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.

The past 48 hours have been rough, huh? Some armies have gotten massive boosts, some massive nerfs. A lot of people are looking at their collections right now and considering what they are going to shelve or what they are going to dust off.

We all know that 'Beta Rules' is slang for 'Treat these as rules, but don't blame us if they don't work well'. Tournaments are already confirming use of these beta rules, even those that are not that far away, like the Alamo Indy GT that's coming up at the beginning of May! The Rule of 3 is being enforced and players have only a week to re-make their lists for the tournaments.

But, if you've played Warhammer 40k for longer than a year, you know that change is inevitable when it comes to this game. If you've played the game for 10+ years, you've lived through 5+ editions of the game, from 4th to 8th. Each edition brings with it new problems, pushing some armies into favor and others out of it. Remember when Grey Knights first came out and they were the most un-fun army to play against? Remember Leafblower and how that was dominating the tournament scene for a long while? Remember the brokenness of Chaos Marines 3.5? This is nothing new to the 40k scene. Rules change, and 8th edition is extraordinary in that so many rules have changed in such a short period of time.

Let's put it in perspective. Before 8th, we would get a codex maybe once every other month, and it would be anywhere between 2-4 years until we saw another edition. FAQ's were few and far between, sometimes happening only once a year, at best, and even then seldom addressing the major issues of the game. GW prioritized pushing big multi-month releases, staggered out every other week when a Codex would drop.

Compare that to today. It's been under a year and GW has updated all but 6 of their current Codexes. That's 16 Codexes in under a year!! Couple that with FAQ's for every faction, and the indexes, that have been dropping with such regularity that people spam the Warhammer 40k Facebook page when something is a few weeks late!! We're spoiled for updates! Those few Codexes that aren't out yet are coming down the pipe very quickly, and with each release, the tournament meta is shaken up. Veteran 40k players are familiar with change, and even this breakneck pace is, in the long run, nothing to fret over.

The Big FAQ that just dropped affects the rules in a significant way. In a way, it feels more like a jump between 5th and 6th edition. The core rules are effectively the same, but adjustments have been made to the way a few key functions work. Deepstriking, Smite, and the way you build an army, along with a lot of other little clarifications, have turned the game on its head. Core units that people were relying on are now a precious resource, and some armies are feeling that a lot more than others.

But here's the factor that GW is demonstrating:

No Rule Is Sacred.

GW is not only willing to change up core rules, but they're willing to make *exceptions* for specific factions. The Smite Beta rule is key here. If left as it was, Grey Knights and Thousand Sons would not have been the masters of the Psychic phase that they should be. GW LISTENED to the community and concerns and they adjusted the rule so that Grey Knights and Thousand Sons *specifically* would be able to maintain a mastery of the warp, at least to some degree.

This is a sign that should be celebrated. This means that any published word across the Codexes and the Core Rulebook can be adjusted to clear up problem areas. Does it mean GW is going to give your favorite faction or unit a special exception and buff them into must-take status? Probably not, but it does show that they're paying attention to everything from tournaments down to the local crowd, and they're willing to adjust their rules. This is what it means to play a game with a Living Ruleset. The rules can be changed. Adjustments can be made.

Most important of all is that GW will not be motivated to adjust something if they don't know it's a problem. If people don't tell GW about the concerns over the Tactical Reserve rules unfairly affecting some armies over others, or concerns that we'll return to the days of Leafblower style armies, or concerns that even Iron Hands have been unfairly nerfed (of all things), then they won't act. They won't dig in and see what can be adjusted to make the game steadily more balanced. Whether it's making an exception for some armies, adjusting the wording of the overall rule, or putting a buff or nerf to certain things in the form of points adjustments, GW needs your feedback first.

So, get out there, make some new lists, play some games, proxy with pennies and quarters if you have to, but test things out and see what works and what doesn't. Then, e-mail GW at 40KFAQ@gwplc.com to submit your feedback. Circumvent the Warhammer 40k Facebook page because the mods are just going to direct you right to that e-mail and wipe their hands clean of the matter. If you don't submit your feedback, they can't create a proper FAQ. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. If a question isn't asked frequently, it doesn't get addressed in a FAQ!

And, critically, don't lose hope. If you're playing in a meta that uses Beta rules as the gospel, but you really want to play your fluffy Night Lords list that has 6 units of Raptors, talk to your buddies and see if they'd be willing to make an exception for you. I think most people would be willing to let you have your fun, so long as you're not being a jerk and stomping their face into the ground every single game.

Great post. Thanks.

Having a living rules set and adjusting things as needed I understand.

