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.

[Rant]Catachan's have tanks in the fluff. Since they are huge fans of bigger and bigger guns it makes sense. People get confused because they assume only rambo stereotypes are allowed in catachan fluff[/Rant]

I think 8th edition is a huge step in the right direction, but it has several points of rules wonkiness. Close Combat is a big right turn versus shooting, Line of Sight and Auras are ripe for rules arguments. There's also the D6 problem, which won't be addressed any time soon, but eventually will need to be if we are going to have so many stat modifiers.

Some people are calling for the complete removal of special rules, but I don't think they've thought it through. Why have more than 2 factions if the only difference is a point or two in stats?

The problem with a lot of the bonuses is that they take the unique characteristics of the thematic models for that group and apply them to the army so the army "fights like" those models. Unfortunately, this means that the thematic models are at their worst in those groups because in other groups those models get rules that let them do things they're not supposed to. It's really noticeably in Space Marines, where White Scar bikers are the worst bikers and Raven Guard is the ultimate static gunline.

 Jidmah wrote:
What army did not have a supplement, formations that were sold separately, campaign books with formations in them or FW models?

Edit: Oh, right. Sisters.

Apart from the FW models Dark Eldar.
Which was really lovely considering how most of the rule tweaks between 6th and 7th kicked them in the and the 7th edition codex did so again

Not that i'm about only being really effective if fighting Tyranids or foot melee marines....

Edit: I'm not counting the Ynarii stuff because mixing with craftworlds is

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly I like 8th. I think part of where people are finding it difficult to parse is that basically everything dies. Even regular games end looking like the aftermath of an Apoc game. And that's hard to get used to, especially if you play an army like Marines who are fluffed as being hard to kill.

That said, I like 8th. It's not perfect but it's still really good and if the team behind it does a good job with the FAQs and future expansions/beta rules it can get even better.

This.

8th edition needs a complete change of play style and I feel that some players just don't want that change. Accepting that units are going to get swept off the table is a major thing to consider and it is one of those elements that speeds up the game.

The edition hasn't even been out a year yet. We have to see where GW can take it.

8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

With 40k, notable issues in the previous editions included include: idiosyncracy between universal versus snowflake rules. This usually was the result of USRs being designed in a non-atomic form, so that certain rules were just copy-pasted for a minor minute detail.

As an example, the Imperial Guard Camo Cloak granted Stealth. Since Stealth applied to a unit so long as at least one model in the unit had it, this meant a Lord Commissar with cloak could grant Stealth to a 50-Guardsman blob. When the 6th ed codex came out, the Camo Cloak copypasted the entirety of the Stealth rules except for stating that only the *model* with the cloak got the specific save.

Now, had there been a Grants Unit[another USR] USR, you could have Stealth versus Grants[Stealth] without the need for a snowflake rule.

Likewise, non-atomic rules like "Slow and Purposeful" were not usable when creating other units. For example, Kataphractons didn't have Slow and Purposeful (cannot run or overwatch), but "Heavy Battle Servitor" (cannot run, may fire 2 weapons). Again, a snowflake exception.

And of course, sloppy ruleswriting led to situations like the Yncarnae getting access to Sanctic Daemonology despite being a Daemon and thus not allowed to use it! Oops. Or RAW situations like being able to take the Triumvirate of the Imperium but nominate one of the Geminae Superiors as your Warlord.

Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ntin wrote:
Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

Sure, give people the option to go digital. That's fine. But the day GW says it's digital only then that's the day I quit buying models. I don't think I'm alone in this. GW is already enough of an elitist hobby, what with it being so bloody expensive, they don't need to add a $400 tablet to the list of required materials. I think people who push for this are either grossly misinformed about the realities of life or they are undercover GW Grots sent to spread propaganda.

I swear whenever this topic comes up, I think half of you should just learn to shoot craps

Here's a simplified Fourtykay ruleset: You and your opponent pick a faction from the game. Roll one dice each. If you chose Spesh Marns or Necrobois, add 2 to this roll. If you chose Eldar or or Guard, add 1 to this roll. If you chose Orkz, subtract 1 to this roll. Highest roll wins!

Simple, quick, and you don't even need to paint anything

Eldarsif wrote:]I'd like to add that it would be awesome if GW would release unit cards like they have done for AOS. It would make the page flippin' less of an issue as you only keep the unit cards relevant to your current list.

