Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now. Since the change of CEO and the new approach I find I'm discussing the game with people who genuinely seem to love it, seem to have passion and want to make the player base happy. They are happy to admit that they get it wrong and are apologetic about it. You can feel the bubbling enthusiasm from them as they talk. Dan Harden, Phil Kelly, Mark Bedford, etc - all of them are brimming with ideas and really seem happy to engage with the players. I come away with the impression of a company that is really trying now, that is looking for the best way forward, that accepts it has made mistakes and is looking for a better approach.

I read Dakka and I find a real disconnect. The feelings you see expressed are incredibly negative at times. People really lay into some of the GW guys - "he's the *&£* who &"^$%£ my dex!" or ascribing incredibly negative motivations to them, etc.

I am not by any means a full on fan. They have made some dire decisions over the years and indulged in some dubious practices (to say the least). However, I've always found the staff to be thoughtful, decent and very keen to engage with the players. None of them come across as monsters intent of screwing your dex, they may have not got it right but they did not set out with the intention of doing so. For example, talk to them about balance and they'll freely admit that it's incredibly hard to reach a balance in the game but they aspire to do so and want all factions to have a fair crack. Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.

I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.

I truly believe it's lack of mathematical acumen, not hostile intent.

Isengard wrote:
Robin Cruddace said one of the major reasons for Chapter Approved was to give those who's dex hasn't appeared yet a chance to get something to tide them over.

Which would be great if anything they'd added to the index factions was of any consequence whatsoever.

The factions that got comprehensive points adjustments aimed at fixing existing balance problems were the ones who already had codexes.

The warlord traits, stratagems, and relics they added for the index factions were of such shockingly low effort that it's difficult to believe the rules were even looked at by more than one person or that the one person who came up with them actually bothered to look at the existing rules to see how they stacked up.

As an example, take the warlord trait that they added to the Dark Eldar Wych Cult.

This is a trait specifically, ONLY for a single HQ choice, because they have only one non-named HQ, the Succubus.

"any roll of 6+ to hit in the fight phase counts as three hits".

The succubus' base weapon, the weapon that only the succubus can use, again the ONLY MODEL ELIGIBLE FOR THIS TRAIT, is the archite glaive, which causes her to subtract 1 from all to-hit rolls.

They legitimately wrote a rule for one single model and it passed through whatever quality assurance process they have that does nothing. Nothing at all. the trait does not work. The only way this could possibly have happened is if one person was responsible for the rule, they came up with it, didn't check the existing rules for the Succubus, and then checked it with exactly nobody and sent it to the printers. And this isn't the only example (it's just the funniest one) of hilariously low effort going into this book. It reads worse than the first draft of something written by a freshman in a game design course.

I don't fault GW for any kind of malicious intent. What I do fault them for is a staggering degree of unprofessional lack of detail in a product that we pay a huge premium to use. It'd be like if you paid for a brand new Mazeratti and got a car that worked about as well as a 15 year old hyundai you picked up from a used car dealership, and when you complained about it someone was like "I don't get your negativity, Mazeratti is really TRYING to make a good car, they're really excited about it!"

Most people don't believe any of these guys are "out to get" anyone or punish any army or anything like that.

What most people have issues with is that their rules are often borked in one way or another, transparently so, to the point that anyone (new blood or old vet) who picks up a book can spot insanely powerful or dramatically overcosted units or broken mechanics with casual glances, and that they seem to make the same sorts of mistakes over and over for many years and editions that even a modicum of effort would have identified and solved. Even worse when they seem to go out of their way to do so.

They're not monsters, theyre not out to get anyone, but they are *really* bad at some of what they do (seemingly intentionally so), are really bad about fixing it, and really have no excuse for wither at this point. Even when they try, they end up making so many incomprehensible decisions that nobody really knows what they're doing (e.g. as with many recent CA changes) or why.

Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.

Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.

Yeah but they've pitched 8th as a more balanced, organized play, competitive friendly game so I don't think this holds up.

I think my issue is not malice, but more neglect when it comes up.

For example, the CA update really neglected races that needed updates (I don't play Necrons/Tau) and hadn't gotten needed attention; further GW had used marketing that was somewhat misleading in the nature/degree of the "updates" they got.

