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.

But PP are the second largest miniature game around, have been around for about 20 years and their SPECIFIC goal is tight rules and tournament level gameplay and they can't manage to do it either.

GW are far more casual and have never had any aim to have an airtight, legal document style rule set so I don't know why you should expect them to.

To sum it up in one sentence so that we are absolutly clear

A company WITH LESS FACTIONS AND MODELS TO BALANCE set out to SPECIFICALLY create and airtight rules system and well balanced game and COULD NOT DO IT OVER THE COURSE OF 20 YEARS, how do you expect GW to do it when it isn't their aim AND they have far more models and factions?

Nobody is expecting 100%. But you know expecting like 10% wouldn't be too unreasonable. Or even not making moves that are deliberately designed to alter purchase patterns rather than any semblance of balance.

Reminder: FOUR CHAN.

That is all.

(That isn't to say I don't think they're possible)

I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

jcd386 wrote:
I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

No way. Letting Eldar take assassins would complicate other things and the net benefit would be just about nil. It would the equivalent return of Taudar.

Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

I wish there was a way to prevent spam without more forced restrictions. That said, those rumours are faulse, as Guard lists would be next to impossible and most of the formations would become obsolete

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

Of course matched play being effectively norm means it would be stupid to buy something if you can't use it outside matched play. Thus unlikely for GW to do. They want to sell for example Ynari models and assasins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I wish there was a way to prevent spam without more forced restrictions. That said, those rumours are faulse, as Guard lists would be next to impossible and most of the formations would become obsolete

Huh? Guard has it fairly easy with these ones.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, presumably it would be only for matched play, which exists for the explicit purpose of limiting possibly cool things for the sake of a more "fair" and/or "comparable" event-style variant of 40K.

I am sure that even if these rumours are true, you'll still be able to soup-out all you want in normal games.

This very same solution was brought up by the leaker when he messaged his buddy the rumours, to which they replied "and to ignore that matched is the "default mode of play" is a damn fool's-".

No-one is going to suddenly start playing Narrative or (heavens forbid) Open play because of this FAQ.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But PP are the second largest miniature game around, have been around for about 20 years and their SPECIFIC goal is tight rules and tournament level gameplay and they can't manage to do it either.

GW are far more casual and have never had any aim to have an airtight, legal document style rule set so I don't know why you should expect them to.

To sum it up in one sentence so that we are absolutly clear

A company WITH LESS FACTIONS AND MODELS TO BALANCE set out to SPECIFICALLY create and airtight rules system and well balanced game and COULD NOT DO IT OVER THE COURSE OF 20 YEARS, how do you expect GW to do it when it isn't their aim AND they have far more models and factions?

Lots of hyperbole here....

Functional rules are the expectation of a game. And GW is working in that direction. So pretending its not somewhere on GW's list of priorities is absurd.

Now if GW is able to get there, who knows.

No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

I was repsonding directly to Malfunctbot who said that no one ever plays non-narrative. I consider entirely possible that GW might make it hard to play certain undersupported factions in matched play in the name of balance. That said I'm still not a fan o universal highlander-esque restrictions. these should be limited to massive force multiplier centerpieces or specific trouble cases.

And if you look at tourneys what is winning? Spam and soup, would make sense if you tried to get rid of/ restrict those 2 principles for matched play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

So your saying that PL and Narrative play issues found at Adepticon are going to be featured in the FAQ? Cause PL and Narrative play are for the beer and Pretzel corp.

Do tell us what was learned at Adepticon in the Narrative and PL play were found that are going to be the FAQ to stay on top Unit1126pll.

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

Armies that didn't meet the designer's vision of what they wanted the beer & pretzels game to be.

Is this even a question? A game doesn't have to be a sport or esport to still have designers changing things. Warhammer: Vermintide 2 is not a competitive game, and yet there was a patch every day for the first two weeks of release to make the game more adequately match the designer's vision when exposed to public shenanigans.

So your saying that PL and Narrative play issues found at Adepticon are going to be featured in the FAQ? Cause PL and Narrative play are for the beer and Pretzel corp.

Do tell us what was learned at Adepticon in the Narrative and PL play were found that are going to be the FAQ to stay on top Unit1126pll.

No? I didn't say anything about PL and narrative play. Matched Play is played at the narrative level - my local club's narrative campaign is using matched play rules. I think people who claim that "matched play only affects tournament players and not the casual crowd" are deluding themselves. So what GW saw at the tournament were armies that didn't match their design vision, and so they are trying to fix the game to match their design vision.

The best possible game is one in which balance is good enough that there is no distinction between a competitive list and a fluffy list, imo. You can either do this by actually balancing the game (apparently not GW's thing) or by stomping on unfluffy competitive lists until they stop cropping up (could be in the new FAQ?).

