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.

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

You just made the op's point in one sentence.

There is no such thing as too much community interaction outside of letting neckbeards graze freely around the GW offices making pointed comments to developers.

My favorite is "8th is the worst!".....what edition are you playing?

99% of peoples problems can be traced back to that persons choice in how they play. If you attend events that legitimize everything you hate about the community, that's your fault. If you play armies that have not been released in a codex yet and expect GW to hand you free stuff, that's your fault. If you expect rules to be absolutely airtight, that is your problem.

The fact of the matter is, there are great games with terrible rulebooks. (Twilight Emperium before this last rules update and Dropfleet Commander) There are terrible games with great rulebooks. (Dreadfleet and Monopoly) Both survive only if the community is strong and willing to adapt to changes or issues with the game.

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

What does that make 4Chan?

I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

Lets be real, Dakkadakka is not that bad. It's certainly a dramatically better behaved and more constructive forum than say, 4chan or especially much of the Warhammer presence on Reddit, or boards and online communities like those for Blizzard games or League of Legends or Call of Duty or the like.

Dakkadakka is relatively tame board by comparison to most others big gaming forums.

Hoodwink wrote:

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.

Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.

Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.

Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

What does that make 4Chan?

The Sarlak Pit?

hobojebus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

Well since whineseer got nuked.

Warseer is back, but the community is pretty much dead.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.

Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.

Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.

Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.

Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be

4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.

For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.

Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.

Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".

As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.

 necrontyrOG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

Well since whineseer got nuked.

Warseer is back, but the community is pretty much dead.

What happened?

M.

ChargerIIC wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

What does that make 4Chan?

An STD.

Vankraken wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".

As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.

I'm confused by these kind of posts. If all you get out of GW games is disappointment, why continue?

 Infantryman wrote:

 necrontyrOG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

Well since whineseer got nuked.

Warseer is back, but the community is pretty much dead.

What happened?

M.

They banned one too many posters lol.

In all seriousness - they got hacked and taken down. And then they stayed down for so long that their community moved off to other forums or facebook and haven't returned. Or are banned, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Isengard wrote:
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.

My personal issue with GW is how poor quality their rules are. I can live with imbalances, I knew I wouldn't be choosing the top army when I picked up orks in 5th edition - in fact, that ork codex was the very reason I started playing WH40k, so I'm happy to hear Phil Kelly is still around.

However, the last ork codex was very, very poor. First of all, anything even remotely good got nerfed to the ground for no reason whatsoever, with no replacement for the things we lost. Kanz were made paper-thin overnight and got an additional rule to make them even more terrible, KFF was nerfed (while the very same KFF that was too strong for orks was given to DA), the deff rolla was completely neutered, nob bikers almost trippled in costs and lootaz got moved from elites to heavy support for no reason besides making it impossible to field them alongside battlewagons or walkers.
So they actually knew what was making orks tick in 5th and 6th - and they actively decided to kill all that, despite orks not being a overly strong army at all.

On top of that, it was blatantly obvious that many rules from the codex were never used on the table top before the rule got printed. Not even once!
The new Orkanauts got a transport capacity of 6 with no way to charge out of them (One of the codex writers did charge out of them illegally in the WD battle report), leaving ZERO units which could efficiently use that transport option.
The deff rolla would only ever trigger when a model would declare DoG against an AV 14 vehicle, which no one would do even without the rolla. The wrecking ball was using BS and had d3 shots which meant it would never do anything. Stikkbomb chucka gave stikkbombs all units disembarking from the vehicle - but all units in the codex but gretchin and weird boyz already had stikkbombs.
Not to mention how time consuming the new mob rule was. If they had just play one or two games with every unit in that codex, such things would have become evident.

