Our PreOrders for the Nephilim book for screwed up so we didn’t get any on release day, and have never been able to get any on a restock order. With yet another restock coming in and no Nephilim, I checked their webstore to see if it was still out of stock there as well and I can’t even find the listing for it. Links online lead to a 404. Was Nephilim really a one and done release with no restock?
Yep. All the Warzones, campaign books and whatever are.
Its a pretty contemptible release model, but the only way it'll stop is if people stop falling for it.
AduroT wrote: Our PreOrders for the Nephilim book for screwed up so we didn’t get any on release day, and have never been able to get any on a restock order. With yet another restock coming in and no Nephilim, I checked their webstore to see if it was still out of stock there as well and I can’t even find the listing for it. Links online lead to a 404. Was Nephilim really a one and done release with no restock?
AduroT wrote: It just seems extra dumb to make a book you’re “supposed” to have for tournaments and only make it in a limited amount.
It depends why you're doing it, of course. If you're trying to support tournaments, sure, its dumb. If you're trying to churn and burn limited production runs for easy cash, then its quite effective. And its been really obvious since Psychic Awakening that they've been doing the latter. Its 10? 12? books along the pattern at this point (ignore various crusade only and what have you add-on books).
The first one for AoS lasted a year before getting replaced, and that felt right. The book was also spiral bound and holy crap I will gladly spend the premium for that it is SO convenient. We'll see how long the current season goes for, if they try to do 6 month seasons for AoS... well I don't think the player base will be as hospitable to the idea.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The first one for AoS lasted a year before getting replaced, and that felt right. The book was also spiral bound and holy crap I will gladly spend the premium for that it is SO convenient. We'll see how long the current season goes for, if they try to do 6 month seasons for AoS... well I don't think the player base will be as hospitable to the idea.
The same was true for 40k. The first GT mission pack was spiral bound and lasted a year. They only went to 6-month seasons with the latest one. The 40k community were pretty annoyed by the idea...and yet it seems like it didn't really affect GW's bottom line. I can't see AoS being any different.
AduroT wrote: It just seems extra dumb to make a book you’re “supposed” to have for tournaments and only make it in a limited amount.
Sounds exactly like what GW would do though.
Not trying to excuse it, but I can see why they'd short it so that they're not sitting on a bunch of worthless product after the planned 6 month lifespan.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The first one for AoS lasted a year before getting replaced, and that felt right. The book was also spiral bound and holy crap I will gladly spend the premium for that it is SO convenient. We'll see how long the current season goes for, if they try to do 6 month seasons for AoS... well I don't think the player base will be as hospitable to the idea.
The same was true for 40k. The first GT mission pack was spiral bound and lasted a year. They only went to 6-month seasons with the latest one. The 40k community were pretty annoyed by the idea...and yet it seems like it didn't really affect GW's bottom line. I can't see AoS being any different.
The new one is also spiral bound with a good amount of 'bonus' content.
Probably worth noting the AoS app is very functional and convenient to use, so the value of the digital unlock is not insignificant.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The first one for AoS lasted a year before getting replaced, and that felt right. The book was also spiral bound and holy crap I will gladly spend the premium for that it is SO convenient. We'll see how long the current season goes for, if they try to do 6 month seasons for AoS... well I don't think the player base will be as hospitable to the idea.
The same was true for 40k. The first GT mission pack was spiral bound and lasted a year. They only went to 6-month seasons with the latest one. The 40k community were pretty annoyed by the idea...and yet it seems like it didn't really affect GW's bottom line. I can't see AoS being any different.
I've not seen AoS players have the same amount of churn and burn with their books. It's being done to 40k players exclusively, along with other terrible moves like "kit = rules", because a lot of the crowd just accepts it and spends the money.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The first one for AoS lasted a year before getting replaced, and that felt right. The book was also spiral bound and holy crap I will gladly spend the premium for that it is SO convenient. We'll see how long the current season goes for, if they try to do 6 month seasons for AoS... well I don't think the player base will be as hospitable to the idea.
The same was true for 40k. The first GT mission pack was spiral bound and lasted a year. They only went to 6-month seasons with the latest one. The 40k community were pretty annoyed by the idea...and yet it seems like it didn't really affect GW's bottom line. I can't see AoS being any different.
I've not seen AoS players have the same amount of churn and burn with their books. It's being done to 40k players exclusively, along with other terrible moves like "kit = rules", because a lot of the crowd just accepts it and spends the money.
Most of the AoS players I know just ignore these out of hand.
AduroT wrote:Our PreOrders for the Nephilim book for screwed up so we didn’t get any on release day, and have never been able to get any on a restock order. With yet another restock coming in and no Nephilim, I checked their webstore to see if it was still out of stock there as well and I can’t even find the listing for it. Links online lead to a 404. Was Nephilim really a one and done release with no restock?
Yeah, the season should be ending pretty soon. Hopefully GW is better about producing the right amount of stock so it doesn't happen again. I'd be sure to put in an early pre order with LGS for sure though.
Even better: Let's hope this "Seasons" bull gak GW is trying goes away completely.
Since I almost exclusively play matched play, I really like the seasons. Missions getting shaken up some every 6 months is actually a lot of fun, and helps things from getting stale.
Since I almost exclusively play matched play, I really like the seasons. Missions getting shaken up some every 6 months is actually a lot of fun, and helps things from getting stale.
You know that Pts + secondaries + virtually any mission printed regardless of its section title works perfectly fine, right?
Hell, you & those you play with can copy GWs lead & make up random rules changes concerning CP use etc....
You don't have to sit there waiting on GW to spoon feed you crap at $40 a pop to keep things fresh.
Since I almost exclusively play matched play, I really like the seasons. Missions getting shaken up some every 6 months is actually a lot of fun, and helps things from getting stale.
You know that Pts + secondaries + virtually any mission printed regardless of its section title works perfectly fine, right?
Hell, you & those you play with can copy GWs lead & make up random rules changes concerning CP use etc....
You don't have to sit there waiting on GW to spoon feed you crap at $40 a pop to keep things fresh.
Some people don't have the time/energy to make their own rules. They buy the books so they can spend their time/energy actually playing the game.
Since I almost exclusively play matched play, I really like the seasons. Missions getting shaken up some every 6 months is actually a lot of fun, and helps things from getting stale.
You know that Pts + secondaries + virtually any mission printed regardless of its section title works perfectly fine, right?
Hell, you & those you play with can copy GWs lead & make up random rules changes concerning CP use etc....
You don't have to sit there waiting on GW to spoon feed you crap at $40 a pop to keep things fresh.
There is really no reason to be a condescending ass here.
I tend to travel and play in events, so I don't really want to just make up random scenarios. It's also much easier to set up pick up games locally, since the wider community uses the latest ruleset for matched play.
Blndmage wrote: Some people don't have the time/energy to make their own rules. They buy the books so they can spend their time/energy actually playing the game.
It is not even that. Often it is just if someone tries to push their own homebrew rules, the opponent will say no, and play against someone who plays the official rules. And then one can bend how ever one wants, and their fixed rules, new scenarios etc won't get used , because no one will play you. And building an entire army with the hope that someone will let you use non legal rules goes beyond what a normal player can invest in to w40k.
Kudos to those that can play what ever they want, but it starts to enter the area of in order to properly play GW games, you need a house, the income of a 30+ year old, a large group of friends, no or an accepting spouse etc. Not a very achivable thing for teens or young people playing GW games.
Kudos to those that can play what ever they want, but it starts to enter the area of in order to properly play GW games, you need a house, the income of a 30+ year old, a large group of friends, no or an accepting spouse etc. Not a very achivable thing for teens or young people playing GW games.
As a 40yr old, it's not achievable for most of us. Don't forget disabled people, we usually can't afford the whole Matched Play thing.
Kudos to those that can play what ever they want, but it starts to enter the area of in order to properly play GW games, you need a house, the income of a 30+ year old, a large group of friends, no or an accepting spouse etc. Not a very achivable thing for teens or young people playing GW games.
This will blow your mind.