Here's the thing though, Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

GW constant changing of everything has put me off even attempting to start up a new army. I just can't keep up. Never mind the fact that the rules for the most part are just absolute gak. Now they're just piling on more gak to cover up the original gak that should have been thought through to begin with.

The games development team at GW responsible for 8th ed 40k and AoS need to be fired. They don't know what they're doing.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

Sometimes it makes me wonder whether that's a deliberate strategy, intended to shift player mentalities. Like:

Player: Ooh, this list looks super powerful, that could be fun to play!
GW: *smack* No
Player: Aww, it got FAQ'd. Hmm... This other list looks pretty broken, I hear it just won a major tournament!
GW: *smack* NO
Player: Boo! Okay, what's the most powerful thing out there now...
GW: STOP *smack* PICKING ARMIES *smack* BASED ON POWER *smack* JUST PICK *smack* WHAT YOU THINK *smack* IS COOL
Player, disoriented: Oh god, I have no idea what's good or bad any more. I guess I'll start Orks, they seem fun.
GW, quietly: Haha, sucker! Orks will always be bad, you dumbass.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Having a living rules set and adjusting things as needed I understand.

Here's the thing though, Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

GW constant changing of everything has put me off even attempting to start up a new army. I just can't keep up. Never mind the fact that the rules for the most part are just absolute gak. Now they're just piling on more gak to cover up the original gak that should have been thought through to begin with.

The games development team at GW responsible for 8th ed 40k and AoS need to be fired. They don't know what they're doing.

It hasn't been constant if you follow one army. It's two weeks after codex, March, September, and December.

You might perceive it as more often, because we're getting an insane number of codexes in under a year.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Having a living rules set and adjusting things as needed I understand.

Here's the thing though, Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

GW constant changing of everything has put me off even attempting to start up a new army. I just can't keep up. Never mind the fact that the rules for the most part are just absolute gak. Now they're just piling on more gak to cover up the original gak that should have been thought through to begin with.

The games development team at GW responsible for 8th ed 40k and AoS need to be fired. They don't know what they're doing.

I'm of the mind that there is not a single model that is 'obsolete' in GW's range. The fact of the matter is that if you have fun building it and painting it, you like the look of it, and you like its playstyle, then you'll play it anyway. If you're not a tournament player, then keeping up with the tournament meta and having a perfectly points-efficient list is not important at all.

Please don't be tainted by the vitriol that comes with a lot of the 40k fandom. There's a lot of people out there that will be quick to denounce a model or unit as worthless because it's simply a few points more expensive than something else in the same Codex. At the end of the day, those few points of efficiency are not going to make or break the game unless you're playing in a highly competitive tournament setting.

So, build and paint what you want and you'll be totally fine, despite the evolving meta.

 kadeton wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

Sometimes it makes me wonder whether that's a deliberate strategy, intended to shift player mentalities. Like:

Player: Ooh, this list looks super powerful, that could be fun to play!
GW: *smack* No
Player: Aww, it got FAQ'd. Hmm... This other list looks pretty broken, I hear it just won a major tournament!
GW: *smack* NO
Player: Boo! Okay, what's the most powerful thing out there now...
GW: STOP *smack* PICKING ARMIES *smack* BASED ON POWER *smack* JUST PICK *smack* WHAT YOU THINK *smack* IS COOL
Player, disoriented: Oh god, I have no idea what's good or bad any more. I guess I'll start Orks, they seem fun.
GW, quietly: Haha, sucker! Orks will always be bad, you dumbass.

Exalted!

But really, basically this. Just buy and build what you think look cools. OP stuff won't be OP for more than 2-8 months, maybe a little less or a little longer. And bad units may become playable, balanced or even OP in the same time periods.

It sucks when a wholle faction can't do anything like Grey Knights. It happened the same for me with Tau, with the Index they where only playable as commander spam with drones, like Grey Knights with Dreadknight grandmasters. So I finished my Dark Angels army, I started a Adeptus Custodes one, and I started and finished a mixed Chaos one in this time.
Of course, I know, some people JUST want to play one army, and don't are willing to buy and build another, or the time, or the money, etc... and I'm really sad for those players. But the fact that what we have now isn't perfect does not mean that it isn't actually quite good.

Maybe my view is biased because I have played and keep playing this edition with Dark Angels, and... we don't have changes! We had a Codex and thats about it! CA, this big FAQ, we ignore those (A nerf to darktalons but whatever) ,and my army is actually quite balanced and fun to play.

drbored wrote:

Please don't be tainted by the vitriol that comes with a lot of the 40k fandom. There's a lot of people out there that will be quick to denounce a model or unit as worthless because it's simply a few points more expensive than something else in the same Codex. At the end of the day, those few points of efficiency are not going to make or break the game unless you're playing in a highly competitive tournament setting.

