your ass the other people will also bring their waac lists. You don't go to have fun, you go into a battlefield of rules lawyers and half-inch-debaters. You better be prepared. As long as the FAQ is not out, he is entitled to play all his flyrants.

As for the painting stuff, it is important - especially nowdays- to remember that warhammer is more than the strategic part of a battle. It used to be so that well painted armies actually received extra victory points in tournaments. I feel that nowdays people go around discussing the FAQ and the nerfs and the balance, and they completely skip the biggest part of the hobby because of it. The guy bought 5 flyrants and spent the effort and time to paint them nicely. He is obviously affected multiple ways if GW decides to change their ruleset every 3 months (ie decide to make Flyrants 0-1 per detachment like the commanders). Not only due rules/play wise, but also because it could be that he is stripped off all the effort and time he spent in case he now has to either shelf his flyrants or buy more troops to make them playable again. Warhammer is not a computer game, where you get to restart with new units 5 mins later. It takes money and effort and time, storage space and transportation.

Bottom line:

1. GW should playtest more.
2. Guy is allowed to bring a -for the moment- legal list to a tournament, even if the list is waac. People who also go to the same tournament will bring their own waac too.
3. It is not ok for people to go apeshit on someone because they want to play a strong list at the tournament.
4. More aspects than plain rules matter to the hobby. I would gladly accept to play against 7 excellently painted flyrants, even if I knew I would probably lose. I would probably not accept to play against a guy who brings 7 empty bases and says "ok proxy flyrants". That's because I can see and appreciate the effort spent by the first dude, and I know there's more in his list than just his desire to win.
5. GW should playtest more. Before they release armies.

 Chamberlain wrote:
Lol. That would be awful. Hilarious too if there's a rule put in place like the commander battlesuit rule for tau but for other armies.

Yeah, my army with three chapter masters will be totally invalidated.

Oh wait

 Tiberius501 wrote:
washed out is bad, but GW are never going to wash the game out

I take you never took a look at last three DW rule sets. Each one worse and blander than the last, including especially laughable Index section in 8th.

I'd love for the 8th edition Codex DW to prove me wrong, but that's not going to happen unless they finally give the army to someone other than Kelly/Cruddace wunderteam.

 MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:
People these days who spam OP units must expect their composition and strategy to have the shelf life of an FAQ window.

Correction - it's not OP stuff that gets nerfed these days. It's what people whine most often about. See SM guns nerf, rather dumb one as it affected things that now have superior Tau/Eldar equivalents, for cheaper, just because xeno players were upset the SM Codex was slightly better than their Index stuff (and now that their Codex stuff is considerably superior, the change of course wasn't reversed, because reasons). Ditto for dumb Commissar nerf that came after the real problematic unit, conscripts, was virtually deleted from the Codex. Was the change reverted after Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and now Dark Eldar got even better, free, unkillable equivalents of their own? Nope, because again, the change wasn't about balance, it was about silencing loud whining noises. Imperial soups can still finagle fearless blobs if they want in the number of ways, the only ones that were really affected were poor non-souping IG players who were left with for all intents and purposes removal (I can't call making unit actively harming and never helping owning player otherwise) of iconic 40K unit from the game...

At this point, I have no pitty for someone forced to shelf models because GW nerfed them.

GW brought the hammer down on Storm Ravens, Brimstones, Assaultcannon razorbacks and more before Codex:Tyranids was even released. If you bought, build and painted seven flyrants to do well in 8th, you must have done so with the knowledge that the army might be invalidated within three to six months.

The quality of a paint job is also utterly irrelevant to the game. I have played against awesome people with marines of the Grey Chapter and I have played against TFGs with armies that would make a golden daemon winner cry in envy.
I also have one friend how sells his entire army and builds up and paints a new one every two or three months or so. He is a very talented and very fast painter, so he could simply switch to whatever the flavor of the month is at the drop of a hat. Luckily he is just constantly selling his armies because he gets bored with them and wants to play something different.
Plus selling fully painted armies every few month is a great way to earn hobby money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:
Correction - it's not OP stuff that gets nerfed these days. It's what people whine most often about. See SM guns nerf, rather dumb one as it affected things that now have superior Tau/Eldar equivalents, for cheaper, just because xeno players were upset the SM Codex was slightly better than their Index stuff (and now that their Codex stuff is considerably superior, the change of course wasn't reversed, because reasons). Ditto for dumb Commissar nerf that came after the real problematic unit, conscripts, was virtually deleted from the Codex. Was the change reverted after Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and now Dark Eldar got even better, free, unkillable equivalents of their own? Nope, because again, the change wasn't about balance, it was about silencing loud whining noises. Imperial soups can still finagle fearless blobs if they want in the number of ways, the only ones that were really affected were poor non-souping IG players who were left with for all intents and purposes removal (I can't call making unit actively harming and never helping owning player otherwise) of iconic 40K unit from the game...