The other day (sat afternoon) I'm at the shop. I'm setting up a table for a different game. Across the aisle & a bit behind me I hear two of the kids (both 15/16 yr olds) discussing the details of a custom scenario/mission.
●They don't own houses.
●They don't own infinite models.
●They don't have anything resembling the income of an adult.
●Niether has custom built an army to play custom rules.
●and I happen to know that outside the shop neither has a pool of 40k playing friends/family.
● Oh, and neither seemed worried that the other guy was trying to gain some sort of game advantage.
They were just two (not quite random) 40k players taking a few minutes to come up with a unique mission they thought would be fun.
And over the next 2 hours or so they did indeed seem to be having fun....
So if these two kids could take a few moments?
What stops the rest of you?
Kudos to those that can play what ever they want, but it starts to enter the area of in order to properly play GW games, you need a house, the income of a 30+ year old, a large group of friends, no or an accepting spouse etc. Not a very achivable thing for teens or young people playing GW games.
This will blow your mind.
The other day (sat afternoon) I'm at the shop. I'm setting up a table for a different game. Across the aisle & a bit behind me I hear two of the kids (both 15/16 yr olds) discussing the details of a custom scenario/mission.
●They don't own houses.
●They don't own infinite models.
●They don't have anything resembling the income of an adult.
●Niether has custom built an army to play custom rules.
●and I happen to know that outside the shop neither has a pool of 40k playing friends/family.
● Oh, and neither seemed worried that the other guy was trying to gain some sort of game advantage.
They were just two (not quite random) 40k players taking a few minutes to come up with a unique mission they thought would be fun.
And over the next 2 hours or so they did indeed seem to be having fun....
So if these two kids could take a few moments?
What stops the rest of you?
Karol is correct here for the most part. Very often players in my area find themselves in a situation where their opponent pool dictates the games that they play. In my case I live 20 minutes and about an hour from 2 very active tabletop gaming clubs. No one there wants to play anything but matched play up to date rules. There is a gaming store in the city that has a massive pool of players where I can easily get games of narrative, tempest even homebrew if I want but thats almost 90 minutes travel time for me.
If you have the luxury of having opponents that will play what you want then thats great for you but this was a thread about nephilim specifically and by default a thread about matched play so coming on here and hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
It also seems to be a problem that's quite specific to 40k. I don't really hear the same complaints about groups playing X-Wing, or Bolt Action, or Malifaux. It's odd that the blame is laid at the feet of the "group" if a player can't get an enjoyable game.
AduroT wrote: It just seems extra dumb to make a book you’re “supposed” to have for tournaments and only make it in a limited amount.
It depends why you're doing it, of course. If you're trying to support tournaments, sure, its dumb. If you're trying to churn and burn limited production runs for easy cash, then its quite effective. And its been really obvious since Psychic Awakening that they've been doing the latter. Its 10? 12? books along the pattern at this point (ignore various crusade only and what have you add-on books).
Then it'd make sense for them to have printed more at the start.
This is simply GW mis-judging how desirable the book would be as it did quite a decent job at the goal it was set to tackle.
It made no sense for them to re-print the book at the time as they had no way to judge the remaining demand and they can't order a small run very easily.
Ultimately it should just be digital, but there isn't some scheme at play here.
It's not like the existence of 6-month mission packs detracts anything from those who don't play competitive 40K. Crusade missions, open play, matched play from the BRB are still there. They didn't vanish.
For those of us who do enjoy that, mission packs like Nephilim are one of the best things GW introduced recently.
If you don't like that, don't buy these books. And maybe avoid wasting time trying to explain to others why their favourite game mode is wrong and shouldn't exist.
I don't understand, GW typically posts the big rules changes for Chapter Approveds for free on the community article. If your local group only plays the latest, someone has the book, probably multiple people. So why not ask to take some pictures of the relevant parts?
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
I don't live in such a place.
However I do know hidden art that has been forgotten by people generally. Talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gangland wrote: I don't understand, GW typically posts the big rules changes for Chapter Approveds for free on the community article. If your local group only plays the latest, someone has the book, probably multiple people. So why not ask to take some pictures of the relevant parts?
GW doesn't post all rules for free. That's their point. Sell books. They wouldn't sell books if they would release everything for free.
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
I don't live in such a place.
However I do know hidden art that has been forgotten by people generally. Talk.
Perfect example. As someone else said what other games require negotiation talks prior to playing a game?
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
I don't live in such a place.
However I do know hidden art that has been forgotten by people generally. Talk.
Perfect example. As someone else said what other games require negotiation talks prior to playing a game?
Most (all) table top games, magic the gathering and probably a few others.
If somebody is just starting, doesn't have a big collection of minis/ cards, wants to play a specific scenario, specific list or way of playing it's handy to know so that you can both bring something appropriate.
I would like to see an opposite example, where do people not talk before a game?
In Dropzone, Dropfleet, Necromunda, Kill Team, Apocalypse and 40k I've always had pregame discussions. Terrain setup, points level, what kind of game, and units we want to use ourself or would like it opponent to use/not use, there was always a lot to discuss.
The least discussion was when playing 5 parsec cooperatively, at least concerning pre game setup
You guys are confusing discussion with negotiation.
People on here frequently say "if your opponent is running WAAC lists just ask them not to" or "just ask if you can play old editions" which is not at all the same as just talking about which Magic format to run or what points value to play.
But then you know that. You're just playing ignorant to try and further your own arguments.
Sim-Life wrote: But then you know that. You're just playing ignorant to try and further your own arguments.
Probably accounts for 20% of some threads. I incorrectly called it concern trolling recently, I can't quite name it, it could be called ignorance trolling, (mis)understanding trolling, inaccuracy trolling?
Sim-Life wrote: You guys are confusing discussion with negotiation.
People on here frequently say "if your opponent is running WAAC lists just ask them not to" or "just ask if you can play old editions" which is not at all the same as just talking about which Magic format to run or what points value to play.
But then you know that. You're just playing ignorant to try and further your own arguments.
MtG Commander has a lot of discussion about power level and "Rule 0" - more so when you play outside your regular pod.
Sim-Life wrote: People on here frequently say "if your opponent is running WAAC lists just ask them not to" or "just ask if you can play old editions" which is not at all the same as just talking about which Magic format to run or what points value to play.
I can certainly see an argument that a discussion of editions and a discussion of Magic formats are not dis-similar.
ccs wrote: So if these two kids could take a few moments?
What stops the rest of you?
In my experience, being too exhausted from real life to allocate the mental energy it takes to process a new scenario for which the person does not already have the mental muscle-memory established. I say this as the guy who does want to mix it up but has trouble finding opponents.
Sim-Life wrote: You guys are confusing discussion with negotiation.
People on here frequently say "if your opponent is running WAAC lists just ask them not to" or "just ask if you can play old editions" which is not at all the same as just talking about which Magic format to run or what points value to play.
But then you know that. You're just playing ignorant to try and further your own arguments.
MtG Commander has a lot of discussion about power level and "Rule 0" - more so when you play outside your regular pod.
It can be the same one. All it takes is for the store events prize to be interesting to people who played 15-25 years ago, and suddenly the neo pauper commander turns in to , how much expiriance with pre urzas saga block do you have.
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
I don't live in such a place.
However I do know hidden art that has been forgotten by people generally. Talk.
Perfect example. As someone else said what other games require negotiation talks prior to playing a game?
Pretty much every sport ever? Because, y’know. Home or Away? 8 hole or full course? League or Union? Grass or Hard?
Poker. Texas Hold’em? Aces High? Seven Card Stud? Even more childish card games like Gakhead, one every 6th Former knows but no-one ever remembers being told how to play, has multiple different rules (2’s reset, 10’s burn, 7’s reverse play order to name some)
RPGs? As a Games Master, my opponents benefit from a brief of what sort of game I want to run (combat heavy, murder mystery, political thriller etc), and I can benefit and be further informed by what sort of character they want to play. After all, if I want to do a horrific war of nasty deth, and most of my troupe want to play Clever Characters? That’s not gonna work, and one party just crashing on with its preference is going to wind up as a pretty unsatisfying game, no?
