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.

 Desubot wrote:
Whether they care for balance is one thing. its clear its not top priority.

Here's the thing about the current release schedule, rules, and what little we know of future plans. At their current pace, all codices will be out before the end of the year (at least those covered by indices).

I think it's safe to assume they're not rolling out 9th edition next year.

I think it's also safe to assume that they will have to add to existing armies or find new factions to build out. I suspect it may end up being a bit of both. This gives them the wiggle room for incremental balance passes through rules clarifications and the addition of new units over time.

I suspect a lot of what we're seeing is the rush to get everyone out of the indices as much as possible, at which point they can actually start collecting really viable data about balance and the needs of various armies in relation to that.

Of course, this is all conjecture ultimately.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Whether they care for balance is one thing. its clear its not top priority.

Here's the thing about the current release schedule, rules, and what little we know of future plans. At their current pace, all codices will be out before the end of the year (at least those covered by indices).

I think it's safe to assume they're not rolling out 9th edition next year.

I think it's also safe to assume that they will have to add to existing armies or find new factions to build out. I suspect it may end up being a bit of both. This gives them the wiggle room for incremental balance passes through rules clarifications and the addition of new units over time.

I suspect a lot of what we're seeing is the rush to get everyone out of the indices as much as possible, at which point they can actually start collecting really viable data about balance and the needs of various armies in relation to that.

Of course, this is all conjecture ultimately.

It makes sense.

they can throw out a bunch of dexs make some cash off of that then as Tourny players burn through it doing far more play testing for them then they would be capable of, then half a year later they can throw out a patch and repeat the cycle.

they dont lose anything from it so it makes all the sense.

assuming they follow through.

My only criticism is that it should be all free online pdfs or be a subscription. If that was the case then they might have to actually try to write everything good... no way to sell the next codex if you're happy with your current one.

Martel732 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Why does a designer need to be a WAAC player to write good rules?

Because they have to understand the cheese in the first place to write it out.

You don't need to be WAAC to see something is OP. I can tell you scatterbikes were massively OP and I don't care about win or lose much at all.

I asked on fb a few months ago and they told me every dev worked on every codex equally. There was no head for each codex. This was when I asked who was doing the Ork codex.

 lolman1c wrote:
The designers arnt WAAC players... I don't see anything wrong with this?

Oh, you don't need to be total cut-throat player to understand the game mechanics. That's what people are asking for. You need to understand your game mechanics even if you're writing a RPG system,
Take the examples from the old ork codex above - none of them are actually related to competitive gaming, math-wise the Flash Git formation wasn't haven that bad.
The bad part about it was that you were forced to roll the shooting for 21 models one by one to make sure you would be using your master-crafted re-rolls and ammo runts on the correct weapons. If anyone at the studio would have bothered as much as putting those models down in a game and play them once, they would have realized that the putting master-crafted on a unit with 20 Assault 3 guns was an idiotic idea.
Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

40k is and always will be a none competitive game no matter how much people push it as competitive. What gw rule designers do get wrong is making every unit in a force playable. Even in narrative games I would like to play different forces and units and still give the opponent a challenge (even if as DM i want them to win).

Most competitive games are also looking for challenge. You'll get your wish fulfilled at the same time they get theirs.

The competitive players sit there and tell you that the game should be for everybody but then start yelling a hypocritical rant about how their version of the game is good for everybody. They're the definition of the Imperium going up to a random friendly planet and saying "Nah, you way of life sucks... Exterminartos!". They are exsactly how that comment says. They think they are better and know what is good for everybody but really have no clue. Seriously, if gw made all your armies unplayable then sell them and go to another game... it's that simple. There is difference between complaints and what I have seen over the last few days... just a bunch of spoilt brats who never grew up from the looks of it.

And yet, here you are on your very own hypocritical rant about players not playing the way you prefer
When you are insulting a large group of people, chances are very high that you are in fact wrong, and no better than the few which you actually have a problem with.
I assure you, the percentage of idiots is just as high among narrative players as it is among competitive players.

 Jidmah wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
The designers arnt WAAC players... I don't see anything wrong with this?