I'm not mad, I'm disappointed. They've been doing so much better lately but this was a huge step back.

In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.

Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.

I don't think you'll find B&C any better. They're just dicks in a different way.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, there is a very vocal group of naysayers on Dakka, often long time members. And then there are many people copying that behavior where you sometimes realize they didn't even read the rules or only half of the warcom article.

Personally I think I'll move to Bolter and Chainsword in the long run. Dakka often is very toxic and tournament/ WAAC oriented.
And I think the GW rules writers are not. Unlike Blizzard they don't have large sports events in mind for their game. It's more like: Buy our space Marine, read that cool Black Library book, make up your background, meet a friend and throw some dice.

I don't think you'll find B&C any better. They're just dicks in a different way.

This is the unfortunate consequence of the internet. People can anonymously post anything they want without having to actual interact with anyone face-to-face. Ultimately people will just be pricks because they can, even though they wouldn't act that way in real life to someone.

 chimeara wrote:
I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.

the problem is that lots of stuff that didnt need it got increases, particularly FW stuff, and gobs of stuff that needed decreases or other help didn't get it. They touched a couple big offendors, nuked half the FW line whether it needed it or not, and all the units and options that sat on shelves before will largely still be sitting there.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
I think the negativity comes from players wanting something done about balance issues. But when gw made adjustments to balance the game better, players weren't happy for a multitude of reasons. Most of what I see looks like a lot of qq'ing. I only casually play once a month or so and maybe a yearly tournament, so the changes don't affect me as much as it would others. That being said, I think a bunch of stuff that got increases needed it.

the problem is that lots of stuff that didnt need it got increases, particularly FW stuff, and gobs of stuff that needed decreases or other help didn't get it. They touched a couple big offendors, nuked half the FW line whether it needed it or not, and all the units and options that sat on shelves before will largely still be sitting there.

The community is largely at fault. There's been a big push that said "Forgeworld units are by and far overpowered". Whether they were or not isn't even the issue. It's that so many people were saying it. Now, GW bashed Forgeworld in the face with Lucille and people are crying foul again. I think GW went overboard with it, but they were giving the community what so many wanted. Now those Forgeworld units aren't going to be used.

I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.

Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.

Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.

It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.

But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.

Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.

GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.

It's not. Starcraft balance is crowdsourced as well. It's just that blizzard can patch and unpatch very quickly.

I think that most of the designers are either overworked, not experienced/caring enough of a given faction, and without the top-tier math skill, to put it mildly.
I often criticize the design team but I don't think that there is malice, most times.
Perhaps Vetock came closer with the 6th edition Tau, winner of the "the least fun army to play against" prize.
And Kelly with his weak spot for Eldar. But that is more excessive love than hate toward the others

Martel732 wrote:
It's not. Starcraft balance is crowdsourced as well. It's just that blizzard can patch and unpatch very quickly.

I don't think this is a good comparison.

Blizzard doesn't have to make rules for "legacy" units that people still have the sprite (or whatever) for (see the issue about non-Codex wargear).
Blizzard has to balance 3 factions.
Blizzard lets you rebuild your army on the fly each game, so essentially you can list tailor on the fly. This makes games easier to balance, as you only need to build a counter to a unit in the tech-tree, which can sit there and be literally nothing else besides a counter unit.
Computer games are easier to get data for.
Computer games have more data available for them.
Blizzard pre-designs the starcraft maps to ensure there's enough cover and LOS blocking terrain.
Blizzard fundamentally controls the resources the enemy has access to to buy units.
Blizzard doesn't have variant win conditions and has only one mission objective on any given map.

I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.

It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.

Hoodwink wrote:
I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.

I find Obsec Berserkers unfluffy.

Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.

But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?

Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.

I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not. Starcraft balance is crowdsourced as well. It's just that blizzard can patch and unpatch very quickly.

Reading Starcraft 1 and 2 forums one would think that the balance in that game is even worse than in Warhammer40k. Players in forums are prone to hyperbole and exageratting. Thats why the player feedback of the vocal minority isn't a good measure for balance. Thats why you should wait at least 1-2months for the dust to settle after a change, to see the reactions of the silent minority and the more technical data, to analize it and reach a better conclusion. Panic balance patches, unless theres something that is really broken, aren't any good for the game.

