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.

Tycho wrote:

We're relying on FAQs now anyways, so there's no difference there.

*Edit* I can't quote apparently

lol We've all been there. Yeah, tweaking the points via FAQ or using the current system is two different ways of doing the same thing so it just comes down to personal preference. I like the way they are doing it now, but I can't say your suggestion is "wrong" or "wouldn't work".

Sure, just like I'm not inherently opposed to the current system, where we at least have handy unit cards to reference, which is just about the only way to make bespoke rules work.

I think for the scale of the game with the amount of units, it just makes it simpler in the long run to learn some 20-30 odd USRs then to remember what the hundreds of bespoke rules do. But again, thank feth for the easy accessibility of the rules.

I also don't know why we don't also roll the psychic phase back to what it was in 5th. That was simple, didn't punish players for taking multiple, weaker psykers, and let players choose their powers from their own fluffy selection.

I think you're looking at the 5e Psyker Phase with rose-tinted glasses. Jaws, Rune Staves, 24" bubble Nullzone and Warp Quake/Cleansing Flame all say hi.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I think you're looking at the 5e Psyker Phase with rose-tinted glasses. Jaws, Rune Staves, 24" bubble Nullzone and Warp Quake/Cleansing Flame all say hi.

Oh some of the powers were ridiculous, but the underlying mechanics of it was better.

Galas, I actually agree with you (as mentioned) as I love each unit feeling unique and cool and special in its own way...

... but they're really not, at the scale which the game is played at.

Much like a given company commander literally in mid-battle is unconcerned with whether or not his soldier is using an AKM or an AK-47, the minutiae of a given unit's capabilities are up to that unit's sergeant or lieutenant or whatever to oversee.

The difference between Khorne Berzerkers and a bunch of angry Chaos Space Marines with identical wargear is, on balance, probably not going to fundamentally change a warlord's strategy. "What, we've no berzerkers but just these angry guys with identical gear? That's it, call the whole thing off. We can't win." is never a statement I imagine hearing a warband leader saying.

It's the same reason I don't have a problem with removing armour arcs and firing arcs - because frankly, a company commander won't micromanage his vehicles in the middle of a running gunfight. The crews, if trained, can be trusted to get it right. It always bothered me that if someone got side armour, it was my error and not the tank driver's/commander's. After all, as the company commander, it's not my job to make sure you point your front at the baddies.

Still by far the best "magic" "psychic" phase is 8th Ed fantasy, all players were involved and it didnt require you to have a psyker to stop powers.

Now the Spells were balls out crazy so they dont need to transition, although the laws could just in a different guise, alwaty wondered why 40k has no fireball or lightning balls etc.

As it stands

2d6 power dice, capped at 12, highest d6 for dispel and psykers use power levels to add to rolls, channeling on a 6+ and every spell having a set amount to cast as well as a "overcast" ability, get rid of Irresistible force and have the fantasy perils chart, turn the templates into bubble (so str10 -4sv d6 hits to all units within 6" or something).

because for the last 3 Eds the "magic" phase in 40k has been utter craptastic.

 Formosa wrote:
Still by far the best "magic" "psychic" phase is 8th Ed fantasy, all players were involved and it didnt require you to have a psyker to stop powers.

Now the Spells were balls out crazy so they dont need to transition, although the laws could just in a different guise, alwaty wondered why 40k has no fireball or lightning balls etc.

As it stands

2d6 power dice, capped at 12, highest d6 for dispel and psykers use power levels to add to rolls, channeling on a 6+ and every spell having a set amount to cast as well as a "overcast" ability, get rid of Irresistible force and have the fantasy perils chart, turn the templates into bubble (so str10 -4sv d6 hits to all units within 6" or something).

because for the last 3 Eds the "magic" phase in 40k has been utter craptastic.

I actually think the 6th ed psychic phase was largely fine. Deny could have used a buff to be able to stop buff spells. The issue with 6th was the power of some of the buff spells in combination. 8th ed is also largely fine, but largely suffers from the same issues that the powers are a problem. The idea of casting on 2D6 above a certain value works just fine, with the opposite for deny, the issue is just that some powers are too powerful and that each power can only be used once, though with 6 powers in each lore this is less of an issue.