You can crop out the data cards you actually use from the Codex, compile them in the document editor of your choice, print, and put them in a binder. Then you can organize and use them how you see fit.

dosiere wrote:8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

Moving away from d6 will just confuse the playerbase, so that's never going to happen for the actual game rules. But, in the past I did experiment with mapping 40k to a few 3rd party rule sets, and one did play pretty quick - it used only one die roll per squad, though, which doesn't have the awe of buckets of dice. I might dust off those old rules and make a theoryhammer post on it sometime. They were rather simple, but had some cutomization type stuff like what we had in the 3.5e guard or marine codex.

darkcloak wrote:Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

I have a tablet sitting around I bought some four years back for all of $150 that worked perfectly well for various PDF rulebooks and whatnot. 8" screen I think - not used it in ages.

I actually think 8th generally plays slower/seems clunkier for 3 reasons:
1. You don’t know everything anymore. Meaning that stuff like intuitively knowing what a plasma gun did is gone, cause every profile changed. So you look up more stuff, and you can’t just scan your opponent’s models and know what they do.
2. Tournament missions. The ITC missions have almost nothing in common with the book missions, and with the push to 100% progressive scoring with multiple primary and secondary objectives scored 3 times each turn the game slows down a lot.
3. Alternating deployment and 9” deepstrike. It’s significantly slower to deploy when a) you have to alternate rather than just laying all your models down at once and b) screens are a very real thing with danger close deepstrike/droppods no longer being allowed. So you have a lot more precise measuring and set up both in deployment and when stuff comes in.

 greyknight12 wrote:
3. Alternating deployment

That's a good point, actually.

Yeah, alternating deployment is a real pain in terms of time.

I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

craftworld_uk wrote:
I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

Traditionally yes, but this was supposed to be "new" GW and a new direction for the game. It's just very quickly becoming unmanageable, and I fear the underlying reason is because GW's designers just are not capable enough to write a solid game.

Wayniac wrote:

craftworld_uk wrote:
I thought this is just how GW make money - release new streamlined edition, add bolt ons until it's almost unmanageable, start again.

Traditionally yes, but this was supposed to be "new" GW and a new direction for the game. It's just very quickly becoming unmanageable, and I fear the underlying reason is because GW's designers just are not capable enough to write a solid game.

It's not really anything to do with the game design and everything to do with codexes. As long as the game sticks to them it will get dragged down as they are one of the clunkiest ways to release rules.

I think the need for special rules comes from the limitations of the stat line, and have heard people refer to this as the Eldar problem: Eldar are not tough, nor should they be, but they are fast and as a result hard to hit. However the rules have no way to represent this, so a special rule that breaks or alters the core game rules is added to help reflect this.

That is all well and good till a force comes along who are meant to be the best at hitting, so another special rule is made to combat the one given to the Eldar.

This cycle continues, up until the game system breaks under the weight and interplay of Special rules.

There really aught to be more reliance upon stat line, and also a small pool of USR's, a few army wide special abilities, and the 3 stratagems that are the core. Half of them seem useless any way.

The problem with a reliance on stat-line is the d6 system.

There's only so much variance you can have with that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem with a reliance on stat-line is the d6 system.

There's only so much variance you can have with that.

Most systems can't tolerate a ton of variance, even with more variable systems. This is largely because you get scenarios where a guy with lower stats vs a guy with higher stats stretches the bounds of the dice curve with a modifier either way breaking it. 1D6 is bad though; about as bad as you can get. The only really viable result is 3/4/5 with 2's and 6's being such a huge swing on the curve to break it pretty hard.

I did admire Warmachines 2d6 system, but that would be too slow to translate over into 40k. Shame as the 6 characteristics stat line was pretty damn good.

I am a strong advocate that 40k should have kept Initiative stat, but used it as a defense layer instead.

Something like the initiative value is what you need to hit, but add your BS modifier value to the hit roll, 6's always hit, 1's always fail.

Would mean changing the BS some what. Orks might have a negative for example.

 Infantryman wrote:
I swear whenever this topic comes up, I think half of you should just learn to shoot craps

Here's a simplified Fourtykay ruleset: You and your opponent pick a faction from the game. Roll one dice each. If you chose Spesh Marns or Necrobois, add 2 to this roll. If you chose Eldar or or Guard, add 1 to this roll. If you chose Orkz, subtract 1 to this roll. Highest roll wins!