Thats why leaving the balance patches to three different points a year (2 FAQ's and one CA) is a good thing. Yeah, something will be "broken" for 6 months. And in that time the meta will settle and counter tactics will emerge and much more reliable data will be collected.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.

But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?

Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.

I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.

Berserkers and Noise Marines are the primary units for their respective groups. People shouldn't be forced into taking generic CSM in World Eaters or Emperors Children. That's the whole point of the detachment changes in 8th. You get obsec due to the streamline rules for troops. It makes sense for Berserkers that you charge a unit on an objective, if not outright killing them, then you control it. This is one of those times where the fluff and the rules coincide together well.

This is also the reason that GK can take Terminators as troops. The rules match the fluff.

As much as various forums, Dakka especially it seems, get criticized for adopting a given attitude or acting like an echo chamber, I don't think any site on the internet is going to replicate that as strongly as a 40K Open Day at the HQ of the company that makes it.

Then there's the fact that I've seen many people with great attitudes and real enthusiasm either fail to get or retain a job due to a pure lack of aptitude. PMA is great, but it will only get you so far in a job that, ultimately, boils down to hard data and mathematical formulae. The guys in charge of creating fluff and designing models can go far on their excitement for their craft, but somebody eventually will have to sit down and crunch numbers if they're serious about balance.

But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?

When there's some 1000 Terminators that make up a chapter you can give me a point. There's entire warbands dedicated to the pursuit of noise.

 Azreal13 wrote:
As much as various forums, Dakka especially it seems, get criticized for adopting a given attitude or acting like an echo chamber, I don't think any site on the internet is going to replicate that as strongly as a 40K Open Day at the HQ of the company that makes it.

Then there's the fact that I've seen many people with great attitudes and real enthusiasm either fail to get or retain a job due to a pure lack of aptitude. PMA is great, but it will only get you so far in a job that, ultimately, boils down to hard data and mathematical formulae. The guys in charge of creating fluff and designing models can go far on their excitement for their craft, but somebody eventually will have to sit down and crunch numbers if they're serious about balance.

There's also a disconnect in local metas to the picture as a whole. Many people who complain about a particular unit or model are doing so of their perceived views on it. Largely, this will be because of local perception as opposed to perception of the unit as a whole across the world. Metas are strikingly different just in local tournaments. Look at the difference between east coast and west coast in the US alone. Tournaments there are very different to each other. You will have the strong outliers who are definitively good or bad, but everyone in the middle will vary.

Hoodwink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:I think the Berserker and Noise Marine change was very good. Those are the primary units. They gained obsec and can form a battalion for more CP.

But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?

Martel732 wrote:It is a good comparison, it's just that the data is much harder to gather. The people who play 40K know more than the designers, just as the people who play Starcraft professionally are better at finding exploits than the devs.

I really don't think it's a good comparison, seriously. It's far far easier to balance a game when you have 1 mission type, 1 deployment type, predesigned/built playspaces, and 3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly so you don't even have to ensure that an all-Medivac army can have a reasonable chance vs an all-Baneling+Zergling force.

Berserkers and Noise Marines are the primary units for their respective groups. People shouldn't be forced into taking generic CSM in World Eaters or Emperors Children. That's the whole point of the detachment changes in 8th. You get obsec due to the streamline rules for troops. It makes sense for Berserkers that you charge a unit on an objective, if not outright killing them, then you control it. This is one of those times where the fluff and the rules coincide together well.

This is also the reason that GK can take Terminators as troops. The rules match the fluff.

You can be a "primary unit" and not be a troops choice. The Sentinel is the primary unit for IG recon companies, and that doesn't mean one whit. And no, Berzerkers don't secure anything. If you charged a unit on an important objective with Berzerkers, you'd:

1) netter hope they don't trammel it if it's important
2) follow up with some defensive troops, while the berzerkers pursue the broken and fleeing enemy because you can't stop them from doing that. Blood-crazed madmen are not the types to dig in and set up perimeters around valuable assets.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

But why? What if reducing access to CP was the trade-off for taking a full berzerker or noise marine force? What if encouraging people to take CSM or cultists was the point? GW just caved to community pressure, even though I don't even really see what the problem was. Why should Khorne Berzerkers or Noise Marines have Obsec when Sternguard and Terminators don't?