I think a combination of 6th Psyker levels + primaris powers and 8th casting could easily work well.

Give each psyker a level - this is how many dice they roll for casting, if cheap psykers are level 1 and smite stays at a 5 to cast this is an instant fix to smite spam. Then have more powerful spells be more difficult to cast but higher level psykers able to roll more dice (so Eldrad is Lv 4, he can roll up 4 dice to cast, leave perils on double 1s or 6s so more dice = more risk)

Give every lore a primaris power with a low cast that can be cast by every psyker with that lore like smite (they can have smite or this power, if some of these are cast value 3 for instance they might be a good alternative to smite for weak psykers)

Have deny be the opposite of casting - maybe give psykers a separate deny level for how many dice they can roll for deny.

With variable casting values even things like Invisibility could be balanced if it is difficult enough to cast If it is say WC value 15 only the best psykers even have a shot, and even they will struggle to get it off. It makes it a powerful but unreliable buff.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.

the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.

13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.

 auticus wrote:
I haven't looked at warmahordes in many years, but when I was playing its complexity was on par with whfb at the time.

Games like warmarhordes are also losing a lot of favor and ground, both from my own experience where I live (it is almost non existent now here) to what I read commonly on forums and fb groups. I'd also consiider Hail Caesar (the historical i'm most familiar with) to be a bit more than warmachine was back ini the day that I played it.

Games like xwing became HUGE and xwing is definitely not a wargame, and I am seeing a lot of developers try to copy its basic formula which is simplicity at its root and very gamey elements.

Simple rules. Small number of pieces to have to manage (skirmish scale). Quick game times. This is the new mantra of tabletop design today and if you attend game design conferences you'll see a lot of and hear a lot about.

The only thing 40k doesn't have on that list is small number of pieces to manage.

I wouldnt give forums or facebook or what not any credence, jus off that you may assume where I am there is no warmahordes community, but the reality is you can go into any one of our flgs almost any night and find anywhere from 6-20 people playing it, especially at the one closest to where I live, it has leagues and CoI going as well, conversely you have to go to GW to see even a hint of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.

bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.

I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.

couldnt disagree more, I play and collect malilfaux quite a bit and have found it to be on par or better than 40k at options, particularly in that there are really no "auto includes" and just about any unit can be effective based on what you are trying to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.

the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.

13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.

thats just the folks that are basically done with the game, the middle group are in the "grey area" but again you have to look at the comments going with them, people who are "generally" ok with the game still have a lot of issues with it. Polls can be interpreted to say alot, but guided questions can hide issues very well. 29% saying the game is still unbalanced puts the game IMO squarely in the realm of needing some review by GW. Granted this is a small poll on a small forum,. but you have 53% vs 42% give or take on what should be very friendly ground.

I am loving 8th edition. It is what brought me back into 40k after playing a few games of the mess that was 7th edition. I think the rules are tight for the most part, easy to teach new players,and the game plays faster than it ever has, which is a big deal when you want a quick game. I don't play tournaments, only causal games where basically everyone is on the same level about how much of the "broken" units/combos that are taken, and 8th certainly is the best edition for casual play, as when people are not trying to break the game, the codexes are so much more balanced to each other than previous editions. Are there overpowered lists and units? Of course, but 40k has always had that issue with some units being too powerful or come combos being too good. GW also is at least trying to fix issues with overpowered lists or units, which is more than you can say about them previously where once a codex was out, it would be years until things were fixed. While 8th edition is my favorite edition so far, there are a few things that I have some complaint about:

1. I have seen complaints that games are over by turn 2 many times and that alpha strike is an issue. Personally have not have had this issue in the dozen or so games I played, all of which were competitive until late in the game. I think this is not really an issue with the rules, but a combination of people not using enough terrain on the field, especially LOS blocking terrain that actually does a good job at blocking line of site, and people playing broken lists that of course kill the opponent by turn two, that is what they are designed to do. Also this existed in previous versions of 40k (anyone remember "leaf blower" lists). The other thing is that I think having objectives that score during the game (not only at the end) really helps as it makes you have to maneuver.

