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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.

Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.

Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.

If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that? And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.
Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.

Maybe. But to fully convince me, I'd have to see a game set largely devoid of miscosted models and then be shown how soup can still break things.

Martel732 wrote:
The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.

How do you check the unlimited case? A single playtest game? 30 playtest games?

And GW already tests the non-ITC case, for example it uses data from NOVA. But yes, essentially what I am pushing for is GW making sure to publish their own tournament rules, but they already do that (the tournament packet) and ironically, in the setting of those tournaments, the results have been completely different. IIRC I remember a 2nd place ork finish, then later a 1st place Ork finish, though that guy slowplayed (which is a whole 'nother problem in itself).

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.

Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.

Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.

If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that? And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.
Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.

I'm sure they don't mind, but they DO mind primaris being largely absent. At least, so I've been told off the record.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.

How do you check the unlimited case? A single playtest game? 30 playtest games?

And GW already tests the non-ITC case, for example it uses data from NOVA. But yes, essentially what I am pushing for is GW making sure to publish their own tournament rules, but they already do that (the tournament packet) and ironically, in the setting of those tournaments, the results have been completely different. IIRC I remember a 2nd place ork finish, then later a 1st place Ork finish, though that guy slowplayed (which is a whole 'nother problem in itself).

I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.

I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.

This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.

I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.

Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.

Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.

If it were just a preference thing we'd probably see a whole lot more monoIG armies and a lot less soup at top winning tables. If monoIG are just as good, I would posit that superfriends lists would be less popular simply because people wouldnt need to go out and buy extra stuff from other armies, these competitive soup list arent running multifaction armies because they want to display the full panoply of the Imperium for cool factor.

Remember that IG is a hard counter to super friends because IG fields huge numbers of wounds that are all cheap. Even their vehicles are super cheap. The super friends literally can't chop through the army given a full game. IG don't care about their opponent's turn, and that is the greatest super power in 8th ed.

Every guardsmen killed just puts the IG further and further ahead compared to every other list in the game save a grot army.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.

Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.

Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...

I guess GW has some work to do, then. Or they just need to openly admit their game is gak and will always be gak and no one should buy it. Those are their two HONEST choices.

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.

Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.

Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.

If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that?

Because they're a model company that uses game rules to push sales of model kits, the balance and competitive suitability of the rules being a distant tertiary concern mostly

Same reason we got insane ridiculous formations in 7E, often tied to things like webstore sales bundles.

And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.

They do, but its a rare exception that appears much more of an afterthought.

Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.

Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.

That said, im sure GW are happy IG are in every Imperial list becausw it means theyre selling more guardsmen, but it doesnt mean theyre balancing the codex books around that.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.

I wouldn't call being IG suffering.

Acknowledge they're a tall cut above most and enjoy it.

The army might be in a fairly good place, but that doesn't mean that they will continue to be as time wears on.

We've already seen Commissars cut off at the knees. We've seen Conscripts change fairly significantly whether you want to admit it or not, Orders being automatic and then getting a requirement for a 4+ on just that unit is a significant change as is their reduction in unit size.
We also saw the, entirely justifiable mind you, shift to having BS specific points costs in response to Scion spam.

Guard are "suffering" from an overrepresentation and overfocus on one specific unit(their core fricking Infantry Squad) by outsiders who only look at the points values and see them getting souped in.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.

Blizzard has the advantage of games all being played on their servers, so I'd imagine with a bit of data capture they can see what is going on.

With that said, GW just need to decide what the value is. With a budget of say £1-2 million, I am fairly confident they could have 30 people playtest (they might need to build some armies, but that's not impossible either). So say 2 games a day, that's 150 games a week, 600 or so a month.

Would this give useful information? Considering that, at its peak, StarCraft or whatever must have seen thousands of games an hour? What is the active playerbase for say Hearthstone?

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.

Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...

I guess GW has some work to do, then. Or they just need to openly admit their game is gak and will always be gak and no one should buy it. Those are their two HONEST choices.

I mean, using your critera, no table-top game could ever be playtested sufficiently to satisfy you. May I suggest you're in the wrong hobby?

Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.

Are you seriously trying to compare Blizzard, where everything is stored serverside and hundreds if not thousands of games are played every day to GW?

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.

I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.

GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.

Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.

I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.

GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.

Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.

Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.

Citation needed

90% of BA kits are unplayable atm. If they just dropped that to 50%, that would help sales a lot, I'd bet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.

Citation needed

Agreed, I have no clue how they design/balance anything.