You use the word negotiation as if pre-game discussion is some lengthy process. It’s really not. Agreeing points? That’s pre-game discussion. Special Characters yay or nay (not necessarily a modern example)? That’s pre-game discussion. If it’s a regular opponent, add in Proxies yes or no, and perhaps even “do you want to try this specific scenario” are among additional levels.
Hell, even “what time can you make it, and what time do you need to be leaving” is a pre-game discussion, as it can influence game size and overall speed of play expected.
If you or your opponent (you not meaning you specifically here) demand actual negotiation including justification of say, why the other just wants to do a Power Level game, rather than stating your preference? Chances are you or your opponent is taking it all much too seriously. If you’re both doing it, crack on as whilst not my own preference, the important thing you two are on the same wavelength and more power to you.
nurgle86 wrote: hijacking the conversation and WHITE KNIGHTING homebrew is completely pointless.
As someone who lives rural and has very little choice in who I play I've been banging this drum forever. There's a general consensus among the 40k defenders on here that everyone lives in a large city with multiple groups, all of whom have people willing to play in a variety of ways based on whatever whim the poster happens to have that day.
I don't live in such a place.
However I do know hidden art that has been forgotten by people generally. Talk.
Perfect example. As someone else said what other games require negotiation talks prior to playing a game?
Pretty much every sport ever? Because, y’know. Home or Away? 8 hole or full course? League or Union? Grass or Hard?
Poker. Texas Hold’em? Aces High? Seven Card Stud? Even more childish card games like Gakhead, one every 6th Former knows but no-one ever remembers being told how to play, has multiple different rules (2’s reset, 10’s burn, 7’s reverse play order to name some)
RPGs? As a Games Master, my opponents benefit from a brief of what sort of game I want to run (combat heavy, murder mystery, political thriller etc), and I can benefit and be further informed by what sort of character they want to play. After all, if I want to do a horrific war of nasty deth, and most of my troupe want to play Clever Characters? That’s not gonna work, and one party just crashing on with its preference is going to wind up as a pretty unsatisfying game, no?
You use the word negotiation as if pre-game discussion is some lengthy process. It’s really not. Agreeing points? That’s pre-game discussion. Special Characters yay or nay (not necessarily a modern example)? That’s pre-game discussion. If it’s a regular opponent, add in Proxies yes or no, and perhaps even “do you want to try this specific scenario” are among additional levels.
Hell, even “what time can you make it, and what time do you need to be leaving” is a pre-game discussion, as it can influence game size and overall speed of play expected.
If you or your opponent (you not meaning you specifically here) demand actual negotiation including justification of say, why the other just wants to do a Power Level game, rather than stating your preference? Chances are you or your opponent is taking it all much too seriously. If you’re both doing it, crack on as whilst not my own preference, the important thing you two are on the same wavelength and more power to you.
It's nice that you wrote all that and got to the last paragraph before you even got close to addressing my point and still missed it. What if you have a limited pool of people to play with and you AREN'T on the same wavelength?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, sucks to be you. But that’s a community issue, isn’t it? Nobody can say GW themselves don’t offer and bake in different ways to play.
Sometimes, you’re in the minority and won’t be able to get your preferred style of game. Not really sure what we or GW can do about that.
So Anyways… it really sucks that GW underprinted the book they expected everyone to use for tournaments and then never restocked it. I hope they do better with the next one.
AduroT wrote: So Anyways… it really sucks that GW underprinted the book they expected everyone to use for tournaments and then never restocked it. I hope they do better with the next one.
Next tournament book is likely to release in January alone with the proper release of the Guard codex. New Guard codex has no secondaries in it and current secondaries are incompatible as they lack the <Regiment> keyword.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, sucks to be you. But that’s a community issue, isn’t it? Nobody can say GW themselves don’t offer and bake in different ways to play.
Sometimes, you’re in the minority and won’t be able to get your preferred style of game. Not really sure what we or GW can do about that.
Make a good game?
"Make a good game" is the most subjective statement you can find. What you may find boring someone else will find immensely enjoyable. So "Make a good game" is a target that is technically unachievable and as Mad Doc Grotsnik pointed out earlier a ton of popular games have enormous amount of variety because of how subjective entertainment is.
I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
I doubt that, i think his "make a good game" was more inline with an demand of GW actually putting in some effort in the rulesfront and balance.
Perfect balance will never exist, especially not in a wargame that has asymetric designed forces and scenarios.
However just formatting the rules better f.e. in HH 2.0 would improve the rules and make for a better and easier to grasp game. F.e. special rules and equipment.
That is not even going into rules that are just written in a way that requires higher education in philosophy to understand due to the language not being cohernetly and equally applied.
Then there is the case in 8th and 9th of "USR's but not" which are problematic due to legacy implications and an unequal application due to wording and difference.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
In the context of Warhammer, there are absolutely areas where GW could make an objectively better game.
Just internal and external army balancing, to name the most obvious point.
I think you will be hard pressed to find somebody arguing "but I'm having my subjective fun playing a sub 40% win rate faction where 8 out of 10 units are dumbsterfire tier and I want it that way. Nothing to improve here.".
AduroT wrote: So Anyways… it really sucks that GW underprinted the book they expected everyone to use for tournaments and then never restocked it. I hope they do better with the next one.
They just need to go digital. They did points. There's a great ( third party ) app. Let's just cross the finish line.
AduroT wrote: So Anyways… it really sucks that GW underprinted the book they expected everyone to use for tournaments and then never restocked it. I hope they do better with the next one.
They just need to go digital. They did points. There's a great ( third party ) app. Let's just cross the finish line.
not crossing is financially more beneficial probably due to profit margins.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
In the context of Warhammer, there are absolutely areas where GW could make an objectively better game.
Just internal and external army balancing, to name the most obvious point.
I think you will be hard pressed to find somebody arguing "but I'm having my subjective fun playing a sub 40% win rate faction where 8 out of 10 units are dumbsterfire tier and I want it that way. Nothing to improve here.".
To be fair I know those type of people. The guys who will bring an all Grot Tank army to an event and then lose everything in a game while killing nothing. I will however admit that they aren't numerous.
However, I do think that GW is aiming for a more balanced game. Now whether that constitutes a fun game is anyone's opinion.
End of the day, the overwhelming majority of us understand that GW could do better with 40k if they simply decided to do so. They don't, and we are left debating the results. While I am all for holding the devs accountable I also have some sympathy for being given limited time, limited resources, and not enough salary to do a job well. Some.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
In the context of Warhammer, there are absolutely areas where GW could make an objectively better game.
Just internal and external army balancing, to name the most obvious point.
I think you will be hard pressed to find somebody arguing "but I'm having my subjective fun playing a sub 40% win rate faction where 8 out of 10 units are dumbsterfire tier and I want it that way. Nothing to improve here.".
To be fair I know those type of people. The guys who will bring an all Grot Tank army to an event and then lose everything in a game while killing nothing. I will however admit that they aren't numerous.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
In the context of Warhammer, there are absolutely areas where GW could make an objectively better game.
Just internal and external army balancing, to name the most obvious point.
I think you will be hard pressed to find somebody arguing "but I'm having my subjective fun playing a sub 40% win rate faction where 8 out of 10 units are dumbsterfire tier and I want it that way. Nothing to improve here.".
To be fair I know those type of people. The guys who will bring an all Grot Tank army to an event and then lose everything in a game while killing nothing. I will however admit that they aren't numerous.
Then you know some incompetent Grot players.
Because heaven forbid a person just wants to have some silly fun, and here I thought Dakkadakka disliked the tournament circuit for the most part.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
The bigger trap is believing that whenever someone calls for a better game that they are in fact asking for "absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are", because I've yet to see someone actually do that.
Going further, the only people who ever bring up "absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace..." are those gaking on those calling for a better game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: End of the day, the overwhelming majority of us understand that GW could do better with 40k if they simply decided to do so. They don't, and we are left debating the results. While I am all for holding the devs accountable I also have some sympathy for being given limited time, limited resources, and not enough salary to do a job well. Some.
But that have been doing better?