The real problem child of 8th so far has been the ally system, so as long as that remains unchanged, pure imperial and chaos armies will suffer when certain units become to powerful when played as part of a soup army.
You cannot have the best screen in the game combined with the best guns in the game and the best support character in the game in one army, because that army is going to be the best army in the game.

You will always get side effects when trying to cure symptoms instead of rooting out the problem.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, screw the guy with models that are honestly probably painted better than most people's here!

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now? Do we need to start prefacing our posts with photos of our models and/or any painting awards we might have gotten just so you know we're good enough?

I'm glad I'm not the only person wondering what the quality of someone's paint job had to do with the issue of FAQs and army composition.

Guy said he was going to tournaments. In tournaments you can bet your ass the other people will also bring their waac lists. You don't go to have fun, you go into a battlefield of rules lawyers and half-inch-debaters. You better be prepared. As long as the FAQ is not out, he is entitled to play all his flyrants.

As for the painting stuff, it is important - especially nowdays- to remember that warhammer is more than the strategic part of a battle. It used to be so that well painted armies actually received extra victory points in tournaments. I feel that nowdays people go around discussing the FAQ and the nerfs and the balance, and they completely skip the biggest part of the hobby because of it. The guy bought 5 flyrants and spent the effort and time to paint them nicely. He is obviously affected multiple ways if GW decides to change their ruleset every 3 months (ie decide to make Flyrants 0-1 per detachment like the commanders). Not only due rules/play wise, but also because it could be that he is stripped off all the effort and time he spent in case he now has to either shelf his flyrants or buy more troops to make them playable again. Warhammer is not a computer game, where you get to restart with new units 5 mins later. It takes money and effort and time, storage space and transportation.

Bottom line:

1. GW should playtest more.
2. Guy is allowed to bring a -for the moment- legal list to a tournament, even if the list is waac. People who also go to the same tournament will bring their own waac too.
3. It is not ok for people to go apeshit on someone because they want to play a strong list at the tournament.
4. More aspects than plain rules matter to the hobby. I would gladly accept to play against 7 excellently painted flyrants, even if I knew I would probably lose. I would probably not accept to play against a guy who brings 7 empty bases and says "ok proxy flyrants". That's because I can see and appreciate the effort spent by the first dude, and I know there's more in his list than just his desire to win.
5. GW should playtest more. Before they release armies.

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what Aggamemnon and I were actually responding about.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you just may want to re-read the quote chain and its actual context.

You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

 Platuan4th wrote:


Nothing you just said has anything to do with what Aggamemnon and I were actually responding about.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you just may want to re-read the quote chain and its actual context.

this has to do:

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now?

I said that in previous years, well painted armies really got awarded extra victory points in tournaments, even official GW ones. And I agree to that. So yeah, if you are a good painter you should get special consideration. Because you promote the hobby better than others (me included).

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


Nothing you just said has anything to do with what Aggamemnon and I were actually responding about.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you just may want to re-read the quote chain and its actual context.

this has to do:

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now?

I said that in previous years, well painted armies really got awarded extra victory points in tournaments, even official GW ones. And I agree to that. So yeah, if you are a good painter you should get special consideration. Because you promote the hobby better than others (me included).

Yeah, I was around for those years. But that's not really special consideration, just part(or not these days) of the event and still isn't addressing the actual thing that Slayer-Fan was saying.

What Aggamemnon is saying as special consideration is more akin to those stupid "painted armies get Preferred Enemy against unpainted" type rules. Or in this case that well painted armies should be allowed to ignore certain army build rules because they're well painted.

Edit: Or that being a good painter suddenly lends you more weight in a discussion about FAQs and army comp.

 Jidmah wrote:

The real problem child of 8th so far has been the ally system

2nd edition had endless issues when played competitively, but people abusing the Allies system was one of the reasons it was all but eliminated from the game from 3rd through 5th editions (multiple-FOC games were very rare). Was it hubris for them to reintroduce it, and then make matters worse in 8th edition? Devil only knows.

 Platuan4th wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:


Nothing you just said has anything to do with what Aggamemnon and I were actually responding about.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, you just may want to re-read the quote chain and its actual context.

this has to do:

What, being a good painter entitles you to special consideration now?

I said that in previous years, well painted armies really got awarded extra victory points in tournaments, even official GW ones. And I agree to that. So yeah, if you are a good painter you should get special consideration. Because you promote the hobby better than others (me included).

