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.
2019/01/04 11:51:49
Subject: Re:The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
I agree that there should be an abridged version somewhere. A part of me feels that would have been the perfect role for Chapter Approved, but GW has thought otherwise.
Personally I just find it weird they never touch up on the free documents(like the core rules). It would be such a small thing to do that would not only make it handy for people who've played the game for years, but would make it easier for newcomers to get up to speed
2019/01/04 15:42:33
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"
This right here, above and beyond anything else that has been said in the entire existence of this website, is the single ...least informed... thing that has ever been said by anyone on it.
Firstly, not only does the fact that someone can break a lock not make it a bad lock, the company absolutely CAN say that. Locks of all shapes and sizes are a deterrent, not a guarantee. If someone wants your gak bad enough, they CAN find a way to take it.
Second, Humans are better at breaking systems than they are at ANYTHING. The human ability to create will NEVER be able to compete with our ability to break something once it's been made. Look at the entire breadth of human accomplishment: Law, Government, economics, technology, philosophy, all of it doesn't compare to the beautiful insanity of loophole abusing. Governmental Policy is constantly abused for the gain of a few individuals who see the holes in it. Marketplaces basically can't exist without some form of regulation because of how easy it is for someone to eventually dominate them, Technology gets broken into and destroyed all the time and every time they build a new defense, someone writes a way around it. Every major philosophical reasoning ever created has a firm rebuttal out there somewhere.
Breaking systems is what humans DO, there are entire industries dedicated to stopping people from breaking systems(like the Government, for example) and they fail at it constantly. Why do you think every basically every business contract ever written is ridiculously long and stupidly in depth? I just recently went through my 10 page Gym membership contract and all of that together boils down to 'give us money, you use gym, no give money, no get use gym' but it has to be that long because if it wasn't people would break the crap out of it. Even with that 10 page document, I bet I could find a loophole somewhere if I really wanted to.
The best you can hope for is that your system takes just a little bit more effort to break than the person most interested in breaking it is willing to exert.
With today's selection of locks, a lock IS a bad lock if it can still be bested by generic bolt cutter in such a short time span, and to say it's okay for the company to blame the client for going to a bad area (where said lock should do its job) is completely asinine.
It's one thing to break a lock. It's another thing for a lock to be so easily broken and not think to yourself the company needs to improve its design. Makes sense? Another example that works (assuming you work in healthcare in the states) is when various, shady insurances refuse to pay for certain requests because the patient shouldn't have gotten that sick, or not paying because they simply weren't contracted and blame the patient for not knowing, when usually the patient had no other choice but to go to said healthcare center or hospital!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/01/04 15:53:32
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
It doesn't have to be all that complicated; it's mostly GW's hybrid reliance on printed media and online FAQs that makes things muddled.
Have a digital codex and an FAQ for each faction, and a digital rulebook and rulebook FAQ. All rules changes, points adjustments, and the like go in the codex/rulebook. All clarifications and questions go in the FAQ. Update each of the above at least once a year, no more than once a month. Give each one a big fat version number so you know if you're up to date or not.
All you then actually require is your digital codex and digital rulebook. The FAQs are just there to answer any weird rule interaction questions, and additional supplements provide add-ons like scenarios or detachments. If you want to know if a unit's ability has been edited, you look at its entry in the codex. If you want clarification for how that ability is resolved with another ability, you look at the FAQ. Simple. This is a solved problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 15:55:00
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2019/01/04 16:13:44
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
Nah, even if they did that people would still try to twist and pervert the game into a competitive game. They already tried this in a way, remember? And it gave rise to the ITC actually changing/adjusting rules on their own; literally forking the game into "40k" and "Tournament 40k"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/04 16:15:15
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/01/04 21:32:08
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
And who are you, that proud lord said,
To play our game this way?
This game's not meant for tournaments
But that's what you want to play.
A coat of varnish, or a coat of paint
A game still has fluff
And ours are long and interesting my lord,
As long and sharp as yours
And so he spoke and so he spoke,
That lord of Games Workshop
And now the tourneys weep o'er his hall
With no fluff to be cared
Yes now the tourneys weep o'er his hall
With no fluff to be hear.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2019/01/04 22:24:44
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
2019/01/05 10:34:34
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
2019/01/05 17:55:58
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
No where in the last FAQ does it tell you that some rule changes and in 2018 CA, some in 2017 CA etc
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 07:38:38
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/01/06 00:26:13
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
Lemondish wrote: The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
Then they should stop referring to their events as tournaments, abandon all pretense of competitive balance and call them tactical role-playing conventions. Admit that the game is a tactical narrative RPG and we can all stop discussing the inherent biases in the system.