This I find most infuriating. When people complaint that some unit that they really likes suck because it is 3-8% less mathematically efficient than this other unit that they really don't like, and for that reason they don't and basically say that they CAN'T use it. Is like... what? Is really that marginal diference so important for you to play 40k? Doesn't aesthetic have any value to you?

Is like playing an RPG. Having a nice looking character or a ugly one with the most OP stuff. Some times you can have a nice looking one that is slighly less strong than the ugly one... but does that power difference make up for the fact that you don't actually like what you are using?

Gladly, all users on Dakkadakka aren't anything more than a mental ilusion, so I know all those insane anecdotes and hyperboles aren't real, just tricks of my mind to keep me in check and ready for how real warhammer plays.

drbored wrote:

This is a sign that should be celebrated. This means that any published word across the Codexes and the Core Rulebook can be adjusted to clear up problem areas. Does it mean GW is going to give your favorite faction or unit a special exception and buff them into must-take status? Probably not, but it does show that they're paying attention to everything from tournaments down to the local crowd, and they're willing to adjust their rules. This is what it means to play a game with a Living Ruleset. The rules can be changed. Adjustments can be made.

You have to keep in mi d though what\s the MOTIVATION going to be for the change. And that is not a balance. It's going to be change of meta so people are forced to buy new models!

So you are now praising for being forced to buy more models even more fast pace than before with end result still just as unbalanced if not more! The new FAQ made the game balance worse rather than good. Meanwhile entire units people owned were made worthless. So while some units benefitted others died. End result is worse balance, people needing to buy new models. And GW goes "just as planned" while cashing in.

Change does not automatically make it good. GW is doing changes for sake of market directing without any care for balance. Actually they have vested interest in NOT having balanced game as that hurts their profit margin...They have made all the money they have made with unbalance and deliberate periodic shifts.

Only thing that has changed is that GW realized they can speed up the process. Why wait long for shuffles when you can make more money by more rapid meta shuffle? Change meta faster pace, people buy new models at even faster rate. And it's working like a charm as players rush constantly to buy new models to keep up with changing meta.

tneva82 wrote:

drbored wrote:

This is a sign that should be celebrated. This means that any published word across the Codexes and the Core Rulebook can be adjusted to clear up problem areas. Does it mean GW is going to give your favorite faction or unit a special exception and buff them into must-take status? Probably not, but it does show that they're paying attention to everything from tournaments down to the local crowd, and they're willing to adjust their rules. This is what it means to play a game with a Living Ruleset. The rules can be changed. Adjustments can be made.

You have to keep in mi d though what\s the MOTIVATION going to be for the change. And that is not a balance. It's going to be change of meta so people are forced to buy new models!

So you are now praising for being forced to buy more models even more fast pace than before with end result still just as unbalanced if not more! The new FAQ made the game balance worse rather than good. Meanwhile entire units people owned were made worthless. So while some units benefitted others died. End result is worse balance, people needing to buy new models. And GW goes "just as planned" while cashing in.

Change does not automatically make it good. GW is doing changes for sake of market directing without any care for balance. Actually they have vested interest in NOT having balanced game as that hurts their profit margin...They have made all the money they have made with unbalance and deliberate periodic shifts.

Only thing that has changed is that GW realized they can speed up the process. Why wait long for shuffles when you can make more money by more rapid meta shuffle? Change meta faster pace, people buy new models at even faster rate. And it's working like a charm as players rush constantly to buy new models to keep up with changing meta.

It's hard to argue this. Yes, GW is a business. Yes it is their business to sell models. Yes, they are going to release new models, editions, codexes, and all of that in order to sell more models. What do you want me to say?

At the end of the day, however, you could also say that people with collections of a variety of models now have a reason to dust off models that they haven't been able to use in this edition due to those same rules that are being adjusted. Someone that didn't get 6 Dunecrawlers, but instead wanted to use some other options, now is being rewarded for that.

Does that mean that people that bought 7 Flyrants or 8 Stormravens (before that was nerfed) are being punished? Well, it depends on your point of view. If you feel that you 'wasted' all that money to exploit spam and weaknesses in the rule system, I feel like that's on you. Shelve those extra models and get with the program, or leave the hobby in a huff like so many keep promising, yet continue to troll around the forums and reddits anyway.

At the end of the day, the behavior that's being rewarded is building and painting a variety of models and armies. I see this as a wonderful thing. Does it cost more money? Sure, again, if your army was based around spamming one or two things and you now need to buy more to fill in the holes. But here's the other thing: The Rule of 3 is for organized events. If you truly want to keep using 5 Dunecrawlers or 7 Flyrants in your local meta, talk to your friends and make it happen. Ignore the Rule of 3 and continue to play the way you want to play.

