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.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

So is there any actual news or rumours here? Or is it just another balancing bitching thread?

My only response to all this is, the tournament scene affects casual, and the casual affects the tournament scene. Hell, I think the majority of the Guard nerfs came as a direct result of the majority of the player base complaining about things – sure, conscript spam appeared in a few event lists, but it was casual games where the imbalance was seen and complained about a lot more. I remember arguing with people who 100% believed that Guard were the “be all and end all” and would easily win every tournament out there, whilst failing to appreciate other players ability to counter it. IIRC, Chaos was still pretty much top in the tournament scene, but, because the average player only took “average fun” lists, they struggled massively in casual games.

People will always net list in casual games. These might be event winning list, or theory-crafted wonder lists, but these lists always make it into “casual” play at some level or another. Likewise, if a casual player created a super strong list unintentionally, or had a set of casual lists that just happened to counter your armies simply due to his style of army and units he’s brought, would you simply just continuously refuse to play him until he changed? Or are you going to bite the bullet and change yourself? I’m betting on the first option for 90% of the people that complain on dakka continuously about one thing or another.

It’s the same argument as using FW in casual games. People seem to think it is “OP” or “Unaccessable” across the board etc etc. If I ran a Carcharodons list against you, using the 3rd Company fluff as a basis to the list and then completely smashed you and then went and won a tournament with it, would that be considered worthy of a nerf? Or would you just ask me never to play that army again vs you?

People create unbalanced lists all the time in casual play, a lot of people do it unintentionally simply because they are new to the game and stumble upon things, get help of the net or simply build their own ideas and see how they work. You also have to remember that what is “strong” in casual not only depends on the area “meta” but also whatever random army your opponent brings and their understanding of the game.

For example, i’d expect some of the top top players to give me a good run for my money, regardless of the list they brought and how “broken” my list was.

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

What a remarkably convenient thing to say.

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Which group do you count yourself among, I wonder? You seem to be speaking on behalf of a lot of people, and I wonder what you think your justification for doing so is.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
So is there any actual news or rumours here? Or is it just another balancing bitching thread?

You don't like it? Complain to management, not here. You're only making it worse.

Well excuse me for coming to the News and Rumours sub forum for news and rumours.

 Fafnir wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Regarding good=bland, I think you may be reading too far into what people are saying.

You absolutely can have good rules which promote characterful armies, and where each individual codex has a very different feel.

Consider the forthcoming Dark Eldar Codex. Special rules which affect how you select your army - bonuses for lots of Patrol Detachments and allows for multiple Warlord Traits.

Whilst it's too early to say if that's unbalance, it certainly sounds cool to me, and does reflect their background.

But, some of those wanting better balance would say 'no more gimmicks. Everyone the same'. That is something I don't want to see GW do to please a small minority of hobbyists. Note that here, I am taking pains not to lump all those wanting better balance together. There are many different requests and ideas out there.

Do that, and you wind up with the tedium of 3rd Ed. All the soul sucked out of the game. Everyone forced into a single FoC which doesn't suit every army (Nids for instance, and to some degree Necrons with their two troops choices). Sure, it might be the most perfectly balanced game ever - but that doesn't mean it'd actually be any fun to play.

Hence my earlier comment. Balance shouldn't be having a straight 50/50 chance of winning game before player skill is taken into account. Instead, it should be about certain lists which abuse the openness of the game not being so dominant. Consider 7th Ed Imperial Knights. Unless you came prepared, you were more or less stuffed against them. Majority of weapons could do nothing, and many heavy weapons found them tough going. I enjoy fielding Knights, but never made a habit of it outside of Apocalypse, their natural home. That was genuine imbalance. Your average army against an average Knight army was at an immediate disadvantage. 8th Ed has seemingly helped there with everything being able to wound anything to some degree. Sure, I'm not exactly panicking about massed Lasgun fire - but it's 100% more effective now than in 7th.