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
NinthMusketeer wrote: End of the day, the overwhelming majority of us understand that GW could do better with 40k if they simply decided to do so. They don't, and we are left debating the results. While I am all for holding the devs accountable I also have some sympathy for being given limited time, limited resources, and not enough salary to do a job well. Some.
But that have been doing better?
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
As h.b.m.c. pointed out as exemples, gw does not seem to Find the right tool for the problem, Part of which is their release and subsequent test cycle.
Not Online!!! wrote: not crossing is financially more beneficial probably due to profit margins.
I don't think it's a big ticket item that they'd miss. Making it free gets more people into the system.
If they got $20 profit from selling 10,000 of them that $200,000 represents 0.001% of their half year sales. It seems inconsequential.
And they can still sell hard copies as people like to have them in hand still.
Contra point buisness often regards products separately and then compare them to the totals.
And in that regard printing and shipping for gw per codex at most will cost about 10-15 CHF, they sell them locally via flgs for 47.50 CHF. Assume the flgs gets them for 40 CHF a pop and Lo and behold they have a pure profit margin of + 100% recuringly.
It may well even be cheaper, depending upon where gw prints which varies but happens in many cases to be China.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Concept show us they don't know how to fix anything.
Falls under turning a big ship on a dime.
AoC did an average job. HoE was an attempt to fix a really old book and there were tons of posts here about how broken it was going to be ( a la X guardsmen in 12" kills a tank sort of math at the start of 8th )... and then it wasn't.
Same problem with CSM. Adding that second wound wasn't going to do anything other than maybe make some people feel a little better about taking CSM. You need a whole rework to get things in the right place.
They did large sort of ham-fisted fixes and people got upset. Then they did some really light touches....and people got upset.
Regardless of the ever shifting community sentiment people seem to be able to take most armies to victory by employing some form of skill.
But AoC and Hammer show that gw 's armerace of AP and s and D for everyone after increases of w, etc completly spiraling out of controll and are at most a bandaid on a wound that was the completly nuts increase in lethality provoked by gw 's release cycle.
Contra point buisness often regards products separately and then compare them to the totals.
And in that regard printing and shipping for gw per codex at most will cost about 10-15 CHF, they sell them locally via flgs for 47.50 CHF. Assume the flgs gets them for 40 CHF a pop and Lo and behold they have a pure profit margin of + 100% recuringly.
It may well even be cheaper, depending upon where gw prints which varies but happens in many cases to be China.
Last I saw FLGS gets product for 50%, which is why GW has rules about discounting past 15%. When you look at their sales 56%+ is through trade accounts, but quantifying it in units sold it's more like 72%. When you look at margins for their website it's like 85%.
If you look at the costs they assign it's five times the cost for less than three times the sales to FLGS -- that's without placing "Design, manufacturing, logistics and operations" into those cost centers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: But AoC and Hammer show that gw 's armerace of AP and s and D for everyone after increases of w, etc completly spiraling out of controll and are at most a bandaid on a wound that was the completly nuts increase in lethality provoked by gw 's release cycle.
I wouldn't be able to sit here an quantify everything, but my gut tells me that there have been as many durability improvements as there have been damage.
GW's release model is just so antiquated that it looks as if they did test those books together early in the edition and had to take things away until they could walk change back later in the edition.
Now this is from someone who thinks units dying regularly is appropriate for the number of models we put on the table - otherwise games would take far longer than 3 hours. I'm sure people have preferences for a more ponderous game, but I don't have a good solution for that.
Trade pricelists have been shared online many times over the years. Whenever you see RRP prices for new things posted online on a Monday, that's where they come from.
Usually we just get a partial screenshot with the product names and RRP, but sometimes the whole file is shown.
I think 55% is a more common cost price for GW product, and it can vary by region and specific trade account.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hammer of the Emperor and Armour of Concept show us they don't know how to fix anything.
Falls under turning a big ship on a dime.
AoC did an average job. HoE was an attempt to fix a really old book and there were tons of posts here about how broken it was going to be ( a la X guardsmen in 12" kills a tank sort of math at the start of 8th )... and then it wasn't.
Same problem with CSM. Adding that second wound wasn't going to do anything other than maybe make some people feel a little better about taking CSM. You need a whole rework to get things in the right place.
They did large sort of ham-fisted fixes and people got upset. Then they did some really light touches....and people got upset.
Regardless of the ever shifting community sentiment people seem to be able to take most armies to victory by employing some form of skill.
There's so much wrong with this post I just don't even know where to begin. I'm not even going to bother, other than to say it's full of it.
It's like "everything is fine because my metrics are garbage".
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
In the context of Warhammer, there are absolutely areas where GW could make an objectively better game.
Just internal and external army balancing, to name the most obvious point.
I think you will be hard pressed to find somebody arguing "but I'm having my subjective fun playing a sub 40% win rate faction where 8 out of 10 units are dumbsterfire tier and I want it that way. Nothing to improve here.".
However, I do think that GW is aiming for a more balanced game.
Eldarsif wrote: I think a lot of people fall into the trap believing that there is some absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are, but the fact is that it is highly improbable that will ever happen.
The bigger trap is believing that whenever someone calls for a better game that they are in fact asking for "absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace and join everyone together as the siblings they are", because I've yet to see someone actually do that.
Going further, the only people who ever bring up "absolute perfect solution that will bring world peace..." are those gaking on those calling for a better game.
Bingo. Perfection should still be what a game designer should be striving for instead of the "Eh whatever" GW "rules writers" are doing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: End of the day, the overwhelming majority of us understand that GW could do better with 40k if they simply decided to do so. They don't, and we are left debating the results. While I am all for holding the devs accountable I also have some sympathy for being given limited time, limited resources, and not enough salary to do a job well. Some.
But that have been doing better?
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
You mean the Metawatch that even casual Reddit 40k users proved incorrect? I loved that hilarious bit of "too many new players bring Marines and they're actually fine" and then Reddit immediately proved that incorrect.
Insectum7 wrote: There's so much wrong with this post I just don't even know where to begin. I'm not even going to bother, other than to say it's full of it.
It's like "everything is fine because my metrics are garbage".
If you say so, I guess.
- It's pretty clear that there's a lot more that make CSM decent than just a single wound. It is also evident that that complaints on Abaddon weren't well founded.
- People definitely complained about heavy handed changes and now they're upset that GW didn't do enough. I'm sure there isn't 100% overlap, but it's there.
- There's far more army diversity in top placings than in the past.
It's that common thread of arguing both sides of the coin that drives me nuts:
"Tournament data shows Nids are busted! GW sucks!"...."Tournament data is so useless to measure our concerns! GW sucks!"
Brandt openly acknowledged that GSC have a decent win rate, but that they see it's based on a narrow set of selections from the book and they're going to try and rectify that - among other things.
If people can see the difference in trajectory I'm not sure what else I can say.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: You mean the Metawatch that even casual Reddit 40k users proved incorrect? I loved that hilarious bit of "too many new players bring Marines and they're actually fine" and then Reddit immediately proved that incorrect.
They didn't. I posted up data in another thread that does show a heavy new player input into marines. Whether or not their solution solves that problem is a different story, but applying other top level marine-wide fixes dont work when facets of marines can do well.
Insectum7 wrote: There's so much wrong with this post I just don't even know where to begin. I'm not even going to bother, other than to say it's full of it.
It's like "everything is fine because my metrics are garbage".
If you say so, I guess.
- It's pretty clear that there's a lot more that make CSM decent than just a single wound. It is also evident that that complaints on Abaddon weren't well founded.
- People definitely complained about heavy handed changes and now they're upset that GW didn't do enough. I'm sure there isn't 100% overlap, but it's there.
- There's far more army diversity in top placings than in the past.
It's that common thread of arguing both sides of the coin that drives me nuts:
"Tournament data shows Nids are busted! GW sucks!"...."Tournament data is so useless to measure our concerns! GW sucks!"
Brandt openly acknowledged that GSC have a decent win rate, but that they see it's based on a narrow set of selections from the book and they're going to try and rectify that - among other things.