When there's some 1000 Terminators that make up a chapter you can give me a point. There's entire warbands dedicated to the pursuit of noise.

Yes, and they can still exist. That's the point. If you want an all-noise-marine warband, you could still do it with them as Elites.

The only reason to make Zerks or noise marines troops was for an in-game mechanical advantage, and has nothing to do with fluff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.

Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.

Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.

It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.

But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.

Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.

GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.

This doesn't really read like "too much community interaction" is a meaningful contributor to the problem. First, it's not clear what the problem is supposed to be with the cult troops -- why was this a bad change?

But with Conscripts, the obvious conclusion to draw from your story -- just assuming that you're exactly right about what happened here -- is that they're really, really stupid. Like, yeah, if the game designers never had any contact with the outside world maybe Conscripts wouldn't have been over-nerfed. But people pointing out that Conscripts were too good doesn't seem like something to blame for that -- GW knowing that there's an imbalance in the game is a good thing, even if there's a sense in which becoming aware of an imbalance is a first step towards over-correcting.

Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that someone at GW actually looked at all the changes to Conscripts and thought to themselves "yeah, this looks about right". You've got a really low opinion of whoever signed off on that, I guess. I mean, they cost the same as Infantry and the only advantage they get is a larger max squad size. On the other hand, I can buy that the thinking here was just "3 ppw might still be too good in some cases, so let's just effectively remove them from the game". But that seems like a perfectly defensible design choice where there's not a clear problem which requires assignment of blame.

Hoodwink wrote:
In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.

For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.

If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.

But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do think part of the problem with GW's new approach is actually too much community interaction.

Things like Khorne Berzerkers and Noise Marines being troops when taken in World Eaters or Emperor's Children detachments didn't need to happen. 8th Edition doesn't even work that way anymore - you can take a whole detachment of Elites or whatever if you wanted. The only reason this changed is the community shrieked at the top of their lungs.

Same thing with Conscripts, who have been nerfed directly in 3 separate ways now and suffered 1 indirect nerf that rippled through the whole of the codex.

It's clear, to me, that GW actually is honestly trying to balance the game. The IG codex probably went to print before conscripts became a problem from the index and - guess what - had some fairly hefty conscript nerfs in it.

But the community shrieked and whined and waved their arms and we got Commissars gutted. Okay, fair enough.

Or not, apparently, because the gnashing of teeth and the wailing also got Conscripts bumped to 4ppm.

GW is honestly trying, but I think the community is hindering the effort rather than helping.

This doesn't really read like "too much community interaction" is a meaningful contributor to the problem. First, it's not clear what the problem is supposed to be with the cult troops -- why was this a bad change?

But with Conscripts, the obvious conclusion to draw from your story -- just assuming that you're exactly right about what happened here -- is that they're really, really stupid. Like, yeah, if the game designers never had any contact with the outside world maybe Conscripts wouldn't have been over-nerfed. But people pointing out that Conscripts were too good doesn't seem like something to blame for that -- GW knowing that there's an imbalance in the game is a good thing, even if there's a sense in which becoming aware of an imbalance is a first step towards over-correcting.

Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that someone at GW actually looked at all the changes to Conscripts and thought to themselves "yeah, this looks about right". You've got a really low opinion of whoever signed off on that, I guess. I mean, they cost the same as Infantry and the only advantage they get is a larger max squad size. On the other hand, I can buy that the thinking here was just "3 ppw might still be too good in some cases, so let's just effectively remove them from the game". But that seems like a perfectly defensible design choice where there's not a clear problem which requires assignment of blame.

The Cult troops thing wasn't a bad design change per se, but I think it does have ramifications for GW's plans. I think the way GW envisioned 8th Edition was to make it super simple - no weird slot-changing shenanigans, for example. I think this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.

The conclusion I drew from my story was the Game Designers went "good thing we nerfed them in the codex, looks like they're about right" and the screaming of children could be heard through the windows, so they went "feth it" and removed them (and commissars) from the game, with nary a few moments to even see if the codex changes to Conscripts made them more balanced. (I think, honestly, it did, as the next AM tournament winning list didn't have many, if any, conscripts, and was mostly veterans IIRC).