Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
While I agree with you last statement, I don't think the botched release of AOS had anything to do with community engagement.

Well, they killed WHFB and replaced it with an entirely new game system pretty much out of the blue without telling anyone, and they did it with barely any consideration for what the WHFB community wanted to see in a game. AoS at its release was clearly not what a majority of people were interested in playing, especially since it didn't include a transparent system for playing balanced armies against each other! However, they have incorporated a huge amount of feedback into AoS and turned it from an object of loathing into something that is widely accepted and enjoyed. I would argue that it was exactly because they showed no interest in engagement with the player base and their desires that the release of AoS turned out so badly.

Their behavior leading up to the release of 8th edition 40k has been totally unprecedented, at least for GW. They claim to have developed the rules and unit balance based on extensive play-testing conducted by independent groups of the most involved and experienced tournament organizers and players, which means that 8th will already be based on community feedback on the first day of its release. They are revealing many of the core mechanics in advance and being transparent about the fact that this is a full reboot of the rules, as opposed to simply dropping a new game out of thin air and telling everyone to buy it or get lost. Perhaps most importantly, they claim that game will have a living rule set going into the future, and that they will fully support it with regular tweaks and adjustments just as they are doing with AoS. That alone is a far cry from their previous practice of infrequently piling ill-formed rules on top of previously shaky foundations that made the game into an ever expanding mess of bloat and power creep because they couldn't be bothered to engage in actual game design or support.

I'd say that the botched release of AoS, and the prospective failure or success of 8th edition 40k, has everything to do with community engagement.

 Talamare wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
While I agree with you last statement, I don't think the botched release of AOS had anything to do with community engagement.

Well, they killed WHFB and replaced it with an entirely new game system pretty much out of the blue without telling anyone, and they did it with barely any consideration for what the WHFB community wanted to see in a game. AoS at its release was clearly not what a majority of people were interested in playing, especially since it didn't include a transparent system for playing balanced armies against each other! However, they have incorporated a huge amount of feedback into AoS and turned it from an object of loathing into something that is widely accepted and enjoyed. I would argue that it was exactly because they showed no interest in engagement with the player base and their desires that the release of AoS turned out so badly.

Their behavior leading up to the release of 8th edition 40k has been totally unprecedented, at least for GW. They claim to have developed the rules and unit balance based on extensive play-testing conducted by independent groups of the most involved and experienced tournament organizers and players, which means that 8th will already be based on community feedback on the first day of its release. They are revealing many of the core mechanics in advance and being transparent about the fact that this is a full reboot of the rules, as opposed to simply dropping a new game out of thin air and telling everyone to buy it or get lost. Perhaps most importantly, they claim that game will have a living rule set going into the future, and that they will fully support it with regular tweaks and adjustments just as they are doing with AoS. That alone is a far cry from their previous practice of infrequently piling ill-formed rules on top of previously shaky foundations that made the game into an ever expanding mess of bloat and power creep because they couldn't be bothered to engage in actual game design or support.

I'd say that the botched release of AoS, and the prospective failure or success of 8th edition 40k, has everything to do with community engagement.

Something that is important to note here is that GW 'claims' they did substantial playtesting. There isn't really any proof they did it.

Recently Privateer Press release Mk3 with a ton of press claiming they perfectly tested the game for years. Yet on day 1 there was 100s of posts about broken rules on their forum. They basically needed to almost immediately release a FAQ with more changes in it than there has been for the entirety of Mk2's life. Then when the first tournament happened, it became PAINFULLY obvious that the game was poorly tested. There were a ton of broken overpowered lists and basically dominated the scene. This is ignoring the Skorne fiasco in which Skorne players realized that their previously low to mid tier faction received an insane amount of nerfs and nearly no buffs. As expected Skorne was so bad that a developer even slipped up and said that Skorne wasn't really playtested. Which combined with the new releases of the time that were also insanely overpowered began the "Nothing was playtested" meme.

This all happened to Privateer Press a company that previously was known as probably the best miniature company around since they had great PR and a great ruleset. After this event their reputation has been shattered.

When you parallel that to GW a company who has had a pretty poor reputation for a long time, it's only natural that the skepticism is dialed to 11.

Pancakey wrote:
Clunk Hammer 1.0 - Age of Exception

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Clunk Hammer 1.0 - Age of Exception

You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you?