If they actually wanted a competitive game, they would put out a statement stating that ITC is not the version of the game that should be played competitively to put this bs to bed.
ITC and similar mission packs are what ruins the chance of balance ever happening competitively. Until the player base gives up their safety blanket house rules, we can't ever expect a balanced game no matter what GW does about it.
2019/01/06 02:06:14
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/06 02:12:23
2019/01/06 07:40:06
Subject: Re:The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2019/01/06 11:26:07
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
2019/01/06 11:58:25
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
2019/01/06 12:58:23
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
I'm not sure that what this has to do with my post, it's like tangentially related at best. I was just responding to a guy posting misinformation on GW'S design goals
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2019/01/06 13:45:44
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".
Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.
Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.
yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless
but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd
it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...
I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes
How on earth is a new player supposed to navigate through this mess?
By reading the faq's?
I know, reading a text document in 2019. Perish the thought.
Pease list the “text documents” that contain all of this information.
Your codex, BRB, Big Faq 1 & 2, CA 2018 (for point changes) should cover 99% of cases.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
I'm 100% on board with updates to the game and regular ones ... it is vastly superior to previous iterations. I was reading a batrep from 2011 last night and they mentioned having a 45 minute break to argue with TO over something in an FAQ that no -one had access to, .. the internet and mobile tech is light years better now.
the problem now lies in indexing and parsing the multiple sources of info we have .. in a competitive arena, there is not time to search EIGHT sources including their errata & FAQ to find where the answer to a question lies to prove to you opponent.
especially when multiple sources contradict each other
For example look up how terrain rules apply to non infantry ... one source says 50% obscured and another says on & in & obscured... Now I know we've hashed that out here... but consider someone that "Doesn't frequent Dakka" ...
how are they supposed to parse multiple iterations, several variants that questioned these rules ... some within the first month of release and others years later ... when there's no version numbers or validity chain.
so yes the information is there .. yes the situation is 'better' ... but damned if I'm going to call it a perfect situation and not keep calling GW out on it.
2019/01/06 14:24:48
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
I think RE: Faq the issue is they are all over the place. There are multiple FAQs for each faction, with some rules in one but not in another. That's the issue; not that FAQs are bad but the way they are organized seems to be horrible for actually using them. Ideally, you should require two: the main rulebook FAQ and your faction FAQ. But often, there are rules that apply to your codex that aren't in your FAQ, but in another FAQ that broadly applies to multiple codexes (in which case they should be in the MAIN faq)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 14:25:49
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/01/06 14:36:36
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
FAQ organisation is a bit of a mess. I think the existence of separate BIG FAQ and designers' commentary files is completely unnecessary and confusing. There should be one document for errata pertaining each book, and that's it. Also, it can be hard to know which information takes precedence. SMFAQ for example still has errata for certain point costs which were later altered in CA18. It will be super confusing for a new player to know which of these point alterations take precedence, if they're examining the documents after the both have been released a while ago.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do.
B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable.
C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end.
Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
Allies aren't bad like you claim. Anyone that says this forgets that, last edition, you could have Necrons, Tyranids, and Daemons fight side by side if you wanted.
Instead of taking the best parts of each, it didn't happen that often did it?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2019/01/06 17:54:37
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
Yes, I agree this is what they've stated.
No, I don't agree this is actually what they're trying to do.
I think that's about as simply as I can possibly state my position on the subject.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2019/01/06 18:22:10
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
Yes, I agree this is what they've stated.
No, I don't agree this is actually what they're trying to do.
I think that's about as simply as I can possibly state my position on the subject.
that's the expected response from someone who doesn't have an answer to overwhelming evidence proving their position wrong but still doesn't want to let go of it.
If that's your opinion then fine, it's understood. Mine is just the opposite, and instead of leaning on the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, it leans on all the knowledge and information we have on the subject.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2019/01/06 19:09:02
Subject: Re:The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
I found the army lists absolutely life changing.
Never before has anything been so dull as to help me sleep without 0.5 seconds of opening to that page.
2019/01/07 02:28:11
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
All of which is about a year old and the community expects it to be perfect now.
The only atrocious thing here is the absolute incessant whining from this playerbase when they don't get their balance instantly. It's sad, just like your attempts to hide it.