When you think it couldn't get any worse, the the supplement was released.
The supplement forced your Warlord to kill himself against any character, since he needed to accept any challenge and warbosses would always strike last. Slay the warlord was as easy as charging two tactical squads into his units and have sergeants with powerswords.
The second 'benefit' of that supplement was that all units with less than 10 models basically lost mob rule, those with more than 10 models took more casualties from it and all formations basically forced you to buy more models because they all required you to field more models than you could possibly fit in an army before.
The flash git formation made all those assault 3 guns master crafted - forcing you to roll every single flash git one by one, in order to track how many dice you can re-roll. They also were a unit of 21, unable to fit in a battlewagon.
The dread mob formations was 1500 points minimum and forced you to field a big mek without a unit to hide in and a pain boy that literally did nothing for anything in that army.
The storm boyz formation, that was 46 models minimum that you were forced to deep strike and still scattered d6.
The council of da Waaagh! allowed Ghazghkull Thrakka to generate two additional warlord traits from the supplement table - but four out of six had no effect on him. Not to mention that the formation forced you to sink at least 1200 points in a single unit.
The goff killmob gave every infantry unit the ability to re-roll charge ranges - despite all of them having 'ere we go
Almost every single formation in the supplement forced you to spent a huge amount of money on models no ork player would have in the required quantity:
- Bully boyz is 245€
- Blitz brigade is 260€
- Badrukks Flash gits are 188€
- Green Tide is 247€
- Dread mob is 495€
- Council of da Waaagh! is 143€
- Da Vulcha Skwad is 222€
and so on. Do they think we're idiots? And no, kitbashing is not an excuse. Space marine players didn't need to kitbash their formations either.

Later, after everyone got their Dekurion, GW decided to update the supplement to provide the orks of their own "Orkurion" and even updated the supplement ebooks for free. Great, right?
Except the Orkurion didn't offer any buffs at all, every unit got the two "benefits" described above (if you just wanted to cripple your army, you could have fielded a CAD from the supplement), and the other two rules can be gained by simply fielding one of the formations that can be used as core detachments. So the Orkurion simply did nothing except waste space on my hard drive.

Basically the whole thing was an insult to all ork players. Not because it didn't have any awesome formations like tau or space marines had. Not because the orkurion didn't hold up to what necrons or eldar got. Not even because it was a blatant cash grab.

It was an insult because obviously no one at GW could be bothered to think if rules actually make sense. No one actually bothered to test those rules even once. No one cared about whether a player buying those rules would be having fun with them.

None of these problems have anything to do with talent, enthusiasm or mathematical knowledge. There simply was no effort put into it - anyone can do effort. I sincerely hope for whoever was responsible for WAAAGH! Ghazghkull turning out the way it did that he or she has lost his or her job, because I never want to see anything like it ever again.

I know for sure that I haven't spent a single cent on ork miniatures since that book has been published and will not do so until I see a codex that even remotely resembles the love for the ork faction that has been seen in the codex that made me pick up this game in the first place.
The index was a good start, CA was... nothing to put it nicely - so we're still at a good start.

the_scotsman wrote:


Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be

4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.

For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.

Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.

Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.

It's both with the new trait.

It's a script that rolls dice for each round of attacks and does that 100,000 times, which simulates a much closer view to reality - especially for random shots and damage weapons.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Vankraken wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

More like GW closed almost every means of giving feedback so they could enjoy their ivory tower without having to hear the rumblings from the unwashed masses who didn't seem to understand that buying miniatures is a core part of the fun of Warhammer and who wanted such outlandish ideas of "balance" and "good game design".

As to the OP. The issue is that GW produces some absolutely terrible rules writing, game design, and show lack of understanding of how math works. Year after year they release rules that are wildly inconsistent, have absolutely terrible internal balance, horrible external balance (this is the hard one to get right so i won't fault them as much for missing the mark on this), and for the most part they seem to have heavy handed favoritism for certain factions in that the factions they care about get a lot of interesting rules, mechanics, etc while the other factions get the old copy + paste job and it smells of minimum effort writing that was done to just check off a box or to put something out there. The writings might mean well but somewhere in the inner workings of GW we end up with some real gems like 6th edition Nids, 7th edition Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc. We also get to see how tone deaf they can be with 6th edition Eldar being followed up with Craftworlds (the most OP codex release) which was followed up by Ynnari a year later which took all the OP stuff in Craftworlds and added an insanely power USR that gave free actions. I don't contribute it to malice but i find the lack of quality control and leadership when it comes to the rules department to be very disappointing and a continuing weak link in GW's organization. My guess is that whoever oversees the writers and gives the OK for the rules to be published is the problem and i suspect its not somebody who understands game design and probably a corporate yes man who does whatever the mucky mucks up top put out in a memo.