2. Cover rules. Yea this is the worst part of 8th edition. The cover rules basically make it so almost no units get cover, especially if you don't use enough terrain. I have a proposed fix that I am going to put in the proposed rules section.

3. Power Level/Points. Personally I hate the power level mechanic. It just doesn't work in balancing when a unit that is 150 pints or 450 points is the same Power Level. To me they missed a huge opportunity but not figuring a way to put the points on the datesheets, and for most units I don't think this would add a whole lot of space. But this is only really a minor point. The main thing about the points is currently I don't think they are very well balanced as a whole, and GW has never been that great with providing units with proper points. I mean Thousand Sons Rubrics have been over priced since they existed, and even now seem so when compared to at 17 point plague marine. It also seems that GW is still stuck in the pre-8th mindset for determining points. An example is a 5++ save on a 2+ save model. The 5++ is almost worthless as it does not even kick in until an ap of -4 (which is not super common) yet if feel like models are paying 3-5 points for this ability. I would gladly give up the 5++ on my terminators for 3-5 points back. However, at this point I think I am going to give GW the benefit of the doubt and wait until all Codexes are released and any points fixes with those before I pass judgement if the points system is still very unbalanced or not.

4. Again this is not major, but why are all the "shooting" psychic powers mortal wounds? Would it really have been that hard to have a spell that says, "once this power is manifested the model may make a shooting attack as if were the shooting phase with the following profile". I think that this would allow for greater diversity in the spells, and maybe allow for a few more spells per army, which would reduce the issue about only being able to attempt each spell once.

Basically the only thing that I think is a major problem with the core rules is the cover, but other than that I am loving 8th edition.

Dakka tends to be a bitchfest against 40k so I see the complaints coming mainly from a vocal minority. If you look at all the votes not that many people are posting that took Pepsi challenge.

I have been playing 40K since third edition and for the first time ever I have played a game of an older system while I had access to newer rules.

8th edition is fun enough to play but it lost out on a lot of the immersion rules that I thought made 40k really fun (armor values, facings, firing arcs, scatter, etc). They made the game way to simple and honestly made all the armies feel pretty much the same.

I also discovered that I don't actually like stratagems as much as I thought I did. They tend to slow the game down with a lot of "you activated my trap" moments. They are a cool idea but after going back and playing 7th I have discovered they are a step sideways at best.

Full disclosure, I am the sort of person who had no problem memorizing all the books and rules and also one of the people who enjoyed the more bizarre random shenanigans that 7th had like the chaos boon table. Don't get me wrong, 7th had its problems like major swings in codex power (Eldar) and invisibility was honestly just stupid, but I would rather take an over the top ridiculous level of crazy to the bland nothing we have now. At least it is memorable.

auticus wrote:A deckbuilding game is a game where you have elements and you build a force from those elements where combinations are key. There are dozens of examples of deckbuilding games. They typically involve cards (hence the nomenclature "deckbuilding".

Spoiler:

40k and AOS are deckbuilding games. You can replace the models with cards, and you approach the game the same as you would with any other deckbuilding game. They even removed most of the maneuver out of it.

The evidence is reading the rules and seeing how it is played.
The evidence is reading their developer's posts on forums, especially the newer devs that weren't devs a few months ago but are now and seeing them discuss game design. I am also a games designer and have designed deckbuilding games.

Explain and counter argue how exactly 40k and AOS are NOT like other deckbuilding games (other than saying... well they use miniatures instead of cards so they can't be deckbuilding games) and we can have a discussion. Because right now AOS and 40k do not in any circumstance resemble any battle that would be fought both in the real world, in film, or in fantasy literature. It has divorced itself from resembling a battle and in its stead we have a game (that can be fun which is the point of games) where you deckbuild a force and optimize its combos and then deploy it. One could design a game that uses the same basic mechanics, alter movement to strip it out entirely and replace it with a deck of game cards and dice and get the exact same experience out of it.

What would that look like?

On my turn I play my hand. I deploy my 5 death company cards and pick your targets. I roll dice. That gives me the outcome. Then whats left of your deck can retaliate. That is the same as alpha strikiing my entire 40k collection on you that is legally allowed and then using my strategems to deploy next to you with whats left and then charge. Same basic experience to me and to a lot of people.