If you've heavily themed your list in 40k, you just need to accept there's some army builds and tactical situations you're going to struggle with. It doesn't mean the game itself is fundamentally flawed and therefore unplayable, just that certain choices come with a price tag.

Gideon makes a point. This is discussion, not news or rumors. The news was reported, and until the FAQ is released, theres really nothing to discuss except supposed fixes and possible coming changes.

But that doesnt look like the discussion at hand.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Which group do you count yourself among, I wonder? You seem to be speaking on behalf of a lot of people, and I wonder what you think your justification for doing so is.

None. Because there's no reason for those distinctions. I enjoy the hobby in a lot of different ways, and for a lot of different reasons.

 Fafnir wrote:

You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Have you actually read this thread? Pretty much all suggested 'balance fixes' here have been ways to limit what models you can include in your army. That is not the sort of 'balancing' I want.

And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

To properly balance things, you can't deal with arbitrary restrictions on units. You need to go over every unit in the game and discuss what its purpose in a meta and within its own army would be (and the variance that we want it to be viable within), how it fills that niche, how it can be dealt with by opponents, and how its army can deal with those counters. You need to develop an underlying philosophy for the state of the game (which I don't believe GW really has), and how your systems can work to encourage that. Unfortunately, that's not something that can be dealt with in a single thread or post. That's some serious time spent rigorously developing, testing, and scrutinizing rules.

 Fafnir wrote:
And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

I really don't believe anyone thinks that balance in itself is a bad thing, merely that the means many people want to achieve it with it are bad.

 Crimson wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
And just because most people here have not been able to suggest adequate balancing measures does not mean that balance in itself is a bad thing.

I really don't believe anyone thinks that balance in itself is a bad thing, merely that the means many people want to achieve it with it are bad.

There were literally people crying that attempts for balance were bad because it isn't a competitive game in this forum.

There's people that believe EXACTLY in the statement you made.

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

I should just ingore you for that, comparing opinions to cancer is beyond good manners and you really should feel ashamed.

First: I have stated multiple times in this thread that i also want a balanced and well written rule set. I am also convinced that aiming for a watertight tournament game written by tournament players will sacrifice too much of the depth and flavour of 40k.

Second: You are trying to force so many opinions on me that you cant see the forest for all the strawmen... I am in no way CAAC, i want balance as much as anybody. The only person acting toxic and patronizing is you, pretending that your game of toy soldiers is more impartant than mine.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

Dont bother answering if you cant keep cancer out of it.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

jhnbrg wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Actually, folks should care even if you don't think they should. The casual players have to deal with the fallout of the FAQs and changes as a result of feedback from these events. That actually sucks IMO.

These changes will be for the entire game of 40k. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

Indeed. Tournament players change their armies to take advantage of the rules or metagame all the time. When something becomes noncompetitive, it gets jettisoned without a second thought. They have no attachment to their armies or unit choices, or at the very least are strongly disincentivized from doing so. Asking them to change their lists is no great sacrifice, they'd do so anyway at the drop of a hat if an advantage could be gained thereby.

And this is exactly why a 40k designed by tournament players is a very bad idea.

You two "get it". I wish more players and fans of the game would.

***For those that don't like the discussion. The FAQ was delayed due to an event results. So stop saying it doesn't matter. It completely matters. Don't complain in here that the discussion is about balance. Complain to GW. They're holding it up for "balance" apparantly.***

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

 jhnbrg wrote:


That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But, some of those wanting better balance would say 'no more gimmicks. Everyone the same'. That is something I don't want to see GW do to please a small minority of hobbyists. Note that here, I am taking pains not to lump all those wanting better balance together. There are many different requests and ideas out there.

I don't really think anyone involved with 40k wants to streamline all armies to become equal. Even 30k with its "everyone is Space Marines" vibe has lots of unique defining features added to each legion.