I'm confused by these kind of posts. If all you get out of GW games is disappointment, why continue?

6th and 7th (the editions i played) where fun despite GW being incredibly incompetent at game balance. I enjoyed the models, the social experience of playing the game, the game itself (usually have to be considerate to each other about finding a good balance between armies to have a good game) and I really enjoy the universe. Disappointment requires a certain level of caring and I do care about 40k because its...was a fun part of my life and something i enjoyed.

Sadly now its harder to care due to 8th edition being a colossal failure to me because it lost the fun aspects of the game and its now boiled down to a bland mess.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

What does that make 4Chan?

Nar Shaddaa

I'm very critical of gw, but i would sincerely hope that the people spending their time and money to go to gw hq for an event would be the ones that actually enjoyed the game (for whatever reason). Things would be very strange if the 'fans' avoided official events and only the 'haters' turned up to them.

As for dakka, well if this is the 'negative' forum, all i can say is you should avoid the internet because your head might explode if you found some of the truly 'toxic' forums. If enough people are saying negative things about gw, maybe it's because there's a problem (where there's smoke, there's fire) and not just because people are 'haters'.

I'm not invested in the game, but i *would* come back in a heart-beat if i thought they were genuine about fixing the quality of the rules. I'll play a crappy game that's cheap or a good game that's expensive - i won't play a crappy game that's expensive.

I first got introduced to the game in 1st edition. All the arguments/reasons i see the 'fans' post about the game or how it will improve i've seen for nearly 30 years. Goodwill will only carry me so far, and in my experience the 'fans' of today are the 'haters' of tomorrow.

Mr hanky summed it up best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsVRIqOhGA

 sfshilo wrote:
If you play armies that have not been released in a codex yet and expect GW to hand you free stuff, that's your fault.

Yeah, how dare people expect that, when a new edition arrives, they can continue playing the same faction successfully instead of spending $1000 on a space marine army.

If you expect rules to be absolutely airtight, that is your problem.

If you go to a restaurant and expect to get food that isn't moldy and full of shards of broken glass, that is your problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the OP, you're kind of missing the point. Nobody is saying that GW's employees are nasty, vicious people who make the game suck because they hate us and love to watch us suffer. The actual criticism is that GW's employees are incompetent. And there are a great many people in this world who are nice and polite and utterly incompetent in their chosen profession. Posting a story about how you met some GW employees and had a friendly conversation doesn't answer any of the criticism that we're making.

The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.

 Hollow wrote:
they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design.

I'm sorry but i must strongly disagree with you on this bit. GW has a track record for YEARS of some horrible codex balance issues and some glaring issues in their core rules. In 7th edition we had armies such as Nids, Dark Eldar, Orks, Blood Angels, and Grey Knights in the same game system as Tau, Craftworld (and Ynnari), Necrons, Space Marines, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves. The former group of codexes do not even come remotely close to the power of the latter group. Also GW doesn't play the same game as the rest of hardcore members of the community, we see it in their battle reports, the way they talk about units and tactics in WD, and in the answers to questions people submit for FAQs. Quality is also all over the place with a fairly recent example of this being the Ad Mech codex that has the same incorrect vehicle damage chart for a vehicle that was also incorrect in the index. Two different publications had the exact same error so that means this slipped past their editor twice or they knew it was a copy paste job so they didn't bother looking it over to make sure their copy + paste was error free.

Now saying that ordering food and getting a meal with glass in it is a bit dramatic but its more like paying top dollar for premium food but instead sometimes getting a microwaved frozen dinner instead. GW is a company that is suppose to be making a premium product and while their models are top notch, their rules writing has been something that has been bad for a long time and shows little to no signs of improving.

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

Did you read my post? Competence is irrelevant when they just don't give a feth about delivering quality product.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.

I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

And I suppose it's just the "moaning minority" complaining about nothing when they say that McDonalds doesn't make good food, because obviously millions of people are eating those burgers. The fact that some people have low standards doesn't make a product good.

I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.

Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage. That isn't really what Warhammer is about. As stated by the company who makes it.

The game is roughly balanced. Every FACTION has a chance to compete with every other faction. Yes, there are very specific builds that edge a statistical advantage over other builds, when put into spreadsheets and argued to death on internet forums. However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.