Simple, quick, and you don't even need to paint anything

Eldarsif wrote:]I'd like to add that it would be awesome if GW would release unit cards like they have done for AOS. It would make the page flippin' less of an issue as you only keep the unit cards relevant to your current list.

You can crop out the data cards you actually use from the Codex, compile them in the document editor of your choice, print, and put them in a binder. Then you can organize and use them how you see fit.

dosiere wrote:8th has made it easier for a new player to get models on the table, no doubt. The theoretically simple nature of the rules means there are fewer rules front loaded into the core rules that need to be learned before you can even start playing.

That said, it gets bogged down REAL quick just like every game GW makes. Blame the scale, blame the fluff, whatever. It’s simple, it really is, but somehow it just drags like always.

The only real solution I can think of (other than moving away from usingd6 for everything) is to just accept not every unit gets layers of special rules to make it feel different. If we used stats and kept special rules to a minimum, it would flow nicely but most units would act and behave in very similar ways, something GW apparently detests and I think most of its players would as well.

We designed a modified version of bolt action during 7th edition becuase we just couldn’t play it anymore. It works just dandy, great even. But it does have the effect of having little or no variation between units that we are used to behaving very differently. It’s the trade off I doubt most players of 40k are willing to make.

Moving away from d6 will just confuse the playerbase, so that's never going to happen for the actual game rules. But, in the past I did experiment with mapping 40k to a few 3rd party rule sets, and one did play pretty quick - it used only one die roll per squad, though, which doesn't have the awe of buckets of dice. I might dust off those old rules and make a theoryhammer post on it sometime. They were rather simple, but had some cutomization type stuff like what we had in the 3.5e guard or marine codex.

darkcloak wrote:Actually you know what? I've done extensive testing recently and the only rules that aren't clunky are the starter kit pamphlets.

All the other rulebooks make a solid 'thunk' when they hit the floor from a height of more than three feet. I think a softcover version with less fluff would have far less impact.


On a serious note. Digital books can never be the sole source of the games rules because this presupposes the customer is willing and able to invest in the required technology. Sure you can get an iPhone 12 for free with a contract, but then you're in a phone contract. This is another matter entirely. However even digital copies on a quality phone are still being viewed on a 5" screen, plus you're looking up the rules and... text message. So really, really you need a tablet. Now you have a very expensive mini computer at the game table. The folks in your shop may be trustworthy, but let's say you go to a tourney. Or a new shop. Someone nicks your codex and now you're out a tablet too.

I have a tablet sitting around I bought some four years back for all of $150 that worked perfectly well for various PDF rulebooks and whatnot. 8" screen I think - not used it in ages.

I'll bet that rulebook is pretty clunky too! Don't test it out though...

ntin wrote:Long term 8th edition I am kind of worried in GW’s efforts to minimize rules they inadvertently created long term bloat by having codices with near identical data cards. Is there a significant difference between a Codex: Space Marine, Codex: Blood Angel, or Codex: Dark Angel, tactical squad? Is the Daemon Prince from Codex: Chaos Marines, that much different from the Daemon Prince from Codex: Death Guard, Codex: Chaos Daemons, or Codex: Thousand Sons? Or the eventual Codex: World Eaters, Codex: Emperor’s Children, Codex: Chaos et al? Or repeated mechanics that previously were USR like re-rolling failed charges found with Orks, Khorne Daemons, or Blood Angels. Is this rule so different that it needs to be reprinted in each codex?

I would have rather GW just release smaller supplements to a faction (Imperium, Chaos, Ork, etc) rather than trying to make each codex an army onto itself. Like Chaos Daemons, Grey Knights, or Custodies. This plays into the concept of a physical codex is antiquated in the digital age. With the much-appreciated pace of FAQ/Errata new codices are soon out of date. Rules should be digital. You could still buy dead tree format for fluff, painting guides, etc.