The games have a spatial dimension and use dice to randomise. You don't have a random sample drawn from your deck, you put you whole list on the table (usually).
Terrain might not matter much as wargames go, but it's still there making us move differently and blocking line of sight; how much terrain do card games have? Line of sight and weapon ranges means you have to get unit into certain positions to interact with other units, it that common in card games? I realise that either Warhammer has some insane movement shenanigans, but you still need to move or use an ability to get in range or to an objective and that only matters if positioning does too.

If positioning is irrelevant then why is this a problem:

...using my strategems to deploy next to you...

Positioning is largely irrelevant when you can just deploy into combat. It is mechanically identical to tapping my magic card and saying it attacks your magic card.

Note my use of the term *largely irrelevant*, as opposed to *totally irrelevant* or *there is NO movement or positioning* or *terrain doesn't do ANYTHING*. I don't say those things.

I say they *largely* don't do anything impactful in either game.

 thekingofkings wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Other than that I agree with your post. 40K is simply too large to be balanced. But I think GW is at least trying to adjust the outliers steadily now, which is a vast improvement to prior editions. The best way to balance the game is to talk to your opponent before the game.

bs. Infinity and Malifaux have a huge number of options and those games don't have serious balance issues. GW's (esp. new) style with stacking buffs and exciting and powerful abilities and units make balancing harder, but GW does far worse than the have excuses for. I've given up on telling myself they care about it; which is one of the reasons I don't think GW intend to make games well suited to competition.

I'm not as familiar with Infinity, but Malifaux pales in comparison to GW when it comes to number of options. They are perhaps getting closer with number of units, but those units have few to no options. GWs style of giving options at the unit level has always been difficult to balance, and you are right that including buffs, especially auras makes this very difficult to balance.

couldnt disagree more, I play and collect malilfaux quite a bit and have found it to be on par or better than 40k at options, particularly in that there are really no "auto includes" and just about any unit can be effective based on what you are trying to Automatically Appended Next Post:
.

Better options =\= more options. 40k has about twice as many factions, many of which have more choices than the malifaux factions, further there are units in 40k with more options (possible combinations of wargear etc) than are available in an entire malifaux list. I'm not suggesting these are better, or improve the game just that they make it harder to balance.

Ok so if i was to go for balance i'd say it can be just as bad as before.

I played a space wolf player with my dark eldar on monday and he had like 6 or so single wolves and then deep striked everything in on the board (2 heroes with logan and someone else, 20 wolf guard with storm bolters in two 10 man squads, a unit of 10 terminators and 3 squads of 5 wulfen each). I seized turn one and i placed everything around to prevent him coming in easily.

I killed a unit of wulfen, some terminators, about 10 wolf guard with storm bolters (2 different squads) and some single wolves. I on the other hand just about got tabled on turn 4 i think it was. We stopped because i deemed it pointless to continue. The guy he faced the day before killed even less than i did. I wasn't even aware space wolves could both DS so much and shoot so hard with the storm bolters. Wulfen are also still hard to kill up to the point of just being best to avoid them or use mortal wounds. This is all provided you can give mortal wounds.

Seriously GW fix Chapter Approved it broke space wolves. Also apparently he plays a more powerful guard army. He said he managed to only lose a few models against one guy. GW this is pathetic and horrible. The rules need to be fixed. The balance is at least as bad as before.

auticus wrote:Positioning is largely irrelevant when you can just deploy into combat. It is mechanically identical to tapping my magic card and saying it attacks your magic card.

Except you have to choose a place to put it, I can block your magic card with any of mine; but in a wargame your unit can only interact or be interacted with by other units in range. Where the position of everthing else isimpacts where you have to put your DS unit and then after it has come down it's limited in what it can interact with.

Note my use of the term *largely irrelevant*, as opposed to *totally irrelevant* or *there is NO movement or positioning* or *terrain doesn't do ANYTHING*. I don't say those things.

I say they *largely* don't do anything impactful in either game.