 Hollow wrote:


Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage.

There's "this choice is 0.12% less optimal" and "this option is clearly simply inferior and literally nobody ever takes it", or, alternatively "wow this thing is stupidly good and everyone figures it out the first nanosecond they see it and every single army I see has them". Few are really talking about the former there and expecting GW to have perfect harmonious balance that works out to be mathematical perfection, it's the latter two instances that are constant and have plagued this game through every edition, often literally the same units/armies/wargear/etc through multiple editions.

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

Uh no. I've followed this game in some capacity or another since 1996. GW has never played the "same game" as the rest of the community. They have their own views and styles of the game, but don't actually enforce them (they purposely leave the game wide open to a variety of styles, which has the consequence of leaving it open to abuse and satisfying nobody because it tries to be everything). It's not just a "small minority" playing the game wrong, it's GW. Just look at any battle report, any tactics article that they put out. The way they build armies, the way they play armies, the way they address rules, none of it seems to gel with virtually anyone else playing. It's not to say their approach is wrong, but it is very fast and loose and not really focused on power, when those things are important to the community (yes, even to non-competitive players). It's a fundamental disconnect when the designers have zero issue picking a random assortment of models and throwing them together with only a barest concern for how effectively they work on the table; they might still have fun doing it (they clearly must), but if that's how they intend the game to be played then it's also on them to make that the only way armies can be built.

It basically suffers from the fact they are unwilling to add heavy restrictions to army building to force building armies the way they build them (whether right or wrong), but also completely pretending that the other way of building armies doesn't really exist. I have yet to see any 40k battle report or tactics article from GW that really showed them playing the game well, building strong lists, etc. I've seen a small handful for AOS in part because Ben Johnson is a serious tournament player (who knows when to tone it down for friendly games, as it should be) so seems to have a hand on the pulse, as it were. But for 40k the current crop of designers don't seem to be interested in serious play at all, and it kinda shows in how they do things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hollow wrote:


Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage.

There's "this choice is 0.12% less optimal" and "this option is clearly simply inferior and literally nobody ever takes it", or, alternatively "wow this thing is stupidly good and everyone figures it out the first nanosecond they see it and every single army I see has them". Few are really talking about the former there and expecting GW to have perfect harmonious balance that works out to be mathematical perfection, it's the latter two instances that are constant and have plagued this game through every edition, often literally the same units/armies/wargear/etc through multiple editions.

Right. Everyone understands that "perfect balance" is a myth. But there should not be a huge gulf between factions or even with units in a faction where X is better than Y such that there's basically zero reason (barring fluff/looks, things that don't affect gameplay) to take Y. That is bad design, plain and simple. It should not exist. There should always be a valid gameplay reason to take something, even if it's not the "optimal" choice, and even then there should be ways to improve it. For example, when I played Warmahordes there were (still are) a lot of units that just aren't as good as something else, but it was never a case of "Useless"; there were ways (synergies with other models, for instance) to make them work decently enough that you would not feel ashamed to play them and not be actively hurting yourself by choosing to use them. That's where 40k needs to go; if X is just better than Y in all regards, that's poor design. if X is better than Y but if you take Z and W, Y can be used effectively in a different way, then it becomes better design because there's a valid in-game reason to take Y over X.

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design.

And would you like a side of troll with your Poe's Law?

 Hollow wrote:
I like McDonalds. I eat there a couple times a month and enjoy it when I do.

Don't underestimate how much better McD is in the UK and Europe compared to the US

Also, nothing in this world is perfect. However, GW obviously does "give a feth" about putting out a good product and I like their rules. Again, they aren't perfect, but I like reading the codexes, putting together army lists and playing the game. There are issues (which GW are trying very hard to try and correct with their outreach, FAQ and incredible codex output) I am not MAth-hammering the hell out of every single option in order to get a 0.3 percent statistical advantage. That isn't really what Warhammer is about. As stated by the company who makes it.