If people can see the difference in trajectory I'm not sure what else I can say.
"It's that common thread of arguing both sides of the coin that drives me nuts:
"Tournament data shows Nids are busted! GW sucks!"...."Tournament data is so useless to measure our concerns! GW sucks!" "
Both of those statements are neither the same coin, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Credit where credit is due, achieving a high variety of armies on top tables is great. But the way it's being achieved is moronic. And failures to do even such simple things as grant CSM 2W when they gave it to Marines is horse***t.
No it falls under the complete abdication of responsibility towards writing a ruleset worth a damn.
Make all the excuses for them that you want, D, but Armour of Contempt was them giving up, was them throwing their hands up at the mess of giving out far too many save modifiers across the entire game, not seeing where it was headed, and just going "Ok! We don't know what to do so... everything in this select category just has a 2+ save now, basically! Hope it helps!".
Hammer of the Emperor was even worse, as it doesn't make sense from a conceptual level, and was them giving up on finding a real solution to fix a flagging army. Now you could argue that it was a stop-gap as the Guard's new Codex wasn't that far off, except that Hammer of the Emperor made it into the new Codex!!!
These are the. Worst. Two. Rules. That. GW. Have. Produced. In. Years. No question.
They are absolutely indicative of the creative rot/bankruptcy that plagues their rules team, even moreso than the inane sprue-based restrictions that are just getting worse with every release (do your Kriegers want a Plasma Gun, or a Vox... 'cause they can't have both anymore! ).
No it falls under the complete abdication of responsibility towards writing a ruleset worth a damn.
Make all the excuses for them that you want, D, but Armour of Contempt was them giving up, was them throwing their hands up at the mess of giving out far too many save modifiers across the entire game, not seeing where it was headed, and just going "Ok! We don't know what to do so... everything in these selector category just has a 2+ save now, basically! Hope it helps!".
Hammer of the Emperor was even worse, as it doesn't make sense from a conceptual level, and was them giving up on finding a real solution to fix a flagging army. Now you could argue that it was a stop-gap as the Guard's new Codex wasn't that far off, except that Hammer of the Emperor made it into the new Codex!!!
These are the. Worse. Two. Rules. That. GW. Have. Produced. In. Years.
They are absolutely indicative of the creative rot/bankruptcy that plagues their rules team, even moreso than the inane sprue-based restrictions that are just getting worse with every release (do your Kriegers want a Plasma Gun, or a Vox... 'cause they can't have both anymore! ).
I'd still argue the worst rule of the last two editions that was meant to be a "fix" was the generic Strat to give everyone cover. Utterly hilarious to show that the baseline game needed to be redone.
H.B.M.C. wrote: These are the. Worst. Two. Rules. That. GW. Have. Produced. In. Years. No question.
Even worse, they've actually printed AoC in the Votann codex and then printed HoE in the Guard codex (ignoring the super HoE that they printed in the Votann codex then quickly removed).
The rules writing team just seem incapable of learning from mistakes.
AdMech codex in May 2021 they print a 4+ to auto-wound strat, it breaks the game at the time and the common complaint is about a S3 weapon invalidating the existence of T7+ monsters.
Now here we are, a bunch of S3/4 guns in two codexes are auto-wounding T7+ targets. And what have they learned in a year... To drop the restriction that prevented it working on vehicles so that even more units and players can feel bad when their big tough unit melts.
I’m fond of the whole saves, weapons that ignore saves, invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, super invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore super invulnerable saves arms race they’ve got going.
AduroT wrote: I’m fond of the whole saves, weapons that ignore saves, invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, super invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore super invulnerable saves arms race they’ve got going.
This.........in so many ways this is the CORE of Games Workshop rules writing since 3rd Edition!
AduroT wrote: It just seems extra dumb to make a book you’re “supposed” to have for tournaments and only make it in a limited amount.
Sounds exactly like what GW would do though.
Not trying to excuse it, but I can see why they'd short it so that they're not sitting on a bunch of worthless product after the planned 6 month lifespan.
If that's their concern, release the rules digitally or go back to 1 year seasons.
Since I almost exclusively play matched play, I really like the seasons. Missions getting shaken up some every 6 months is actually a lot of fun, and helps things from getting stale.
I also exclusively play matched play but have a job, wife in a another country, and other hobbies. By the time I learn the missions and secondaries, they're being invalidated by the new book.
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
How many editions does the design team need to notice that the rules they are giving eldar are a head above other factions. Their other insights in to what they think about win rates and rules aren't much better either. Marine players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates? That is a view that requires a dozen logical hoops to jump through. Why can the BA noobs not take down the win rates of their armies. Why are the marine armies with better win rates having better results. Are we really , considering the win rates exisitng, to think that all or the majority CoB and EC chaos marine players are decade long veterans, while the csm noobs pick AL and IW for some reason? With other OP factions they leave the rule sets to affect the game for months or years, before they nerf them in to the ground, often by the time the faction players already moved to play other builds. But Votan or SW were pre nerfed. DG in 9th suffer from what I think of the GKFAQ effect, where every new rules update nerfs them for some reason, and the DG players are most happy, when GW just ingores them. GW is not a fresh new company, we are not playing in 2ed , and the people working as heads of the design studio are not people employed last year. It is a company over twice my age , where some people worked for decades. The "give them time" argument should not be accepted anymore. Especialy when it is in their favour, not the players, they are willing to do changes instantly, wide spread ones killing entire games, without telling players that they will do it etc.
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
How many editions does the design team need to notice that the rules they are giving eldar are a head above other factions. Their other insights in to what they think about win rates and rules aren't much better either. Marine players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates?
I'm still waiting for their post on the data that contradicts the data that contradicts GW
Karol wrote: players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates? That is a view that requires a dozen logical hoops to jump through.
No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.
By how much? I dunno. But the phenomena is very understandable.
Toofast wrote: If that's their concern, release the rules digitally or go back to 1 year seasons.
Well guess digital price for about same price as now might work
As for 1 season...That would mean they would need to basically double the sales of that once a year season book. Not likely to happen. Thus we are more likely to go to 3 per year season than 1 per year season.
Toofast wrote: If that's their concern, release the rules digitally or go back to 1 year seasons.
Well guess digital price for about same price as now might work
As for 1 season...That would mean they would need to basically double the sales of that once a year season book. Not likely to happen. Thus we are more likely to go to 3 per year season than 1 per year season.
Better yet, make them an annual season available digitally via Warhammer+ as part of the subscription, or make them a stand alone digital sale that happens to be just over half of the WH+ sub is so that it pushes people to subscribe, or if multiple per year, the collective sum equal to just over half.
No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.
Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.
No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.
Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.
well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...
It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter
No, that one is pretty stright forward. Marines are the most popular army. They're also the common 'starter' army. A lot of not-very-good players show up to tournaments and oftentimes they're playing marines. This can drag down win rates for the faction.
Aha so BA and SW are not marines, and only the in the know veteran players pick them up? When 9th was in its early stages and WS were actualy good , although worse then custodes or harlequins, people knew to pick them, but now they no longer do? Not to mention people already made comperation between win/lose rates of people who played their first and multiple GT game. And marines, along eldar to make it more fun, had one of the closest win rate between new and old players. Marines being bad is not a noob issue.
well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...
It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter
Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?
EightFoldPath wrote: I've been thinking about this "SM win rates are lower than they really are because of noobs" argument attempted by GW.
Does this mean late 8th Space Marines were even more busted than we realise?
Are they actually arguing that their own 8th ed SM 2.0 codex was even more poorly written than anyone gave it credit?
Nah man, back then they were being only played by crack veteran players with years of expiriance, while the noobs were flocking to such armies like GK.
well, no. BA and SW aren't marines since they have their own codexes...
It's harder for a WS player to pivot into BA/SW/DA than another codex compliant chapter
How about early 9th ed White Scars or later IH , for a short time, lists? Only veterans with loads of expiriance flocked to those too, no noobs to drop their win rates? While Imperial fists with their yellow armour and sub 30% win rates draw in legions of noobs. Probably every new space marine player starts as an imperial fist one.