Oh, you don't need to be total cut-throat player to understand the game mechanics. That's what people are asking for. You need to understand your game mechanics even if you're writing a RPG system,
Take the examples from the old ork codex above - none of them are actually related to competitive gaming, math-wise the Flash Git formation wasn't haven that bad.
The bad part about it was that you were forced to roll the shooting for 21 models one by one to make sure you would be using your master-crafted re-rolls and ammo runts on the correct weapons. If anyone at the studio would have bothered as much as putting those models down in a game and play them once, they would have realized that the putting master-crafted on a unit with 20 Assault 3 guns was an idiotic idea.
Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

40k is and always will be a none competitive game no matter how much people push it as competitive. What gw rule designers do get wrong is making every unit in a force playable. Even in narrative games I would like to play different forces and units and still give the opponent a challenge (even if as DM i want them to win).

Most competitive games are also looking for challenge. You'll get your wish fulfilled at the same time they get theirs.

The competitive players sit there and tell you that the game should be for everybody but then start yelling a hypocritical rant about how their version of the game is good for everybody. They're the definition of the Imperium going up to a random friendly planet and saying "Nah, you way of life sucks... Exterminartos!". They are exsactly how that comment says. They think they are better and know what is good for everybody but really have no clue. Seriously, if gw made all your armies unplayable then sell them and go to another game... it's that simple. There is difference between complaints and what I have seen over the last few days... just a bunch of spoilt brats who never grew up from the looks of it.

And yet, here you are on your very own hypocritical rant about players not playing the way you prefer
When you are insulting a large group of people, chances are very high that you are in fact wrong, and no better than the few which you actually have a problem with.
I assure you, the percentage of idiots is just as high among narrative players as it is among competitive players.

What? When did I say I want people to stop playing at tournaments? I even say I want every unit to be useful (and im sure many competitive players would love this). I geuss if anything you could interpret me saying I want people to stop asking for 1 turn winning armies (WAAC players). I even say I'm okay with people complaining but WAAC players can seriously GTFO. Just because I said 40k isn't competitive, and I get angry at competitive players telling me how to play, doesn't mean I want people to stop having tournaments and fun... If you're bending my arm then sure... If I could I would kick out all WAAC players from the hobby. I wouldn't kick out competitive players... they can do what they want as long as they don't push for a more competitive game over a fun narrative game (needs to be balance there) WAAC players though destroy 40k like they have to many games before 40k. I don't even care if that's hypocritical... seriously screw WAAC players! I'm happy to exclude a small minority of players so everyone else can have a good time "for the greater good".

Seriously though... if we're going down this "everyone deserves equality" route then we might as well start changing entire rules because timmy down the road is the only person in the world who dislikes something about something. In my eyes this has been happening for years... gw is moving away from the majority to please the minority. They make easily exploitable boring bland units for competitive players to grab and it's obvious. Same thing happened to games I used to play... were fun cool casual games but then he devs listened to competitive players and started to actually take out features to make the game simpler for them. Eventually the game lost the majority of the audience and the playervase rapidly dwindled. Not saying this will happen to 40k but i'm getting flashbacks. This is probably what happened with stratagems. They've gone for simple rather than fluffy.

Then you start going on about me being wrong or something because I'm listening to large groups of people? No idea what that is on about... anyway you'll just twist my words and say you're not twisting them, in a response, blah blah.... *typical dakka dakka nerd argument about plastic figures goes here*. I mean you're argument in the first place is paradoxical. By saying i am wrong you're a hypocrite, meaning I'm a hypocrite if I say you're wrong, meaning you're a hypocrite because saying my method is wrong while yours is good... erghhh... but seriously screw WAAC players. I don't even care if people say I'm a hypocrite! I'll wear that badge with pride if I have too!

One doesn't need to be an artist to appreciate good art, one doesn't need to be a musician to know good music.

I don't need to be a games designer to understand good design, look at space marines tactical, they have been overcosted for several editions now but because they have always been between 14-18pts each, they still are, a good designer looks at them in a vacuum and in comparison to other units and adjusts them accordingly, a bad one sticks to tradition and leaves them as is, a good games designer would see they are failing at there task on the table and rework them from the ground up if needed, a bad one just leaves them as is

 Formosa wrote:
One doesn't need to be an artist to appreciate good art, one doesn't need to be a musician to know good music.