I have provided multiple examples of rules that aren't just bad or statistically worse than other rule, but rather rules that simply don't work. A formation providing re-rolls to orks that have an army-wide rule that does the very same thing? Adding a rule to a unit that makes it take half an hour to shoot? Forcing 46 models to deep strike with scatter? Putting a transport capacity on a model that not a single unit in the codex can use? Giving +1 strength, rage, bs3, and FNP to a model with S12 (capped at 10), rage, FNP and no shooting?
That's not 0.3%. That's not even human error. That's simply not caring whether your rules actually do gak. If you give a damn about your work being good, you don't deliver stuff like that. No one involved in those rules even bothered to put those rules to use even once.
GW was fully willing to print a book full of garbage quality rules - and it's on them to prove that they won't try to pull something like that again.

The game is roughly balanced. Every FACTION has a chance to compete with every other faction. Yes, there are very specific builds that edge a statistical advantage over other builds, when put into spreadsheets and argued to death on internet forums. However, for the people who don't have much interest in tournamanet and WAAC playstyles (which is the vast, vast, VAST majority of GW customers. The rules are fun, thematic and provide cool games.

The current ork list that has a chance to compete with every other faction is neither fun, nor does it provide cool games. Thematic is good enough for you, I guess?

Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

If I may interject - I was working on my program and I figured this would be a good test.

Over 100,000 tests the Agonizer scored an average of 1.2 wounds vs MEQ and the Glaive was 1.04. This is with the trait and no +1 to hit.
There is a 1.9% chance an Agonizer kills 4 or more MEQ. There is a 0.46% chance the Glaive kills four. The glaive fails to cause wounds slightly more often (26% vs 30%) -- this is not the same as missing.

Now when you have the +1 to hit the Glaive becomes every so slightly better.

Average wounds is 1.55 for the Agoniser and 1.60 for the Glaive.
It now is more likely to cause a wound by 2% and more likely to cause 2 wounds by 3%. All other metrics are very close together.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think criticism is healthy for the game no matter what. It was a lack of criticism and supporting fans that lead to the old CEO going greed crazy.

Are you serious? There has been criticism of this hobby long before the past CEO. You don't have to look far for the "GW is about to go under" posts.

the_scotsman wrote:


Are you comparing both the Glaive and the Agonizer with the new trait, or the Agonizer with the new trait and the Glaive with the +1A on the charge trait? if so I'm not sure how you get these numbers. Without any trait, the odds for the Glaive should be

4 Attacks * .666 (Plus 4*.1666*.666 since she gives herself reroll 1s to hit with her own aura) = 3.44 average hits * .666 = 2.29 wounds * .833 = 1.91 failed saves. The Agonizer is S5 Ap-3, so marines are wounded on 3+ and get a 6+ armor save.

For the Agonizer with no trait, you should get 3.44 average hits *.5 = 1.72 wounds *.666 = 1.146 failed saves.

Again this is ignoring choice of drugs, traits, etc. When you look at the average for what the trait should add to the Agonizer, the hit math is a little wild, but you wind up with 5.441 average hits for 1.8 failed saves. Compared to the Glaive with +1A on the charge getting you 3.88 hits for 2.16 unsaved wounds on average vs meq.

Now, I may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the trait is worded like the Perils of the Warp roll - a roll of 6, regardless of modifiers. That would make it usable in all circumstances and not power-gameable with later released rules and combos. But if it's written like most rules of the type are - I.E. a hit roll of 6+ triggers the trait, then it's going to be an instance of paying extra points for the privilege of giving up damage.

It's both with the new trait.

It's a script that rolls dice for each round of attacks and does that 100,000 times, which simulates a much closer view to reality - especially for random shots and damage weapons.

Just throwing this into excel really quick using the Randbetween(1,6) function, I get an average chance to wound that is much, much closer to the expected mathematical average for both weapons. Even looking to simulate the new trait on the agonizer by having the final column check for a "6" in the initial hit roll column and return "3" instead of "1" for the unsaved wound, you get extremely close to the expected average. Which makes sense, as this function has no random damage or random shots component where we're fudging by taking the "average" roll on a d6...this is pure multiplicative dice probability. I have to question what you're feeding into your script here to get half the expected mathematical average over 100,000 trials.

Also, simulating the Agonizer vs the Glaive with the new trait is going to be a false comparison, because as discussed the new trait does nothing for the Glaive. You should simulate the Glaive with the trait that actually works with it, the base rulebook +1A on the charge trait to get a real comparison.