Smart use of USRs would be nice as we could have clean and easy mechanics without having the melta rule explained for 20 different weapon profiles. MtG has lots of unique game mechanics on cards but it doesn't have to waste text on explaining your universal rules like First Strike or Rampage on every card its printed on. No reason why deepstrike, melta, relentless, rage, reroll charge, fearless, etc can't be USRs in the main rules.
Codex quantity bloat is another big problem but i think GW is in love with filling the calander with "releases" even though a lot of the small subfaction books feel more like checking boxes off than having any real effort put into them. Supplements are almost guaranteed to be rolling out once the dexes are gone through it won't surprise me if the book count need to play the "complete" game goes up.

greyknight12 wrote:I actually think 8th generally plays slower/seems clunkier for 3 reasons:
1. You don’t know everything anymore. Meaning that stuff like intuitively knowing what a plasma gun did is gone, cause every profile changed. So you look up more stuff, and you can’t just scan your opponent’s models and know what they do.
2. Tournament missions. The ITC missions have almost nothing in common with the book missions, and with the push to 100% progressive scoring with multiple primary and secondary objectives scored 3 times each turn the game slows down a lot.
3. Alternating deployment and 9” deepstrike. It’s significantly slower to deploy when a) you have to alternate rather than just laying all your models down at once and b) screens are a very real thing with danger close deepstrike/droppods no longer being allowed. So you have a lot more precise measuring and set up both in deployment and when stuff comes in.

Add to that the amount of auras in the game so making sure everyone is getting those aura buffs adds tedium to movement. In addition melee is easier to get into which is generally a slower paced process as you need to pile in, count the number of attacks into each unit they are locked in combat with, roll your hits, wounds, saves, etc and then remove casualties but each side does that for each round of combat. Blobs are effective these days so blob melee fights really drag on and aren't as simple to calculate as it is to roll for smaller elite units. More multi wound models also bog things down as you have to figure the number of damage done per attack and making sure you don't have multiple damage from a single attack spill over to another model (unless mortal wounds).

With increasing time, the entropy of the rule set (incl. codices, pt costs, special rules) will increase and make the game more and more confusing.
Then it might be hard to keep the overview has a whole.
In particular, when you play more than one army.

Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

The rules are fine, barring a few small things like terrain. The game works really well for casual play. Because of that, it seems that some competitive players who had a field day under the last three editions are trying to break the game and doing too well at doing so. So rather than not do that they blame GW and decry a rather good rules set for the rest of us.

 BlackLobster wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Between this thread and the FAQ thread (AND the Guard thread about a possible points bump) I've learned that GW seems to write rules pretty well when compared to how the rest of the internet seems to want to write them.

The rules are fine, barring a few small things like terrain. The game works really well for casual play. Because of that, it seems that some competitive players who had a field day under the last three editions are trying to break the game and doing too well at doing so. So rather than not do that they blame GW and decry a rather good rules set for the rest of us.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong, I feel they're fine too. I was more commenting that the supposed superiority I was seeing here about how "bad" GW is at rules is pretty unfounded considering the rather....slipshod attempts at rule changes I've seen.

The 40k fanbase is huge and fragmented however, and so fan rules can refer to anything from houserules as minor as "re-draw an impossible Maelstrom Objective" to tournament/mission-packs (ITCHammer versus Novahammer versus ETChammer), willfully ignoring a specific rule (Go To Ground in 5th edition required you to RAW turn models on their sides, which in theory could affect if you could see a unit via TLOS, but most players used a 'marker' instead due to not wanting to mess up their paintjob), to attempts to infer/resolve ambiguously-defined rules ("Does the Doom of Malan'tai count "Can a Manticore with Power of the Machine Spirit fire two Storm Eagle Rockets at once?" "When does a 40k battle actually start?", "Do abilities that resolve 'exactly like X phase' allow you to use Stratagems exclusive to that phase?", etc), to wanting to port the 40k setting to another system (Bolthammer/Beyond the Gates of 40k), to wanting to add an army from another setting (Codex: Covenant, Codex: Terrans, etc), to fan-wishlisting about one favorite faction, to an alternate proposal for a trouble mechanic (numerous variants of "No Soup For 40k!" abound) or flat-out core rewrites.