Sure, but in a card game terrain and positioning are not "largely irrelevant" those dimensions don't exist.
List building being too important, maneuver and terrain not being important enough are valid criticisms. It's taking your point past being metaphor/simile so that you can imply that it's not even worth being called a wargame that's misleading.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Ok so if i was to go for balance i'd say it can be just as bad as before.

I played a space wolf player with my dark eldar on monday and he had like 6 or so single wolves and then deep striked everything in on the board (2 heroes with logan and someone else, 20 wolf guard with storm bolters in two 10 man squads, a unit of 10 terminators and 3 squads of 5 wulfen each). I seized turn one and i placed everything around to prevent him coming in easily.

I killed a unit of wulfen, some terminators, about 10 wolf guard with storm bolters (2 different squads) and some single wolves. I on the other hand just about got tabled on turn 4 i think it was. We stopped because i deemed it pointless to continue. The guy he faced the day before killed even less than i did. I wasn't even aware space wolves could both DS so much and shoot so hard with the storm bolters. Wulfen are also still hard to kill up to the point of just being best to avoid them or use mortal wounds. This is all provided you can give mortal wounds.

Seriously GW fix Chapter Approved it broke space wolves. Also apparently he plays a more powerful guard army. He said he managed to only lose a few models against one guy. GW this is pathetic and horrible. The rules need to be fixed. The balance is at least as bad as before.

As a SW and drukhari player, CA didn't broke anything. It just made SW viable as a SW army and not as a SM one painted in light blue and yellow. Drukhari are among the worst armies at the moment and forced to play as a pure gunline. After CA the new SW are not even mid tiers, but at last we can play now with a typical SW army without relying too much on SM shenanigans (the razorback spam).

It's taking your point past being metaphor/simile so that you can imply that it's not even worth being called a wargame that's misleading.

What I actually said was that to me its closer to a boardgame or a cardgame than a wargame, not that its not worth being called a wargame.

I'm not a binary person. I don't see things as 100% this or 100% this.

On a sliding scale where on one end we have board games and card games and on the other extreme end we have classical wargames where maneuver and intuitive battle replication exist, 40k traditionally sat around the middle. Going as far back as 3rd edition, maneuver was not as important in 40k because you can move in whatever direction you wanted and being outflanked didn't really do anything. However, terrain slowed you down and battlefield management was still a thing (and people largely accepted this and accepted that whfb was the game where maneuver was going to be king still and were ok with that)

Now I just feel that it, and AOS, are more toward board/card games than they are wargames because not only do maneuver don't matter really, you can alpha strike your whole army in some cases, and terrain is mostly decoration that has little impact in the game. Its still a "wargame" but the needle has slid even further toward the gamey board game position.

Of course we can now redefine wargame as anything that features pretend war with an opponent, which opens up all kinds of games that can be considered wargames such as Dominion or battleship or risk etc... but when I'm talking about classical wargames I'm talking about games that emulated a real battle as opposed to a gamey game with a lot of abstraction.

40k and AOS when iit comes to feeling like a real battle that emulates their own literature is definitely filled with grandiose abstraction and gamey game elements over intuitive feeling like a battle.

It's not a competitive game and never was.

Take the game and make it your own, enjoy a narrative campaign, make some custom terrain etc. Use it as a tool to socialise with friends, have a laugh and spend quality time with them. It's all it was ever meant for.

 AaronWilson wrote:
It's not a competitive game and never was.

Except that you're always competing against your opponent by the very nature of the game, and that GW has ran their own sponsored tournaments for decades now with 40k.

Its never been a good competitive game, but to claim its not a competitive game is grossly incorrect.

auticus wrote:What I actually said was that to me its closer to a boardgame or a cardgame than a wargame, not that its not worth being called a wargame.

You started here:

auticus wrote:
We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG.
Is that best? Well I suppose if one likes board games or CCG style play then yeah I can see how that would be best for them.

...but then:

auticus wrote:On a sliding scale where on one end we have board games and card games and on the other extreme end we have classical wargames where maneuver and intuitive battle replication exist, 40k traditionally sat around the middle. Now I just feel that it, and AOS, are more toward board/card games than they are wargames.