I think they should abandon matched play - jetison the riffraff just like they did from WHFB to AoS, then reintroduce it once the crybabies are gone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 02:29:51
2019/01/07 04:06:55
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
You posted misinformation, and had it corrected. There is no shades of grey there, you were wrong, and you've now admitted as much. Don't lash out at me for your mistake.
I made no further commentary or attempts to "hide" anything, I'm not even sure how my post could possibly be construed as such, especially since I condemned the poster you responded to as well in the exact same breath.
I'm sorry but posts like yours ARE equally as abysmal as his, if not more so. At least his was just an opinion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/07 04:17:50
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2019/01/07 04:40:08
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
HoundsofDemos wrote: Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.
I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.
Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).
It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.
The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.
The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?
What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
Both of your posts are pretty atrocious to be honest.
All of which is about a year old and the community expects it to be perfect now.
The only atrocious thing here is the absolute incessant whining from this playerbase when they don't get their balance instantly. It's sad, just like your attempts to hide it.
I think they should abandon matched play - jetison the riffraff just like they did from WHFB to AoS, then reintroduce it once the crybabies are gone.
And I'm very glad people like you aren't listened to Seems like you're the one crying because people don't adhere to your made up rules of "fluffy" armies.
2019/01/07 04:42:39
Subject: The White Dwarf Tournament Army List (40k Balance)
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? GW have outright said they are trying to cater to a competitive alongside the narrative / casual one, they have separated rules for both, they have looked to the tournament scene for balance decisions, they've hired competitive players to be playtesters, and they've sent staff to events specifically to see what is strong and weak first hand, and interact and ask players opinions on what works and what doesn't, and why.
I think the issue is you have people going:
A) 8th edition is the most balanced edition of 40k ever - but Soup is too good and certain factions and units are overcosted. CA is a step in the right direction but there is more to do. B) 8th edition is as bad or worse than previous editions. About half the factions in the game need total re-writes to make them vaguely playable. C) I hate 8th edition and all it stands for, and I want a game which is entirely different (whether its scrapping IGYG, scrapping command points, going back to previous edition vehicle rules etc etc).
I guess group A and B can try to reach a consensus - but for the most part its 3 views which are mutually incomprehensible with each other.
I mean I don't like soup. I don't like it aesthetically and I think its bad for how it impacts future design decisions of the game. I'd like GW to nerf it so it wasn't essentially the best way to build an army full stop the end. Until they do so however I can't say I have anything against players running it.
D) This Edition has its problems, its fun, but its not great. Could be better!
^I'm D, I love what it has done with some rules, others not so much thrilled about. I miss some of the complexity of having units retreat and regrouping them. I miss having some of the rules and options i could take for my badass commander or leader. I miss having various rules for chapters. I love having multiple detachments, but i don't like having super heavy only detachments with no requirements. I am glad the old force organization chart is gone and now i can fill my army with all terminators. But I don't like facing multiple damage weapons.
I like having cheap plasma... but I don't like facing cheap plasma. Its one catch all really. There are some amazing things about 8th. And there are some really bad things about 8th. I miss some of the customization and the abilities i could take from previous editions, but i am kind of glad we have lost certain things, but sadden that we lost some really cool abilities that were base for something like terminators, sternguard, dire avengers, striking scorpions, wraith guard, and vanguard vets. I miss having the option to upgrade guardian squads with warlocks, but i like have guardians be useful.
There are so many on the fence things this edition its hard to say its bad or good edition.
I love the introduction of multiple formats, but I think certain things are posioning the well. Namely Knights and super heavies, which I think should not be as prevelant as they currently are...
I do think overall that this edition is a great introduction and has some good rules carried over from warhammer fantasy, but some of those rules were best left forgotten.
Having to read faq's is the price you pay for GW actually updating the game, which is VASTLY superior to the situation we had before
I agree! I rather have this updating than just leaving the game to dry. GW saw how it is competitive game and people seem to enjoy watching that they would be daft not to especially in this social media age.
For anyone interested, I wrote an article on our experiences at White Dwarf on our website:
If you dropped Knights to T7 with 2+ save it would fix so much it's not even funny. The main problem with 8th edition is that it's either Bring Knights or lose. Even if you tool explicitly for Knights, they just turn around and get a 3++ and block all your stuff, and even if you do manage to degrade them they just stratagem back up to full effectiveness.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/07 05:48:06
Seems like you're the one crying because people don't adhere to your made up rules of "fluffy" armies.