So Sturgeon's Law will apply given the sheer breadth of how many changes to the rules are out there.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The 40k fanbase is huge and fragmented however, and so fan rules can refer to anything from houserules as minor as "re-draw an impossible Maelstrom Objective" to tournament/mission-packs (ITCHammer versus Novahammer versus ETChammer), willfully ignoring a specific rule (Go To Ground in 5th edition required you to RAW turn models on their sides, which in theory could affect if you could see a unit via TLOS, but most players used a 'marker' instead due to not wanting to mess up their paintjob), to attempts to infer/resolve ambiguously-defined rules ("Does the Doom of Malan'tai count "Can a Manticore with Power of the Machine Spirit fire two Storm Eagle Rockets at once?" "When does a 40k battle actually start?", "Do abilities that resolve 'exactly like X phase' allow you to use Stratagems exclusive to that phase?", etc), to wanting to port the 40k setting to another system (Bolthammer/Beyond the Gates of 40k), to wanting to add an army from another setting (Codex: Covenant, Codex: Terrans, etc), to fan-wishlisting about one favorite faction, to an alternate proposal for a trouble mechanic (numerous variants of "No Soup For 40k!" abound) or flat-out core rewrites.

So Sturgeon's Law will apply given the sheer breadth of how many changes to the rules are out there.

Very true, but considering how bad the rules posted on here can be, I'm going to say GW has this down a lot better than the community as a whole does. Sure, there are parts that crop up that do get good house rules that everyone adopts, but those are far rarer than the amount of drek you can see.

Different fans want different things, and 40k does have a lot of fanboyism. Stuff like redrawing "impossible" Maelstrom objectives were common, while ITC Invisibility (WS/BS 1 instead of "Hit on 6s in melee/snapshots) was a fairly popular one even outside of ITCHammer. Since people generally dislike "Rerollable 2+ Invulnerable" or other systems that make it where a unit requires "roulette luck" to actually kill, there were different ways to handle it. Nova made it so that the "reroll" for an invulnerable save could not be better than a 4++, but I personally preferred that an Invulnerable Save could not be "improved" to better than a 3++ anyway.

And of course, the whole "Plasma explodes more at nighttime" is a base-breaker in its own right.

I've always felt that nothing damages a game as permanently as fans trying to balance the game in place of the developers. Even when they do a better job, it fragments the playerbase and puts the game in a state where the developers aren't designing for the game players are playing.

It's certainly beneficial in the short term, but when developers wise up and try to take back the reigns the loss of trust creates huge issues. Even if prior balance issues are resolved (see: LOWs and FW) entrenched assumptions that the game needs to be changed leads to players breaking the game from the start, then forcing new fixes on it to compensate for their own house rules.

It has its flaws but I'm not looking in my codex at "monstrous creature" grabbing my BrB, looking at the section then looking at the 5 Special rules which results in me flipping back and forth a couple times lol

 LunarSol wrote:
I've always felt that nothing damages a game as permanently as fans trying to balance the game in place of the developers. Even when they do a better job, it fragments the playerbase and puts the game in a state where the developers aren't designing for the game players are playing.

It's certainly beneficial in the short term, but when developers wise up and try to take back the reigns the loss of trust creates huge issues. Even if prior balance issues are resolved (see: LOWs and FW) entrenched assumptions that the game needs to be changed leads to players breaking the game from the start, then forcing new fixes on it to compensate for their own house rules.

To be fair though, part of the initial problem is that GW doesn't design the game for the game players are playing in the first place. GW designs the game so it fundamentally works for the type of games they do in the studio, it seems (this has been the case since at least 2nd edition): Very low-key and laid back, nobody really trying to powergame the other, not using any sort of metagame things like daisy-chaining/conga-lining or bubblewrapping.

The players, at least the most vocal, want something with the rules of Warmachine/MtG/X-wing where listbulding is the pinnacle of skill, and finding combos is what wins you the game, and want something suitable for high-level tournament play reminiscent of an e-sport with large cash rewards so you can show that you are the "best player in the world".

There is a fundamental disconnect there, and while catering to the latter would ensure better rules for the former, GW doesn't seem to care (or ever cared). I often wonder if it really that they don't care, or just don't see it as an issue because the idea is well that's not how you are supposed to play; you can, but then it's on you to balance it. I'm really not sure and I have been involved in this game since 1996. I don't think it's absolute incompetence like some people here say all the time. I'm not sure if it's laziness. I think it's just not caring to design a game that really caters to everybody. I mean after all GW seems to think their matched play rules are perfectly suitable for tournaments without much, if any, adjustment (see GT Heat although I think even those were modified a bit). Just people want more, so you have ITC trying to take the mantle of balancing the game in the style the vocal minority want, so there can be "world championships" and other things that IMHO do not belong in Warhammer because they miss the point of what the game is about and are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.