Plus it doesn't explain why other armies end up working so well, when they have OP rules. Ad mecha when they were busted were super popular, had the results in wins , and it took heavy handed nerfs for only veterans to be able to win with those factions. At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread. Same as marines, only marine win rates are down in the dumps. The impact new players have on a faction like marines is no way responsible for 29% win rates of armies like Imperial Fists, and CF don't even get recorded I think they are so bad. RG are more often played as succesor, then the actual RG, and they still do bad.
EightFoldPath wrote: I've been thinking about this "SM win rates are lower than they really are because of noobs" argument attempted by GW.
Does this mean late 8th Space Marines were even more busted than we realise?
Are they actually arguing that their own 8th ed SM 2.0 codex was even more poorly written than anyone gave it credit?
I think the other skew that happens is when players swap their chapter tactics for competition. The hypercompetetive crowd will skew to take the most competetive armies, so I imagine you'd get an effect opposite to the "nub slump" if there are particular outlier builds.
Karol wrote: At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread.
The whole point of the argument is that non-marine armies don't have as much of a newbie element. Marines are the focus of the game and always present in the starter sets, which means most players start with marines and by the time they get a non-marine army they already have a certain minimum level of skill: Let's consider some numbers:
Assume that all factions have a 50% win rate given players of equal skill. Perfect balance has been achieved.
A veteran has a 60% win rate.
A newbie has a 30% win rate.
Marines are 80% newbies, 20% veterans. Their win rate is 0.6x0.2 + 0.3x0.8 = 36%
Eldar are 20% newbies, 80% veterans. Their win rate is 0.6x0.8 + 0.3x0.2 = 54%
So despite the rules all being perfectly balanced the higher proportion of newbies playing marine armies gives them a significantly worse win rate, 36% vs 54%. Purely looking at raw win rate data would tell you to nerf eldar and buff marines, accounting for the player skill factor would tell you things are fine. This is why win rates alone are not sufficient data, you need to look at things like tournament wins, top 4/8 finishes, times in winning position, etc. Those numbers will focus much more on the higher-skill players where the skill factor is less significant and success rates have more to do with the strength of each army's rules.
You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?
Karol wrote: At the same time, when one compares the win rates of eldar players, veterans or first time GT players, they are somehow very similar in their W/L spread.
The whole point of the argument is that non-marine armies don't have as much of a newbie element. Marines are the focus of the game and always present in the starter sets, which means most players start with marines and by the time they get a non-marine army they already have a certain minimum level of skill: Let's consider some numbers:
.
But we don't have to assume anything. A dude already did the comperation of new and old GT marine players, and they were one of the top three armies as far as similarity of results in a GT setting. There is no way that the noob factor makes for a +20% difference from the avarge. The other army who had similar win rates and lose rates were, eldar. The only difference between marines and eldar , that marines had much lower win and much higher lose rates, across all type of players. The marines do bad, because noob play them is a cope out explanation. Marienes do back, because their rules are writen bad for the type of army they suppose to be. Their core mechanics of doctrines and marrying those to specific chapters do not work for all chapters that are focused around the devastator doctrine? why well because if the opponent isn't 100% incompetent or the table isn't a flat plain, those core rules marines have never come in to action. There is a reason why WS and BA are or were the best marine factions in 9th.
Purely looking at raw win rate data would tell you to nerf eldar and buff marines, accounting for the player skill factor would tell you things are fine. This is why win rates alone are not sufficient data, you need to look at things like tournament wins, top 4/8 finishes, times in winning position, etc. Those numbers will focus much more on the higher-skill players where the skill factor is less significant and success rates have more to do with the strength of each army's rules.
And again marine veterans don't win substentialy more, then noob marine players. Same way Eldar player who are GT first timers are not losing substentialy more then the veteran eldar players. You know where you can see the big difference between new and top world players? Ad Mecha post nerf. Post nerf the prior winning everything Ad mecha noob, couldn't win a darn thing. But the real good Ad Mecha players were not just wining, or placing high, but sporadicly winning GTs. No Imperial Fist player won a GT in 9th, I don't even think they had one place in top 8.
Karol wrote: You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?
Yes you can. Its why successor chapters exist. As long as they're sticking to the rules of a single codex you can paint your guys whatever colour and with whatever symbols you want.
Karol wrote: You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA,
Sure I can. I can paint things any color I please. Or play things with merely a base coat of primer. Or I can run them as bare plastic/metal/resin. Or some mix....
Karol wrote: and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
No, not faction specific units (ex: a DA/RW Landspeeder Vengeance used as such in a WS army) or rules. And I never claimed any such thing.
But even that's not 100% true. I could mix DA & WS - if I didn't mind losing faction bonuses.
Karol wrote: You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?
Uhhuh. That's what people keep doing all the time. Paint != rules.
Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?
its a different codex -.- pretty simple
So the color of ones bikes & speeders means that you can't apply your skill with one of these forces to the other?
No, i mean that you litterally need to buy a new rulebook to swap from WS to DA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: You can't play DA painted as WS or WS painted as DA, and you very much can not take DA units in a WS army and claim they are WS.
Is that a rhetoric question ?
what? who gives a crap about paint scheme? a bike is a bike.
A better argument wouldve been "White scars don't have an obvious equivalent to the land speeder character that DA have"
The Metawatch video demonstrates that they understand the problems they're facing. It's a big ship and it doesn't turn on a dime.
There's always going to be facets of 40K that some faction doesn't like though.
How many editions does the design team need to notice that the rules they are giving eldar are a head above other factions. Their other insights in to what they think about win rates and rules aren't much better either. Marine players are noobs, there for they will always have lower win rates? That is a view that requires a dozen logical hoops to jump through. Why can the BA noobs not take down the win rates of their armies. Why are the marine armies with better win rates having better results. Are we really , considering the win rates exisitng, to think that all or the majority CoB and EC chaos marine players are decade long veterans, while the csm noobs pick AL and IW for some reason? With other OP factions they leave the rule sets to affect the game for months or years, before they nerf them in to the ground, often by the time the faction players already moved to play other builds. But Votan or SW were pre nerfed. DG in 9th suffer from what I think of the GKFAQ effect, where every new rules update nerfs them for some reason, and the DG players are most happy, when GW just ingores them. GW is not a fresh new company, we are not playing in 2ed , and the people working as heads of the design studio are not people employed last year. It is a company over twice my age , where some people worked for decades. The "give them time" argument should not be accepted anymore. Especialy when it is in their favour, not the players, they are willing to do changes instantly, wide spread ones killing entire games, without telling players that they will do it etc.
Eldar do not have any extreme advantage, at present. Harlies are a small faction and fixing them without imploding the whole faction is pretty difficult and Ynnari only recently came back on to the scene with high win rates.
I posted this in another thread when the topic came up with data as per the dashboard. As others have mentioned - more people get into the hobby with marine models than a faction like GSC. It can absolutely be a factor that changes our perception of the strength of a faction.
A special secondary to try and fix this may not have worked, but it was absolutely an idea worth testing. At this point I think marines are largely locked behind pretty old supplements with high cost stratagems and middling secondaries. GW probably isn't sweeping through those supplements, because they probably intend to update them with 10th. I don't see points being a good way to save them without breaking others and creating that race to the bottom again.
Was this meant to be a serious post? A White Scars player wouldn't be able to use a Ravenwing based army for what reasons?
its a different codex -.- pretty simple
So the color of ones bikes & speeders means that you can't apply your skill with one of these forces to the other?
No, i mean that you litterally need to buy a new rulebook to swap from WS to DA.
Sure, one could do that if they wanted. And it might be required to for some events/tourney play to have the waste-o-paper. But for daily play there's this handy Russian site.
So since skill transfers, and the color of your paint doesn't matter, and the rules are a mere click away.... Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
Sure, one could do that if they wanted. And it might be required to for some events/tourney play to have the waste-o-paper. But for daily play there's this handy Russian site.
So since skill transfers, and the color of your paint doesn't matter, and the rules are a mere click away.... Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
oh can you feth off, i've been plenty clear in what i mean. It's not HARD, it's HARDER than just sticking to codex compliant chapters.