I don't need to be a games designer to understand good design, look at space marines tactical, they have been overcosted for several editions now but because they have always been between 14-18pts each, they still are, a good designer looks at them in a vacuum and in comparison to other units and adjusts them accordingly, a bad one sticks to tradition and leaves them as is, a good games designer would see they are failing at there task on the table and rework them from the ground up if needed, a bad one just leaves them as is

Exsactly this! I know it might be me pushing the perfect way to play a game but seriously... if every unit was at least viable (not OP) then things would probably work out for everyone. But I seriously was talking to a tau player today and he was upset that in this edition he can't 1 shot a tank or knight... to me that's not balance... that's just someone who wants to win without trying... a WAAC player....

The devs don't need to be competitive they just need to sit back and look at every single ujit. It's time consuming but it's how things need to be. Like with code... i remember in my dev team we were handed a game from another dev team who just gave up and produced thismess of a bugy game. We sat down and said "no short cuts" and went through every single line of code and ironed out all the crap. (Who ever coded that thing was a madd man!). We then got a spread sheet up and looked at every single unit. We suck at playing games but once you put all the numbers up on a spreadsheet you can work out balance and what needs adjustment. Again, not saying you can do this for 40k but anybody can make a fun balanced game. You just have to have the patience to sit down and go through everything... might take a whole year of none stop work but I bet you even a memeber of this community could do it! This just makes it seems the dev team is either lazy or rushed by gw. I think HoC is a good example of what even fans can do with enough time.

 Jidmah wrote:

]Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics. 

My Salamanders would disagree w this.

But I think GW pandering to WAACs is hurting the vast majority of players who could give 2 scheiss about competition. I'm perfectly fine playing against an unbalanced list. Cuz war is not fair! Some of the most fun games I've played were 3 or 400pts handicapped (one way or another). i understand that they're selling more models based on how "broke" they may be. I'm fine with that as others have stated, in as much as the rules for specific units are roughly equal with some being better at a specific task than others.

whether or not the small % of players pushing competitive play into the bulk of the game, makes me wish GW would have a separate ruleset and stats for competitive play (more so than matched currently does). Power level should be pushed more for everything not competitive and vice-versa. but the likelihood of that is a snowballs chance in hell it'd happen. I just hope that people talking about competitive should stick to a competitive venue. You won't see me going on and on in the tournament section about blah blah this and OP that.

I don't believe there should be separate rulesets per se, so much as GW needs to learn technical writing, and not create rules that occasionally become Literally Unplayable.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I don't believe there should be separate rulesets per se, so much as GW needs to learn technical writing, and not create rules that occasionally become Literally Unplayable.

Well, yes. they do need to be a little better. I don't think anyone has ever accused GW of having the best rules, models yes, rules no.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I don't believe there should be separate rulesets per se, so much as GW needs to learn technical writing, and not create rules that occasionally become Literally Unplayable.

I can agree they should probably not be writing in a way that is intended only for their own boarders. dang Brits

I think in a perfect universe, it's true that a well-written, well-researched, well-built game system could offer a wide variety of units, playstyles, and viable builds within a single army, thus allowing casuals and tournament players to come together in harmony.

But consider that Overwatch, the Blizzard game, launched with 21 heroes. For the last four seasons of competitive play, the healer Mercy has been a must-take. Blizzard has nerfed her repeatedly in an attempt to balance things out, even changing out her ultimate ability. It took almost two years, in an environment where every hero has three abilities and performs a single battlefield role, where all the statistics from every game are saved and recorded, for Blizzard to get her back in line with the rest of the heroes.

40K has almost as many factions as Overwatch has heroes. A tiny fraction of games featuring a tiny range of possible builds are recorded. Your principle feedback comes from people on forums saying, "In my local meta, the only army anyone plays is Goff Rockers and Squigs, please fix."

I hope GW continues to balance, especially in the wake of the LVO, but balance is a difficult thing - especially when you're considering the lore, the players, and the notoriously fickle meta. As a new player pouring over battle reports and codices, I'm pretty impressed with what they've managed to pull off with the new edition.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/13/help-us-choose-an-army/

Help Us Choose An Army!

At AdeptiCon, a combined squad of the Warhammer Studio and Warhammer Community teams will be taking part in the world’s biggest Warhammer 40,000 event – the legendary AdeptiCon Team Tournament.

We pondered long and hard about what army we’d bring, until we finally came to a decision:

We’re really bad at choosing armies.

So, we’ve decided to enlist your help in picking our forces from the following 4:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Let us know your choice by Thursday (We’ll need a couple of days to pack our stuff and get it shipped over to the US). Who knows – in a week, you could well be facing us at AdeptiCon!