 Hollow wrote:
The same old mouthy minority crying and complaining... they really don't seem to understand that when they say things like "GW just isn't playing the same game as the rest of us" or "GW are so terribly incompetent" or "GW can't design a game to save their lives" that it isn't that GW aren't on the same page as the community, it's that the 'moaning minority' aren't on the same page as everyone else. The few dozen internet complainers are so out of touch with the company they think they know inside-out and the community they think the represent that they fail to grasp the fact the GW are incredibly competent when it comes to game/rule design. Likening rules for a TT wargame, which aren't to your preference, to ordering a meal at a restaurant which is served covered in glass just goes to show how utterly out of touch these crazies are.

GW competent?-) When anybody with elementary school level math can point out glaring balance issues.

Sorry. Your white knight special ability failed utterly.

Not to defend GW, but I do get the idea that everyone's vaunted "math lets me balance the game" is a bit wrong.

I don't think math is the solution, because the game isn't played in a vacuum. To give an example, let me consider two mathematical units.

Unit 1 is twice as durable, twice as shooty, half as many models, for the same points as unit 2.

Mathematically, they really ought to be the same points; you get half as much stuff that's twice as good.

However, there's actually a benefit to Unit 1 on large boards, and a huge benefit to unit 2 on small boards.

Unit 1 takes up less space on the board, and so more easily can concentrate fire and achieve optimum force concentration. You need a dramatically larger board to take advantage of this over someone who has worse force concentration, but my point stands. Each model is also twice as durable, meaning that when force preservation is important (e.g. scoring an objective), you'll have to be hurt twice as much before losing any effectiveness.

Unit 2, on the other hand, is cheaper per model, allowing (and indeed compelling) it to take up more space on the board. This means that it is a more efficient screen than unit 1, while having severe, possibly crippling issues with force concentration and preservation. This means that Unit 2 should really be considerably cheaper than unit 1: mathematically it may have half-as-good shooting, but since these are models on the board and they take up physical space, Unit 2 may only likely get 1/3rd of itself in range of the opponent, or may be unable to bring its special weapons to bear, or the like. Conceivably, because of these force concentration issues, it may be possible for unit 1 to charge unit 2 from just 1.01" away, while being outside of flamer range (if unit 2 is unwieldy enough).

So, while mathematically they may appear to be balanced, the table top reality (that does not use math) is that they are not, unless unit 2 is dramatically cheaper than unit 1.

This can work with tanks, too:
Consider the Baneblade vs. the Leman Russ. If you hold all things but model size and durability to be equal (i.e. if you somehow gave them the same weapon loadout), then the Baneblade should still rightly cost more (being more than twice as durable).

But there are other things to consider: Baneblades are Lords of War, and therefore require dedicated detachments to take, more severely restricting army options in Matched Play (given the 3 detachment limit) than Leman Russes do. Baneblades also lack Objective Secured, while a Russ has access to it but only in a very specific manner. Lastly, the Baneblade is very difficult to maneuver on close boards; with ruin walls being impassible to vehicles, this means that on some boards the Baneblade's movement is heavily restricted and provides obvious avenues of fire that the enemy can exploit to destroy it, while a Leman Russ can make better use of smaller spaces.


So anyways, I guess all I am trying to say is that "just use maths" is not how you balance 40k, though DakkaDakka seems to have some strange obsession with mathhammering.

EDIT:
To use a real-world, albeit anecdotal, example:

Recently, one of the Baneblades of my 1st Company (Iron Duke in this case) was charged by 40 tactical marines. "Clever" (obvious) use of the Defensive Gunners stratagem largely crippled the Tactical Marines on the way in, killing a fair few. When I mentioned this on DakkaDakka, everyone acted with shock and horror. "Why charge a Baneblade with 40 tacts? That won't do anything!" they cried.

Well, actually, since Baneblades (unlike walkers) can't step over infantry, it effectively pinned me in my deployment zone with my butt against the table so the Baneblade could not fall back. This meant the tactical marines were protected from the worst of my firepower, while also keeping one of my assets from moving, if not shooting.

I thought it was a neat and clever trick; and while it didn't win him the game, it was certainly something I did not see coming as well, since I too have an unhealthy addiction to Mathhammer.