Sure in a casual game you can proxy the feth out of everything and i won't ever complain, heck, i'll encourage it. But in a tournament (where the winrates are taken from), thats not a possibility since theyre usually much more restrictive on count-as/proxies.
I don't mind if my opponent has a generic marine Captain instead of Azrael or whoever the feth the chapter master of DA is in a casual game.
EviscerationPlague wrote: That data does nothing to help prove GW correct. It just proves Imperial Fists are that awful.
Correlation != Causation and all that good stuff, but you can clearly see that the marines are clustered towards the bad end. They also happen to have the most new players in IF and RG who also happen to have the worst win rates.
Essentially marines DO have more new players. The question is WHERE are the new players floundering and what fixes are most appropriate.
It becomes a situation where you have a ton less room for error and bad dice. When looking at BA and SW we can see that their tools are a little more refined ( and as such they're newer books ). Even WS and DW have a better go at it likely because their traits allow them to be more effective.
This rules out points. Changing anything to that effect will boost WS, DW, DA, BA, and SW more than the other marine factions. The changes then need to be traits, strats, and missions. Relics and WL traits have a smaller footprint now and I imagine IF suffer the more as they have some key ones they always need on top of strats that are costed pretty high for the new lower CP pool.
The multiple hits to the super doctrines is probably the next best place to look. IF really got screwed in that department. Going first means you likely have no good targets and no activation of their specialty doctrine. Revert them to either work with lower S weapons ( affects only IF ) or allow marines to actively pick Devastator turns 1 and 2 ( not localized and could benefit other marines more ).
They aren't more refined and BA and SW noobs do not have a big win/lose rate difference comparing to veterans of the faction.
What GW did in 9th is butcher the doctrine mechanic. No matter what marines have if your chapter happens to be based around devastator it will struggle. Then there is the delayed reaction to stuff and testing vs books way in the future, without taking any FAQ changes taken in to account. 9th ed books were reacting to the power of PA marines, and they were full of 2W killing, save mods etc Marines without a strong fire base, aside for dreadnoughts, and even that only till DE came out and not counting Harlequins, were forced in to a more melee centric or short range army. This ment that armies like WS in early 9th and BA right now were the "good" marines armies. Although it is worth pointing out that the "good" marine armies right now are no where near the level of the really good armies.
The push to melee came at a price though. Marines could not deal with armies which were faster, couldn't deal with armies who can just shot them off the board etc But the real problems started when armies like Custodes, GK, Tyranids, new Harlis or new CSM came. Marines didn't not have the shoting to levarge vs those armies, while at the same time they were weaker then those armies in melee. CoB is an instant lose to a marine player, because an army that fights on death on hyper strong melee units, is faster and has at worse just as good objective does not leave much wiggle room to play well, no matter if you are a super end game tournament player or just a new guy playing with his two patrol boxs vs his friends two patrol boxs.
The third marine problem was the secondaries game. There are armies in w40k aren't hyper efficient, and there are armies in w40k who are, but have bad secondaries. You can't be both meh or mid tier at objectives, and not hyper efficient. That is why the "good" marine armies spam the living hell out of units normal marines can't run, because they don't have access to them, and BA secondaries are just better then regular marine ones.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind
Nah, Karol has a SLIGHT point here, though it needs to be taken in a metaphorical sense rather than literal. I mean, think about how many people were using their Marine armies as Space Wolves with their 5th edition codex.
Daedalus81 wrote: I posted this in another thread when the topic came up with data as per the dashboard. As others have mentioned - more people get into the hobby with marine models than a faction like GSC. It can absolutely be a factor that changes our perception of the strength of a faction.
A special secondary to try and fix this may not have worked, but it was absolutely an idea worth testing. At this point I think marines are largely locked behind pretty old supplements with high cost stratagems and middling secondaries. GW probably isn't sweeping through those supplements, because they probably intend to update them with 10th. I don't see points being a good way to save them without breaking others and creating that race to the bottom again.
This is good data that fails on one point, it doesn't give you the Newcomer Win-Rate and the non-Newcomer Win-Rate. Only if those differ substantially is the issue Newcomers rather than the Codex/Supplement.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Thats only in your shithole of a LGS, pretty much everywhere else, people won't mind
Nah, Karol has a SLIGHT point here, though it needs to be taken in a metaphorical sense rather than literal. I mean, think about how many people were using their Marine armies as Space Wolves with their 5th edition codex.
idk, i didnt play back then, but if i was to face a space wolf army that was obviously made of non SW models,i wouldnt care at all
"these thunder hammer dudes are actually wulfen" ok
Kudos to those that can play what ever they want, but it starts to enter the area of in order to properly play GW games, you need a house, the income of a 30+ year old, a large group of friends, no or an accepting spouse etc. Not a very achivable thing for teens or young people playing GW games.
This will blow your mind.
The other day (sat afternoon) I'm at the shop. I'm setting up a table for a different game. Across the aisle & a bit behind me I hear two of the kids (both 15/16 yr olds) discussing the details of a custom scenario/mission.
●They don't own houses.
●They don't own infinite models.
●They don't have anything resembling the income of an adult.
●Niether has custom built an army to play custom rules.
●and I happen to know that outside the shop neither has a pool of 40k playing friends/family.
● Oh, and neither seemed worried that the other guy was trying to gain some sort of game advantage.
They were just two (not quite random) 40k players taking a few minutes to come up with a unique mission they thought would be fun.
And over the next 2 hours or so they did indeed seem to be having fun....
So if these two kids could take a few moments?
What stops the rest of you?
I think a few things are being conflated here, which is monetary means, time, and your opponent's willingness to talk and be sportsmanlike.
Obviously Karol isn't making his argument in good faith but there's a bit going on here.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff.
Daedalus81 wrote: I posted this in another thread when the topic came up with data as per the dashboard. As others have mentioned - more people get into the hobby with marine models than a faction like GSC. It can absolutely be a factor that changes our perception of the strength of a faction.
A special secondary to try and fix this may not have worked, but it was absolutely an idea worth testing. At this point I think marines are largely locked behind pretty old supplements with high cost stratagems and middling secondaries. GW probably isn't sweeping through those supplements, because they probably intend to update them with 10th. I don't see points being a good way to save them without breaking others and creating that race to the bottom again.
This is good data that fails on one point, it doesn't give you the Newcomer Win-Rate and the non-Newcomer Win-Rate. Only if those differ substantially is the issue Newcomers rather than the Codex/Supplement.
Two points - we haven't been presented with the methodology defining what a "Newcomer" is, especially how we know when someone has moved from Newcomer to non-Newcomer status, etc. I wouldn't call it "good data" rather than "noise" until we have some understanding of that.
Karol wrote: VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Because of paint job?-) Paint job != rules. Hell you can't even say all blood angel rule using should be red because there are official non-red successors who would be using BA rules...So go figure. Same for others. There's more than enough fluff justification for non-X chapter-Y rules that trying to argue paint=rules makes one just look ignorant TFG.
Lol you really think people are going to get fooled by your tales of your imaginary gaming group makes rather ironic your use of real humans as your only opponents are figments of your imagination. Yeah real real people those are.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Theres nothing wrong with Legends. It's not my fault GW shoved my entire army in there. It's the rules I've got, and I'll use them.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Theres nothing wrong with Legends.
There's a LOT wrong with Legends. Don't pretend otherwise.
ccs 807659 11460874 wrote:Tell me again how hard is it for a DA/WS player to switch back & forth?
VS real humans, who act like real humans vs other humans. You very fast find out that no one wants to play against you. Same way as dudes who try to run a ton of legends stuff. Try to use their ad mecha as LoV etc.
Theres nothing wrong with Legends.
There's a LOT wrong with Legends. Don't pretend otherwise.
i think they meant nothing wrong [with using] legends.
Obviously the concept of abandoning armies/units to die in there is a stupid concept that should never have become a thing.