 Luciferian wrote:
I like how you evaded my question, but formations aren't what ruined 7th. Formations were a half-baked attempt at balancing a game that was already inherently difficult to balance and granulate.

Also, crowd sourcing their rules is probably one of the smartest things GW could have done, because they're not all that good at writing them on their own.

Pancakey wrote:


I evade all silly questions on 6+!

And crowd sourcing rules is not what you do when you have in house designers. It reeks of desperation!

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:


I evade all silly questions on 6+!

And crowd sourcing rules is not what you do when you have in house designers. It reeks of desperation!

GW doesn't have game designers anymore, they have an in-house marketing team whose goal it is to sell models. Something they've openly admitted in the recent past. At this point I don't really need you to tell me how long you've been paying attention to 40k because it's transparent that you're relatively new and you're just having fun jumping on some kind of "OG 7th edition 4 lyfe" bandwagon.

Pancakey wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Clunk Hammer 1.0 - Age of Exception

You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you?

Nice one!

Formations are what ruined 7th.

8th is already looking clunky and weve only had a sneak peaks!

By GWs admission this the "WE got EVERYTHING right edition!" (eventhough they crowd source their rules now)

Pancakey wrote:


Ok. Ok. Since its been reduced to personal attacks I will bite. The first edition I played of 40k was rogue trader. Does that give me enough forum unicorn points to have an opinion now?

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:


Ok. Ok. Since its been reduced to personal attacks I will bite. The first edition I played of 40k was rogue trader. Does that give me enough forum unicorn points to have an opinion now?

I can't believe you. Saying that 8th seems unwieldy compared to any one of several previous editions, including 7th, is just not something that anyone who had experience with previous editions of 40k would be able to bring themselves to do. Especially when the main complaint of 8th's detractors is that it is being streamlined or "dumbed-down" a la AoS. We're talking about 100 pages of special rules and exceptions compared to 14 pages of rules in their entirety.

Pancakey wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:


Ok. Ok. Since its been reduced to personal attacks I will bite. The first edition I played of 40k was rogue trader. Does that give me enough forum unicorn points to have an opinion now?

I can't believe you. Saying that 8th seems unwieldy compared to any one of several previous editions, including 7th, is just not something that anyone who had experience with previous editions of 40k would be able to bring themselves to do. Especially when the main complaint of 8th's detractors is that it is being streamlined or "dumbed-down" a la AoS. We're talking about 100 pages of special rules and exceptions compared to 14 pages of rules in their entirety.

Believe.

I don't think I called 8th "unwieldy".

In my opinion , formations are what really hurt 7th. Remove them all and a lot of the bloat is gone. So I guess we agree that's one thing that they got right going foward.

But lets be honest, we all knew deep down inside that formations were so out of whack that the only solution was to completely remove them from the game. (Sorry bros who spent $1000s on formation armies - love GW)

 jreilly89 wrote:


It wasn't formations, the basic rules of 6th and 7th were all bloat. That needs to be trimmed before they even get into things like the Force Organization Chart and Formations. Hell, LoS was and is a pain.

Pancakey wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

Pancakey wrote:


Ok. Ok. Since its been reduced to personal attacks I will bite. The first edition I played of 40k was rogue trader. Does that give me enough forum unicorn points to have an opinion now?

I can't believe you. Saying that 8th seems unwieldy compared to any one of several previous editions, including 7th, is just not something that anyone who had experience with previous editions of 40k would be able to bring themselves to do. Especially when the main complaint of 8th's detractors is that it is being streamlined or "dumbed-down" a la AoS. We're talking about 100 pages of special rules and exceptions compared to 14 pages of rules in their entirety.

Believe.

I don't think I called 8th "unwieldy".

In my opinion , formations are what really hurt 7th. Remove them all and a lot of the bloat is gone. So I guess we agree that's one thing that they got right going foward.

But lets be honest, we all knew deep down inside that formations were so out of whack that the only solution was to completely remove them from the game. (Sorry bros who spent $1000s on formation armies - love GW)

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Age of thank God 7th is dead.
Age of we playtested all armies at the same time.

 Luciferian wrote:

I can't believe you. Saying that 8th seems unwieldy compared to any one of several previous editions, including 7th, is just not something that anyone who had experience with previous editions of 40k would be able to bring themselves to do. Especially when the main complaint of 8th's detractors is that it is being streamlined or "dumbed-down" a la AoS. We're talking about 100 pages of special rules and exceptions compared to 14 pages of rules in their entirety.