 Jidmah wrote:

Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

On the contrary, Raven Guard is actually the first time in awhile that it has reflected the fluff.

They don't just jump troop at you all willynilly. That's Blood Angels. They spring ambushes, they hit and fade, they use cover and concealment. The geneseed flaw that sometimes manifested as a kind of pseudo "jedi mind trick"("you will not notice me...") is apparently, fluffwise, also starting to manifest itself again.

TLDR; there's quite a few that people feel "don't line up" but that's because they never understood the fluff to begin with.

It appears that the studio team members must use the studio's minis and not their personal armies. They are saying that they're limited in their choices by only having 4K points in those 4 armies. So it isn't really a choice for them.

I wonder what they would take if they had their druthers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It appears that the studio team members must use the studio's minis and not their personal armies. They are saying that they're limited in their choices by only having 4K points in those 4 armies. So it isn't really a choice for them.

Where are they saying that?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

On the contrary, Raven Guard is actually the first time in awhile that it has reflected the fluff.

They don't just jump troop at you all willynilly. That's Blood Angels. They spring ambushes, they hit and fade, they use cover and concealment. The geneseed flaw that sometimes manifested as a kind of pseudo "jedi mind trick"("you will not notice me...") is apparently, fluffwise, also starting to manifest itself again.

TLDR; there's quite a few that people feel "don't line up" but that's because they never understood the fluff to begin with.

So apparently, devastators and dreads are the mainstay of "hide and fade" tactics.
"You will not notice me" said the black colored venerable dreadnought after firing a twin lascannon and stomped behind a bush, with no one being the wiser.

 sfshilo wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
while they might not be at GW's level for miniatures (YMMV due to aesthetics) they blow GW out of the water when it comes to rules that are both thematic of the army and well-balanced.

This myth needs to die a painful death. Name me one game right now that doesn't suffer from that at all. Chess? GO?

My five year old can play 8th edition. We played last night. Dropfleet? Nope. Dropzone? Hahaha. X-wing? Don't get me started. Armada? Death by tokens. Dreadball? yawn.

Games live and die by fluff and rules. It takes a fantastic amount of work to balance both.

This stupid rage that people have over the Tau and Necrons codices is getting out of hand, the game isn't supposed to get broke by new codices remember? Your codex should NOT be overpowered. Maybe the way YOU want to use the unit you bought is not the way the game designer wants you to use it.

The game is more balanced then it's ever been, yet people still find a way to complain. Boo hoo, go play another game system and let me know how that works out for you when you find out it's not perfect either.

Most of us aren't interested in playing 40k with 5 year olds.
Not a bonus, not for most people,
well, who aren't 5 years old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/13/help-us-choose-an-army/

The only real choice is nidz.
Why bother with the poll?
Girlyman and Muerty?
I feel like I have seen this movie before...

beast_gts wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
It appears that the studio team members must use the studio's minis and not their personal armies. They are saying that they're limited in their choices by only having 4K points in those 4 armies. So it isn't really a choice for them.

Where are they saying that?

They keep stating that on their facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?hc_ref=ARTNK7_fmj8D-Ehy0jNCWw13ADaxTB9F3vsQbXFsnAnVTfUk9a-jVh_23hU5nVHM4aU&fref=nf

beast_gts wrote:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/13/help-us-choose-an-army/

I noticed they only picked some of the most competitive armies... where was the option for Orks?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
while they might not be at GW's level for miniatures (YMMV due to aesthetics) they blow GW out of the water when it comes to rules that are both thematic of the army and well-balanced.

This myth needs to die a painful death. Name me one game right now that doesn't suffer from that at all. Chess? GO?

My five year old can play 8th edition. We played last night. Dropfleet? Nope. Dropzone? Hahaha. X-wing? Don't get me started. Armada? Death by tokens. Dreadball? yawn.

Games live and die by fluff and rules. It takes a fantastic amount of work to balance both.

This stupid rage that people have over the Tau and Necrons codices is getting out of hand, the game isn't supposed to get broke by new codices remember? Your codex should NOT be overpowered. Maybe the way YOU want to use the unit you bought is not the way the game designer wants you to use it.

The game is more balanced then it's ever been, yet people still find a way to complain. Boo hoo, go play another game system and let me know how that works out for you when you find out it's not perfect either.