To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.

Scatterbikes.

What GW needs is a list building app designed for use in tournaments. If they were truly on the ball, they'd integrate with BCP, and work out an agreement to track aggregated data.

They could have the level of access to tournament data that's being discussed here.

I don't think they'll do anything like that though, because they are very much a "my IP! No touch!" company.

As it stands their balance team is wonky AF. They played in what was it, Adepticon? Their Tyranids rules writers got matched up with the guys running flyrant spam. The Tyranid rules writers got their rules wrong in the game, the players corrected them, and then smashed them with Flyrants. Guess what happened? The BIG FAQ was delayed a week, and the change that came out of it was the Flyrant nerf.

This is how they balance. No idea how people play, show up to a tournament, get rocked, nerf.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.

I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.

GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.

Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.

Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.

20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.

I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.

This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.

I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.

Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.

Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.

If it were just a preference thing we'd probably see a whole lot more monoIG armies and a lot less soup at top winning tables. If monoIG are just as good, I would posit that superfriends lists would be less popular simply because people wouldnt need to go out and buy extra stuff from other armies, these competitive soup list arent running multifaction armies because they want to display the full panoply of the Imperium for cool factor.

Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.

Dandelion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.

Citation needed

If you dont see the apparent self evidentness of this, nothing I say is going to change that. The armies of 8E are largely the same as the armies of previous editons going back to before allies and soup. Their strengths and weaknesses and availability of certain capabilities forms their archetypes and playstyles didnt change, and the extremely limited and mostly afterthought/bolt-on nature of cross factional abilities testifies to the fact that they are largely designed as self containted forces. The release schedule, product presentation, packaging, product line releases, etc typically are self contained with very few exceptions.

The fact that allies and soup is also wildly variable in terms of what factions can meaningfully take advantage of it also speaks heavily to the fact that deep integration of cross faction armies isnt taken into particularly deep account.

The actual cross factional integration is suuuuuuper afterthought-ey. It's pretty much all in the detachment rules, with a very small handful of actual cross-factional interaction at the codex level.

Mono guard is basically immune to mortal wounds, regardless of how heavily they are spammed. As soon as they add custodes shield capts, mortal wounds become VERY effective again.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.

Putting it bluntly, Corvus Belli has a list builder that is officially integrated into their Infinity Tournament System.

And they still suffer glaring imbalances, units that never get taken, etc. They can 'see' lists that people save vs lists that people take in tournaments thanks to the requirement of the ITS Pins when playing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.

Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".

Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.

Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".

Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.

If it's easier to just play the soup - and everyone is already playing that soup - that is what most people are going to do. This is common sense. There is also 0 restriction on taking soup. It doesn't hurt you in anyway to do it. It's not that "no one feels like" playing mono IG. It's more like people will pay less money to get the same power level almost every time. People will take 1 box of models to a game if they can over 2 boxes if it doesn't hurt their chances of winning.

I don't like allies ether. I wish mono was the only way to play tournaments.

It's worth mentioning that there are mono-guard players showing up at these tournaments. They do exist.

They're just not placing well.

The most recent tournament, I think, had the first mono-guard list coming behind a Tau list (which is of course mono itself since tau lack allies).

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.

Hell stream the games. Record some and put them in the archives. Actually have competitive "official" GW battle reports. Monetize that shtuff.

Problem is probably getting that many people to respect a NDA but even then some leaks are great for publicity.

If GW was really invested they'd do a big tourney at the end of the year. Invite only and use that for input into the yearly CA. Invite every GT tourney top 10, podcaster and youtuber. Do a US and EU version. Would be great advertising and would get together a vocal and diverse group of 40k players. Modest prize support (custom/one of a kind minis would be so cool) maybe a modest per diem for food/lodging, would probably cost closer to 100-150k but the advertising/buzz created by getting 40k "celebs" together reporting on it seems like it would be easily worth it and some should be able to be re-cooped through monetizing the vids of the event. Rules FAQs/adjustments, a season based tight tourney rules (would actually make getting CA worth it for the missions) and a couple new/modified strats. It would make the CA a must buy for tourney players and given the popularity of tournaments should be an easy profit generator.

I guess they can get most of the benefit of this by just showing up to the GTs though...

And if GW couldn't tell that Marines (specifically primaris) were busted from inception it's not surprising they showed up to a tourney and got ROFL stomped. Although the majority of Dakka couldn't see it either based on how much hate the marines are trash tier threads got at the beginning of 8th...