Of course we can now redefine wargame as anything that features pretend war with an opponent, which opens up all kinds of games that can be considered wargames such as Dominion or battleship or risk etc... but when I'm talking about classical wargames I'm talking about games that emulated a real battle as opposed to a gamey game with a lot of abstraction.

Feel about it as you will, this definition is too subjective to be useful.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
It's not a competitive game and never was.

Except that you're always competing against your opponent by the very nature of the game, and that GW has ran their own sponsored tournaments for decades now with 40k.

Its never been a good competitive game, but to claim its not a competitive game is grossly incorrect.

Exactly its not a co-op game there are three win conditions win/lose/draw.

Its not a good game for tournaments but its been used for them for too long to claim its not a competitive game.

I know where I started. Everything quoted above is what I defined.

"We went from a half of a wargame to something that more resembles a board game or CCG. "

Thats the sliding scale I was talking about. It doesn't say "we went from half of a wargame to a board game or CCG". The key phrase in that sentence is "that more resembles" meaning "it slid back toward board game or CCG.

Feel about it as you will, this definition is too subjective to be useful.

Sure. Except that in years of using that language and analogy, 99% of everyone I have conversed with understood where I was coming from. So to me its been plenty useful to convey how I feel about the game. I gave you an example with the magic the gathering scenario on how the mechanics of the game right now could be ported over to a game that uses cards and pretty much keep most of the same experience.

I'm not sure about what we are discussing here anymore. My guess is that you don't like that I compare it being similar to a boardgame or card game. I haven't seen any real counterpoints though that would contradict my assertion though.

Wayniac wrote:
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.

Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.

The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.

 Primark G wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
It seems like the vocal minority are the ones complaining looking at the results of the poll. Also it is annoying to me when people casually suggest UGIG like it is super easy to implement right after the release of a new edition.

the results of the poll and reading the comments show that while even the ones with positive leanings still generally are not without complaint, primarily on terrain rules. on a pro-gw board 53% positive is still not stellar by any means.

13% is almost less than one in ten unhappy just saying.

I am afraid you got it wrong. Is 42% of the players that find the game flawed. The middle is "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games." It does not end well. Is the same pattern of 7th.
Also, you accuse people of whining. Look at the short report of flamingkillamajig. That thing happened after a book that was supposed to be an improvement of gameplay.
I don't know you, but I could have had 10 times the people to play with if GW hired competent designers. Many people I played with just gave up. I did and still do for periods when the stupidity is off scale.
Is just that I enjoy other aspects of the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.

Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.

The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they crippled Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.

FTFY

 wuestenfux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.

Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.

The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.

Warmahordes also has the benefit of now doing CID (community integrated testing; basically public beta) of rules so they can be tweaked before release. If GW did something like that, it might go a long way to fixing some glaring issues.

Wayniac wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
really, they can also adjust things. If a unit is too good with Furious Charge, errata it to remove Furious Charge. Like, I much like the way PP balances Warmahordes, they will adjust a unit's stats (harder to do in 40k, granted) or remove or swap around rules on its card.

Seems like GW is hearing what the community says, whining inclusive.

The situation is not so much different with PP. In mk3, they nerved Cryx quite hard and then rolled back to some extent, see Asphyxious 2.

Warmahordes also has the benefit of now doing CID (community integrated testing; basically public beta) of rules so they can be tweaked before release. If GW did something like that, it might go a long way to fixing some glaring issues.

Not sure. At the beginning of 2017, PP released Una2 and she did very well with Scarsfell Griffons. Then they rolled back shortly after the release.
These companies seem to invest too less time and money into game testing.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I am afraid you got it wrong. Is 42% of the players that find the game flawed. The middle is "Still unbalanced but fun enough for occasional games." It does not end well. Is the same pattern of 7th.

Eh. That has basically been my opinion on 40K for twenty years. I don't consider it being particularly negative, but merely being realistic about how well a game that contains both cretchin and knight titans can be balanced.

It could be very balanced if they hired a professional statistician to work with them.

It wouldn't be cheap but it'd massively benefit avstudio that does not understand numbers.

There is a reason why game theory in college is heavily math based and there is a lot of calculus involved.