But if you're a tournament player, you're going to spend that money and buy those models anyway, because that's what you do to get an edge and win.

As for your other points, I'd argue that balance helps their profit margin. If they sell a wider variety of models, that means that less of their models are in inventory and they don't have any models that are just sitting around taking up space. If Maleceptors stop selling because Zoanthropes are the only way to go, then that means GW has a bunch of plastic and cardboard that's not moving at all. If, however, you could take Zoanthropes OR Maleceptors, then both kits will sell in a more balanced manner that's easier for GW to predict.

Unbalanced rules, and things like spam, create ridiculous demand for only a handful of models in an army range, which stresses GW's model system. Instead of printing out a regular supply of models, they have to run the machines in overtime to supply demand for just a few. This means more models are out of stock for longer, making it harder for someone that just wants ONE Flyrant or Stormraven, but can't get it because competitive players have bought them all up. That's a lost sale, due to unbalanced rules.

I am pretty torn about this FAQ honestly. On one hand, I agree that rules need to be changed and hammered out. On the other, this hobby is not cheap and I personally have probably $1000-$1500 worth of models that I have purchased since 8th came out that are now just glorified paperweights. To be fair though I bought a good chunk of those just because I like painting. When a video game gets balanced it is no big deal I already most likely have access to everything. But when a 40k army gets changed that literally hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars down the drain. I personally just spent 2 weeks painting up a unit of 30 tzaangors to get ready for an event I am going too in 3 weeks. Now I am thinking of just dropping them but I don't really know what I would replace them with that I have painted or can get painted in time for the event. It is hugely frustrating that I just spent possibly almost 80 hours over the last two weeks getting them painted to a fairly high standard only to have that all wasted. So I definitely feel like people have a right to be pretty salty when it comes to this sort of thing because of the time/money investment.

As far as the rule of 3 goes I just feel like that is just a bad design philosophy. If something is so good that it is worth taking that many of then there is clearly something wrong with the rules and this isn't fixing the issue. That one thing is still outclassing every other choice for that particular slot in the army so either everything else is just bad or that particular thing is too good.

I also feel that turn 1 deep striking assault units were not the problem. Turn one was the easiest turn to protect against that sort of thing IMO. Bubble wrapping with chaff units, not leaving dead space in your deployment zone, and units like scouts/nurglings were more than enough to prevent that sort of thing from happening. It was all the turn one shooting gak like Oblits, plasma sions, or tyrants that were the problem. I just don't know how much this change will affect shooting units though considering a lot of these units can still reach out of their deployment zones and touch something. Not to mention it totally screws things like drop pods and daemons.

All in all at the end of the day it is not anything we can really change just something we have to deal with.

I've been playing this game for near on twenty years now (as I am sure is true of many of us on Dakka) and what is happening now is genuinely new and quite surprising.

I think there is a bit of a bubble down in Nottingham in which no one really plays to win, but instead plays to show off their cool paint jobs. 40k was never designed to support cutthroat competitive play, nor indeed much thinking at all. I can't really imagine how games tend to go in the studio, it must be SUPER weird, because they never cotton on - on their own - to the really hard cheese.

What is happening now, however, is that GW are finally giving their own game some level of actual analysis and listening to criticism. Matched play rules are, genuinely, an attempt to make a balanced game. People want a competitive game, and that is what they are trying to give us in the matched play rules. With every FAQ they seem to be asking themselves "do these rules that we make actually do what we intend them to do?".

The answer to that question is still, for the most part, "no". 40k just isn't Starcraft. However, with every iteration, FAQ and codex however it does get closer and closer to a "yes".OP is right, it really does seem like "no rule is sacred" now, and that is awesome. Excitingly, this trajectory is the exact opposite to the usual progress of an edition, which tends to start good and roll itself up in terrible, terrible nonsense as the design team flails about trying to force everyone to have fun in the right way.

A few months ago I thought things were going in the wrong direction - that GW was trying to force us all to play the Nottingham game. I thought that the game was best at index, where it was very open and stuff was toned down - but as everyone starts getting a codex I can see the pieces begin to fall into place. The game is surprisingly subtle sometimes, units actually interact in quite interesting ways. The new Drukhari codex, for instance, is packed to the brim with interesting choices, viable options and different ways of doing things.