Most of us aren't interested in playing 40k with 5 year olds.

Dude... it's 40k. 90% of us have the minds and act like 5 year olds.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

On the contrary, Raven Guard is actually the first time in awhile that it has reflected the fluff.

They don't just jump troop at you all willynilly. That's Blood Angels. They spring ambushes, they hit and fade, they use cover and concealment. The geneseed flaw that sometimes manifested as a kind of pseudo "jedi mind trick"("you will not notice me...") is apparently, fluffwise, also starting to manifest itself again.

TLDR; there's quite a few that people feel "don't line up" but that's because they never understood the fluff to begin with.

So apparently, devastators and dreads are the mainstay of "hide and fade" tactics.
"You will not notice me" said the black colored venerable dreadnought after firing a twin lascannon and stomped behind a bush, with no one being the wiser.

You'd have a point if the Raven Guard trait was + to cover saves; it's literally just they're harder to hit.

Also yeah, Devastators can be a big part of 'hit and fade' tactics. You hit them at long range, and leave before the enemy gets to you.

 lolman1c wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/13/help-us-choose-an-army/

I noticed they only picked some of the most competitive armies... where was the option for Orks?!

The explanation is on their facebook page. They claim that the only armies that studio has at 4K points are the 4 armies listed.

 jeff white wrote:

Most of us aren't interested in playing 40k with 5 year olds.
Not a bonus, not for most people,
well, who aren't 5 years old.
.

You seem to be discounting all the gamer parents out there, which is likely significant considering the age of 40k.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Most of the current "chapter tactics" across all armies are another testament to this. Very few of them actually benefit the "chapters" preferred tactics from the fluff. A White Scars army tactic should encourage fielding bikes, Raven Guard should encourage jump troops, and so on. The failed for almost every sub-faction so far, because they don't understand game mechanics.

On the contrary, Raven Guard is actually the first time in awhile that it has reflected the fluff.

They don't just jump troop at you all willynilly. That's Blood Angels. They spring ambushes, they hit and fade, they use cover and concealment. The geneseed flaw that sometimes manifested as a kind of pseudo "jedi mind trick"("you will not notice me...") is apparently, fluffwise, also starting to manifest itself again.

TLDR; there's quite a few that people feel "don't line up" but that's because they never understood the fluff to begin with.

I dunno, the Raven Guard as a whole in 7th ed seemed rather well-reflected in their chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics, and formations. From Turn 1 Shrouding, being able to choose to end the game a turn early, Scouts being able to grant Ignore Cover to nearby squads, etc. their army really seemed to emphasize their surgical nature.

Ironically though, such traits could also ironically be a case of GW arguably not playing their own game. For example, choosing to end the game early is a theoretical benefit in a game where most tournament games did not make it past turn 3 due to time. Turn 1 Shrouding worked unless your opponent did a Betastrike, ran a Deathstar, or played Tau. As a whole though, it was debably fluffier to run them combined-arms as opposed to maximal Devestators/Gundreads.

And of course, Raven Guard tactics bring up "plasma" as a counterpoint.

Well Im sure Gw didnt specific design anything to be specificly played with in tournements. wether that is a good or bad thing is probably maybe sort of OT

But Raven guards whole shtick is pretty dang well represented in their rules.

I think smurfs are fine

I think my only point of contention (though because im bias) would be the imperial fist ones.

not that ignore cover is bad. it almost fits the fists siege warfare thing in that puny enemy attempts at utlizing fortified positions wound be pointless against the yellow bois. but their fluff justification from what i recall involved them being sooo good at close quarters city fights. which makes no sense when they are fighting in the woods or shooting through daemonic fart clouds.

Bolter drill probably should of been their primary CT. since they are bland and that is one of their shticks.

 ikeulhu wrote:

You seem to be discounting all the gamer parents out there, which is likely significant considering the age of 40k.

I would never teach or play 40k with my kids
they may get into it later as I have enough armies at home for them, but there are better games out there to play with the kids

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/13/help-us-choose-an-army/

I noticed they only picked some of the most competitive armies... where was the option for Orks?!

The explanation is on their facebook page. They claim that the only armies that studio has at 4K points are the 4 armies listed.

They're freaking GW and they don't even own 4k worth of Orks?! This says a lot... but really... it's the main gw studio... they could make 4k worth of any army in a week if they had too!