Yeah, I was around for those years. But that's not really special consideration, just part(or not these days) of the event and still isn't addressing the actual thing that Slayer-Fan was saying.

What Aggamemnon is saying as special consideration is more akin to those stupid "painted armies get Preferred Enemy against unpainted" type rules. Or in this case that well painted armies should be allowed to ignore certain army build rules because they're well painted.

I wonder if implementing something like that would incentivize people to move their arses and paint their armies at last. "-But should that be your problem/call? Are you entitled to judge them on how they spend their time?" Probably not. Then again, I kind of suck at painting. I can do highlights I guess, but I cannot blend or feather to save my life. Yet I spend the effort. I take time out of my schedule to do my half-assed tabletop level painting and play with painted and based models, to the extend that I have the skill to make them. I do that not only for me, but also to be able to offer my opponent a nice game evening. Same way I try to remember my rules and learn how to move my gak fast around the table. Then -and I'm afraid this could sound a little elitist-, I would appreciate a lot to know that I'm playing someone who also dedicated their time to offer me a nice experience too, and they did not just spend their time above the faq pages and trying to devise the waac-est list ever.

 Jidmah wrote:
The real problem child of 8th so far has been the ally system

As much as the 6th edition ally chart was maligned, by complainers who hated it disallowed some broken combos, I actually liked it. It had both fluff and balance in mind, I'd like to see some variant of it brought back (such as some Imperial/Eldar/Chaos keywords not playing well with others). Also, ally detachment (patrol?) for anything that is not your warlord faction would be nice, too.

 DominayTrix wrote:
You guys should really try building a Tau list on Battlescribe before you say the Tau nerf is something good to spread to other armies. Build a farsight brigade. Build 3 Battalions of any sept besides T'au. Now apply the same nerf to all HQs. Make 2-3 SoB battalions. Make a non-Mars admech Brigade. Count how many non-stacking ability HQs you have to use as a tax. Oh and remember the ban is based on the keyword not the name of the unit. So if you want to play Space Wolves you can only have 1 Wolf Lord/Wolf Priest per Detachment. Edit: In b4 a commander stole my baby and Tau needed a nerf despite rarely placing well in tournaments

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

I love how people still beat that dead horse after last half dozen books (none of which featured -1 to hit, I might add), and doing so after seeing Dark Eldar previews really takes the cake. Do keep up, it's not 2016 anymore

SeanDrake wrote:
HH is still more balanced than 40k

Wrong. Again, it's not 2016 anymore, do keep up. Claiming HH is 'balanced' when you have Custodes, SW, and TS in it trumping everyone else with laughable ease (also, Dracosan spam and certain admech lists) on list building stage (and is only ""balanced"" by depth of your bank account seeing best unit spam is expensive in $$) pretty much shows your opinion on game balance can be safely discarded in its entirety. Not even Codex vs Index climb in 8th is anywhere near as bad as some matchups in HH, and that is just army rules, never mind broken ruleset it works on. Skewing your game to such degree when everyone is MEQ sure takes special effort

 Irbis wrote:

A) In case you haven't noticed, SM had same restriction from the start, except worse, because it was per army, not detachment, B) none of the above armies have units broken to such degree as Tau, C) when they are nerfed, they are faced with utter obliteration of the unit, not tiny, easily avoidable restriction (see commissars), D) I wouldn't actually mind if certain units, like SM captain, were limited to one per detachment. These are supposed to be rare. The fact Tau were allowed to spam their equivalents of warmaster (or at best, crusade commander) was making outright mockery of their fluff. Want me to play this tiny compassion violin you got to keep one of the best units in the game instead of seeing it properly nerfed?

You ARE aware that the tau commander spam never even ranked highly, and the only reason why people played it was because index-era tau had nothing that was decent except commanders (who were good mind you) and gun drones (who were too good even)

The coldstar now IS too good, but that's actually codex stupidity and in the index he was borderline playable at best.


What they SHOULD have done there was to make commanders less of a gunboat (limit the guns, don't add more damnit!) and give them an actual aura like every other "commander" in every other army has-rather than the sheer stupidity of making coldstars broken and then applying a limit on it.

The only people being punished are people like me, who just played regular old battalions with 2 commanders around (my case was R'alai and a coldstar) and now literally can't field a legal battalion without T'au sept specific named characters despit owning well over 5k points worth of models.
A powergamer is not punished at all, he just spams patrols with a coldstar+a "tax" 5 fire warrior squad, who is honestly the least tax "tax troop" unit I can think of.