DA are 43%
New - 42% @ 483
Exp - 42% @ 414
Vet - 48% @ 222
-- 43% newbie
Salamanders are 43%
New - 41% @ 221
Exp - 41% @ 150
Vet - 50% @ 88
-- 48% newbie
UM are 36%
New - 32% @ 322
Exp - 34% @ 173
Vet - 48% @ 145
-- 50% newbie
Tyranids are 58%
New - 52% @ 1164
Exp - 57% @ 1277
Vet - 66% @ 1127
-- 33% newbie
BA and SW noobs seem to struggle, but the factions are held up by vets who do really well. Their % of new players is much lower than other marines - similar to Nids. Those numbers likely represent the higher skill ceiling needed to succeed as BA. DA likewise are a more self-contained faction and seem to have fewer new players to drag them down. IF are just a dumpster fire.
What GW did in 9th is butcher the doctrine mechanic. No matter what marines have if your chapter happens to be based around devastator it will struggle.
At the time they had to, because it was busted in comparison to armies with no durability upgrades or similar lethality, however lots of things have changed. In almost all my games I prefer to go second. The understanding of terrain and scoring has changed the go-first dynamic quite a bit, which has in turn caused Devastator to suffer even more. It's probably time to roll that back a bit, BUT Iron Hands are a devastator faction and they do pretty well. They also have few new players and tools that make a certain set of units pretty damn good.
Marines didn't not have the shoting to levarge vs those armies, while at the same time they were weaker then those armies in melee.
I think it's hard for marines to afford to do both shooting and melee really well. It's usually a token representation. Harlequins do it all, but are "soft" and so utilize terrain to get the drop on you.
There's no cure all for marines at this point. IF are one of the few armies that need real help. Other marines are on the edge and a higher percentage of new players makes them look worse. There's likely a selection bias at play where vets migrate away from marines as well.
It's complicated. It's messy. We could spend days talking about the ins and outs of all the potential pitfalls here.
Daedalus, where did you get the breakdown of numbers for new, experienced and veteran win-rates? It's the first time I've seen any info broken down like that and I wondered how players were filtered into those categories?
Blndmage wrote: Theres nothing wrong with Legends. It's not my fault GW shoved my entire army in there. It's the rules I've got, and I'll use them.
Sure, as long as you can find anyone willing to use them with you. Most people won't because they know legends rules are a broken mess that GW is no longer supporting and don't want to deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Obviously the concept of abandoning armies/units to die in there is a stupid concept that should never have become a thing.
Of course. But in the unfortunate reality where GW is abandoning units/armies to die legends rules aren't real rules and most people will continue to treat them that way.
The Black Adder wrote: Daedalus, where did you get the breakdown of numbers for new, experienced and veteran win-rates? It's the first time I've seen any info broken down like that and I wondered how players were filtered into those categories?
They define the groups as "Veteran (attended 4+ GT), an Experienced player (2-3 GT+) or a GT+ Newcomer (attended 1)."
Obviously the groups don't indicate their actual skill, but rather their experience and time acquiring game knowledge. I believe that these counts are also not specific to that faction and is instead tied to the player ID in BCP, so a set of Vet games for a faction doesn't mean that player stuck with that faction for all 4+ tournaments.
Dai wrote: Are total noobs really going to tournies in meaningul numbers? Genuine question, i am pretty out of touch with the larger community.
I don't have statistics, but I've definitely encountered some "sub-par" players who would still travel to major events. Genuinely I think it's just a social thing that some groups/people will do, and the skill level amongst a group that goes can be pretty scattershot.
Dai wrote: Are total noobs really going to tournies in meaningul numbers? Genuine question, i am pretty out of touch with the larger community.
I don't have statistics, but I've definitely encountered some "sub-par" players who would still travel to major events. Genuinely I think it's just a social thing that some groups/people will do, and the skill level amongst a group that goes can be pretty scattershot.
You can only get good through practice. Also, not all tournament players care about winning and nothing else.
Dai wrote: Are total noobs really going to tournies in meaningul numbers? Genuine question, i am pretty out of touch with the larger community.
most tournaments arent all that big and organised by LGSs across the world. So yeah, noobs are often told to show up to tournaments by their LGS staff
This is the right answer. Where I live you have a lot of beginners and pros attend the GT, but the GT tends to be 30 people or so.
Honestly noobs enjoy just playing new and interesting people and to see everyone's armies. There is a great social aspect to tournaments that I feel some people are ignoring and it isn't always about being in the top 5 placements. I have a friend group that is journeying around Europe and US to compete in GTs and many of them place in the 100s in the largest tournaments(LVO). For them the sport is just being part of a larger and vibrant community.
At the time they had to, because it was busted in comparison to armies with no durability upgrades or similar lethality, however lots of things have changed. In almost all my games I prefer to go second. The understanding of terrain and scoring has changed the go-first dynamic quite a bit, which has in turn caused Devastator to suffer even more. It's probably time to roll that back a bit, BUT Iron Hands are a devastator faction and they do pretty well. They also have few new players and tools that make a certain set of units pretty damn good.
I don't think so. Other factions had crazy rules, and they knew what rules they were testing for other armies. When they were finishing PA, they were already testing stuff like Ad Mecha and DE. GW does a ton of knee jerk reaction followed combined with "wait and see aproche". The first one means stuff like DG can get hit with a nerf bad over and over and over again, because in some sort of in house meta they are or were too strong. The second means they throw something like a secondary to marines, while making the silent king no longer core, and somehow expect that this changes , plus some other, will somehow stabilise the meta. And it finaly shows in stuff like Ad Mecha, where they can just unnerf the whole thing, and it really matters little. And by little I mean for the regular w40k player. for top Ad Mecha players having their old army back, even in a new setting could be huge. But I am not smart enough to judge that.
The last thing is that with other armies GW has no problem with making them powerful and easy to play. Take flying open top skimmers, ignore half the core rules and then we make you both resilient, and super killy on top of a lot of MW mechanics, and a noob won't be able to play with that? Especialy when the army collection is limited and the number of trap units close to zero? Tyranids with FnP on the entire army, Necron and SoB playing soliter. A new player can handle those armies. Chaos CoB are an army like that, not good enough to beat the top of the top, as a new player, but for playing against your marine or custodes friend? It is an instant win army.
Plus those non marine armies come out later in the meta, and they often have a longer span of being fun to play. If someone played eldar soup or Harlis in 9th they had two moments when those armies were at the very top and fun to play. If someone missed the early 9th, and is thinking of starting a marine army now, they better pick the right army, with the right units.
I think it's hard for marines to afford to do both shooting and melee really well. It's usually a token representation. Harlequins do it all, but are "soft" and so utilize terrain to get the drop on you.
But you can't stop them from it, because they are all mounted. And they have invs every where. And yeah marine specilise in to melee, because their army selection is in general bad as far as shoting unit goes. This creates the "best" army problem , where one could play IF with venguard veterans, some blade guard etc but it is like playing a worse version of a BA list. And just by a bit. Which still wouldn't be as bad outside of tournaments, if there wouldn't be armies that just cancel regular marine assault armies. CoB, nids, harlequins not even BAs deal with those. And when combined with armies like necron and SoB being in the meta, marines suddenly are in a position where they can't even beat half of the meta on a 50/50 basis. And it is not good, because the drip down effect works against weaker armies much stronger. A necron army or a SoB army outside of tournament setting is not that different, neither is the marine list, but the gap in how much the rules can cover for is much bigger. A marine player to get good results, has to be a good player and be lucky and not run in to counter set ups. Which, to marine players joy I am sure, can just happen by accident.
It's complicated. It's messy. We could spend days talking about the ins and outs of all the potential pitfalls here.
Well all I know is that I have not yet seen a marine player who would be happy about their army 6 months in to playing the game in 9th ed. With other armies it much different. Some armies like a yoyo, orks for example or ad mecha. It wouldn't be a problem, well a big problem, if marines weren't the flagship and the starting army for many people. And while I do understand that having 2-3 or more armies is normal in other countries. There is to many players where I live, who when faced with the prospect of being forced to rebuy an army, just quit. And often never come back. Or they go really heavy in to 3d printing, but then a lot seem to just start playing Horus Heresy.
).