I also don't think that any competitive players want to remove the whacky fun things some armies have. I have yet to see a single person complain about the bubble chukka mek gun. Even the people playing in the most cutthroat environments possible acknowledge it to be good idea, but prefer the more reliable KMK instead. Same goes for the Chaos Boon or "The Lion and the Wolf" stratagems or the Murder Sword relic. No competitive player is ever going to touch those, but no one sane wants them removed.

As long as you don't force "lol random" down everybody's throat (hi 7th edition), there is room for both types of units, stratagems and relics in codices.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:


That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

Go back and read the discussion, I am arguing against people claiming that 40k should be designed as a watertight streamlined tournament game where casual players will be allowed to tag along.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


You really need to get over this "good rules=bland" thing. And this really weird and aggressive thing about how people who enjoy competitive environments are WAAC tryhards who can't enjoy any other aspect of the hobby. Not only is it remarkably toxic and patronizing to players who enjoy the game in ways that are entirely harmless to you, but it does a disservice to casual-minded players who would rather not be lumped in with the casual-at-all-costs scene.

Once again, if a game gets bland and boring, competitive players lose interest in it too. There's no fun in winning a bland and boring game. Good design sensibility does not detract from the entertainment value that a game provides, it does the exact opposite.

I play in tournaments, I build competitive lists, but I also put a hell of a lot of work into heavily converting and painting my armies and developing strong background material for them. Your attitude is cancer, and pushes people away from the hobby with its arbitrary distinctions.

Third: There must be hundreds of casual gamers for every tournament player and you still think that the tournament scene should decide what is good for the game?

I'd rather trust a doctor with my life than a bunch of moms on the internet saying vaccines cause autism.

While an extreme example, yes the competitive scene people should be the people that determine balance as they're actively able to exploit any problems there might be.

That was a really stupid comparison.

Yes, tournament players should playtest the game to hell and back.
No, the game should not be designed as a tournament ruleset.

GW has added so much stuff to the game that it is impossible to make a balanced and watertight rule set that will satisfy tournament players and still keep all the nuances in each and every faction.

Sorry but "it's too hard" is not an excuse. That's what you're saying at this point.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


So your primary concern is that factions will lose their flavor? Of all the things done so far and all the things rumored I can see nothing that would threaten any of that.

Go back and read the discussion, I am arguing against people claiming that 40k should be designed as a watertight streamlined tournament game where casual players will be allowed to tag along.

Sorry if these seems obtuse, but I fail to see the difference in what GW has recently done and with the general idea of that direction. GW is looking to make a balanced game. It will never be watertight, because that would be bland, but they can come reasonably close. GW will not sacrifice it's IP. A rising tide lifts all boats is the point, I think.

I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

SeanDrake wrote:

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

There's way more to it than that easily demonstrated by DE:


And while not "unit rules" it provides flavor to the army:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

Because you haven't play enough 8th if you believe Tau, Chaos SPace Marines, Space Marines, Orks and Tyranids play in any similar way ones with the others.

 Galas wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

HH is still more balanced than 40k even with a number of actual special rules even taking into account the core UNITs are the same but not on the whole the rules.

I see what your saying but I cannot agree even with the simplistic tool kit they built they still have on the whole managed to balance feth all. 8th edition has the worst of both worlds with bland simplistic rules and still very little balance.

I just struggle to believe that anyone at GW actually gives a feth about the rules other than they function at the most basic level and people buy models. Don't get me wrong even that low bar is an improvement on previous design philosephy used but meh.

As for different factions play differently that's sought of true but what you will see is that in a lot of cases actual successful armies are built fairly similarly using the tools available to them that may overlap with another faction.

I'd disagree at times, given factions like Mechanicum, Custodes, and Militia/Cults.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Galas wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
I am not sure anyone but HBMC has noticed but most armies are the same to a degree.

With it's partial AoS'ing 8th edition 40k "the blandening" only has around a dozen "Not very special rules" it's just every codex has there own bespoke name for them.

If you look at recent codex releases people are not wondering what new rules they will get but what combination of existing rules they will get.