The new matched play rules are important because the subtlety and complexity of the game falls apart if units are spammed. The mathematics of 40k are not complex and that maths tends towards weight of dice - so players will take any and all opportunities to pick as many of the options which allow them to roll as many dice as possible (this is a simplification - quality of dice also matters). The fundamental combat interactions of 40k ensure that it cannot be, at the same time A) balanced, B) diverse and C) involve interesting decisions in each player turn, unless hard limits on units are in place. That is the conclusion I have come to, and I think it must be the conclusion GW has come to as well.

We will see how it shakes out, but for now I think the general advice must be not to try and chase the meta, but to play what you think is cool and to wait for things to settle down a bit. By the end of the middle of next year all the codexes should be out, and THEN the really interesting conversations begin.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Here's the thing though, Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

This ONLY applies if you are trying to build an army that is on the bleeding edge of competitiveness.

If you are building an army which looks like what GW are overtly and obviously trying to steer you towards then keep on trucking.

They are defo making it so that chasing the meta is way more expensive though.

I like where GW is currently going. Their living ruleset means I don't have to worry about the meta becoming stale because their molasses-like release schedule(basically all releases before 8th). It means I don't get bored playing the same setup again and again because things are now changing somewhat rapidly compared to before.

There are of course problems. It feels like for the first time that they are trying to take this seriously and that means they will now have to learn how to take this seriously as well as hire people who are good at it(this is probably the hardest part). There will be problems in these formative years and that is to be expected. Unlike what some people have claimed this is not a problem you can throw money at to solve. It takes time to train people and adapt the pipeline to a new reality.

Regarding the idea that GW only promotes what they want to sell it is good to keep in mind that the limit of 3 suggestion actually limits their own sale model. Why buy more than three units of any model if the limit is a hard point? As someone who has been on the "GW is a business first" bandwagon I admittedly was very skeptical that they would do this.

 kadeton wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Its changing so quickly and violently I don't even have a chance to purchase (most things are out of stock at GW anyway) or paint (I have a huge back log of projects) anything before it becomes obsolete. I can't even come up with a plan to build an army before GW changes their mind on something. I'm not even a tourney player, not for several years, I play for fun and collect mostly. But man, this isn't a video game where you can just change things at the click of a button. These things take time and money to change.

Sometimes it makes me wonder whether that's a deliberate strategy, intended to shift player mentalities. Like:

Player: Ooh, this list looks super powerful, that could be fun to play!
GW: *smack* No
Player: Aww, it got FAQ'd. Hmm... This other list looks pretty broken, I hear it just won a major tournament!
GW: *smack* NO
Player: Boo! Okay, what's the most powerful thing out there now...
GW: STOP *smack* PICKING ARMIES *smack* BASED ON POWER *smack* JUST PICK *smack* WHAT YOU THINK *smack* IS COOL
Player, disoriented: Oh god, I have no idea what's good or bad any more. I guess I'll start Orks, they seem fun.
GW, quietly: Haha, sucker! Orks will always be bad, you dumbass.

I know, right! Its almost like GW wants us to pick units we think are cool and not ones that are meta waac units. But nah, they just hate us.

This pretty much sums it Sup for me

The best thing about that terrible meme is that the creator doesn't even understand the FLY assault change.

It's more of a zombie ruleset than a living rule set, bits keep falling off and some idiot keeps trying to sew them back on with no regard to what or where there putting them and some bits just seem to have gone missing.

As far as I can see the massive swinging changes to the rules must have been great for model sales the game not so much. As such I would expect it to continue this way once everyone has a gunline expect it to be nerfed and assault to be returned likely even 1st turn d's assaults.

GW have set a new record by only taking 12mths to turn 40k into a bigger dumpster fire than the previous edition.

I don’t really get the living ruleset premise. I see very little here to assume that’s true. What I see, aside from a rather low effort CA, is essentially the same GW distribution model just on cocaine. They are showing a willingness outside of CA to make changes to the published rules... which would be great if they actually consolidated them into an actual online “living” rulebook. Instead I just see the same old, same old pile of faqs, codexes, and supplements just released at shorter intervals.

.

What I enjoy most is the typical hilarity of the internet vs. actual gamers.

I engage with maybe 30-40 gamers locally who play 40K. One or two have said "oh, I'll have to change my list a bit". That's it. There is none of the hand-wringing and sky-is-falling nonsense you read on Dakka, which is one of the very worst corners of the internet when it comes to gaming.

Note how many threads started in General Discussion after the FAQ...which were penned by people who post constantly about hating 8th and how it ruined their gaming group, and life is awful because they (for some reason) can't play 7th anymore, etc. It's just a large circle jerk of people who aren't actually playing the game anyway.

I don't even play 40K that often, but I don't see any of the hatred and outrage in the actual gaming community which is playing the game.

In short; meh.