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

If many people play Narrative or Open and Match play does not drive game balance then what use is delaying the Faq because it won't bring changes to Narrative and Open play. Only Match play which they are not balancing around (or so someone claims)

Don't forget that Games Workshop expects people to make their armies Battle-Forged even in Narrative Play (citation: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/05/new-warhammer-40000-battle-forged-armiesgw-homepage-post-4/ , and also the rulebook).

So any change to the definition of a "Battle Forged Army" also changes Narrative Play by default.

 Ordana wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
No one except Gw itself. They have always advocated the narrrative/ beer and pretzels aspect.

Also do not underestimate how many people do use narrative and/or open. That's just not the audience of Dakka (or internet fora in general).

GW says they are using Tourney to balance the game, tells you that they are delaying the spring faq specifically listing the reason as lessons learned at the Adepticon tourney, and you’re sure that the only priority is the beer and pretzel aspect?

Assuming your right…

What big problems with the game where discovered in the Beer and Pretzel game section of Adepticon that necessitated delaying the FAQ Earth127?

The problem is that you're assuming that balancing for tournaments is the priority rather than a side effect.

If many people play Narrative or Open and Match play does not drive game balance then what use is delaying the Faq because it won't bring changes to Narrative and Open play. Only Match play which they are not balancing around (or so someone claims)

You're taking the "narritive" part of the inital post in this chain too literally. He didn't mean Narritive play.

My group played Matched play narritivly. None of us spam flyrants or dark reapers, we play balanced lists and play competitivly with non-netlisty armies in order to tell a story. This is probably how a mjority of people play.

This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

You understand that Adepticon is a public setting and an easy way to get data that isn't just nerds emailing them their personal grievences right?

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that using tournament data to make the game better overall doesn't mean the FAQ is specifically aimed at tournament players? I can acknowledge that while I'll probably never play against fltrant or dark reaper spam, I'm glad that people who DO won't have to anymore.

FAQs can be for both right?

They may have found loopholes or problems that needed more fixing at apedticon, they may have changed their mind about something.

I think "new-gw" cares 50/50/something. Partially narrative, partially beer and pretzels matched, partially tournament. My first post today was in response that no one cared about an mode other than pure matched play. Something I know to simply not be true.

Better balance is good for the game and thus for the hobby but not everyhting good for the hobby is good for balance.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

The people who keep insisting that the FAQ is about Beer and Pretzel play.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

Who said the FAQ isn't for tournaments? I'm confused by your statement now.
I think someone said "the game hasn't been for tournaments until very recently, meaning the "30 years" or whatever of game development is irrelevant, because most of that time was spent trying to make a beer & pretzels game and not worrying about balance." This is in the context of people accusing GW of having had years to balance the game and still singularly failing. The point is that they weren't, really.

The people who keep insisting that the FAQ is about Beer and Pretzel play.

I don't know anyone who has actually argued that the FAQ is only about beer and pretzel play except for the ridiculous straw man you've constructed and have been beating with a baseball bat for the last few posts.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This is a simple chain.
1. This is a FAQ thread.
2. The FAQ was delayed by issues found at Adepticon.
3. People keep saying it’s not for tournaments.

So simple request. Tell us what was found at adepticon that wasn’t in tournaments that is delaying the faq.

If you can’t do that, make your own thread and go use it?

You understand that Adepticon is a public setting and an easy way to get data that isn't just nerds emailing them their personal grievences right?

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that using tournament data to make the game better overall doesn't mean the FAQ is specifically aimed at tournament players? I can acknowledge that while I'll probably never play against fltrant or dark reaper spam, I'm glad that people who DO won't have to anymore.

Great. Tell us what that is. Speculate, or find that reason that your chosen method of play is relevant enough to warrent attention in the FAQ.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think I'd be okay with this if it was done intelligently.

For the no soup rule, you'd presumably be limited to one codex book faction. Then they could make special rules for things like yanari, assassins, Inquisitors, and so on. Ideally you would need an all yanari army, and assassins would take up an elite slot but not break you out of chapter tactics.

I think this is ideal for most armies, and also is how things were in 5th edition.

No way. Letting Eldar take assassins would complicate other things and the net benefit would be just about nil. It would the equivalent return of Taudar.

Sorry, I didn't mean that eldar would get assassins. I would imagine I've they would still looking be for imperium. I probably could have sperated my examples better.

Funnily enough from a purely balancing perspective Eldar getting assasins is no worse than IG or Admech.

Imperium encompasses half the units in the game. Somewhere in that impossible warren there is always going to be an OP combo.

Wich is why soup benefits need limiting you can make an internally/ externally balanced codex. But trying to do that for a faction encompassing half the game? It becomes a lot more difficult.

I will pray to a god I don't believe in that the 0-3 restriction isn't true. Not because it actually affects me, but because its sucks and it does not fix anything.