For example if there is no -1 armywide to hit modifier then you pulled the short straw good luck next time.

Rules for units consist of Re roll 1's or 6's, +1 modifier, - 1 modifier, +2 modifier, -2 modifier and add another effect on a 6. These are then split into individual buffs, unit buffs or buff bubbles.

After these core principals are set a gibbon could write the codexs and given some of the errors in them may well have.

So what you are saying is that GW has finally realised that all factions need a strong core toolbox to fuction properly and be balanced, even if the mathematicall point values attached to those tools aren't as balanced, but the gameplay differs from one faction to other based in how they gain access to those core toolbox, and in what proportion, and for what they use them, just like Infinity does, instead of every faction being their own special snowflake with 20 different ways to do everything, and exceptions over exceptions over exceptions?

Isn't that what makes HH more balanced? The fact that every faction has the same core toolbox to drawn from, but in different ways?

HH is still more balanced than 40k even with a number of actual special rules even taking into account the core UNITs are the same but not on the whole the rules.

I see what your saying but I cannot agree even with the simplistic tool kit they built they still have on the whole managed to balance feth all. 8th edition has the worst of both worlds with bland simplistic rules and still very little balance.

I just struggle to believe that anyone at GW actually gives a feth about the rules other than they function at the most basic level and people buy models. Don't get me wrong even that low bar is an improvement on previous design philosephy used but meh.

As for different factions play differently that's sought of true but what you will see is that in a lot of cases actual successful armies are built fairly similarly using the tools available to them that may overlap with another faction.

Is it though? Adjusted for how little variation there is between units (oh, but THIS unit of tacticals has OUTFLANK!&^&@!%&@%&!^!) you still have units that are totally worthless (the majority of vehicles) and units that are completely bonkers.

HH external balance seems fine because every army is basically the same (and even then there are still clear winners and losers) but the internal balance of each army is just as bad as 40k. If the different legions had to deal with even a tenth of the factional deviations 40k does, forgeworld would have collapsed under the weight of it's own ruleset by now. Add on to that the fact that the 7th ed ruleset is broken at a core, fundamental level, and you have a game that sneaks by because they only have to balance 1.5 armies.(and the exorbitant cost and small playerbase) And the moment they DO introduce a new army(custodes) it immediately breaks the game enough that several groups ban their use in RTTs.

So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

 Chamberlain wrote:
So, show of hands, who is actually impacted by this delay? Were there lists that you are playing that you might not after the FAQ? Are there opponents among your local community that are playing the type of list against you that might get errata'd here? Is there an upcoming even you are planning an army/painting project and this delay is actually impacting you in terms of getting and painting an army?

The London GT, the second largest Warhammer event in the world, and the largest in Europe, is in May, list submission is final at the end of April.

This could very well impact that event, particularly if it comes out after the deadline for list submission but before the event...

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

The thing is, rolling on a random table for hijinx is not interesting at a competitive level. Balanced player options and solid counterplay tools are. These things also benefit casual play in ways that most casual players might not notice on surface level, but are very important for the long-term health of a game and its community.

Really?

So you mean that a bland and streamlined tournament game is good for casual players, they just dont understand that?

What if its the other way around? I dont think that a single bit of background material or "fluff" in the 40k universe comes from tournaments while a lot of characters and background has its origin in campaigns and casual games that has evolved the story.

You tournament players will be left with a dead set of streamlined rules that has nothing that sets it apart from any other ruleset on the market so stop pretending that 40k is about the competetive waac tournament players.

What he said! I'm seeing a lot of competative players claiming the casual gamers of 40k don't understand how important rules are. Ive been playing this game 30 odd years. The competative scene as is hasn't been around that long and all of a sudden they think that 40k wouldn't exist without them.

I appreciate that side now exists even though I don't get the point of it but it shouldn't be the developers focus. That kind of narrow tunnel vision is what killed off the old world.