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.

Latest community article says how the Big FAQ will be after Adepticon (which we all knew) but this part in particular has me thinking:

Link to the article: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/

The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

Would you agree with that sentiment? Why or why not?

Also, do you think that limiting soup/CP/detachments/etc. (any such myriad of changes to end the Loyal 32 powering a Castellan) counts as "balancing tweak" or "seismic change"? In other words, is it something we are likely to see?

I think it's in a good place, but as always there is still room for improvement. I fear we won't see a single change to Knights until they've maximized their sales off these models.

I'd be tempted to dismiss it as marketing waffle but I wouldn't be surprised if GW truly believes it. I think 40k is moving further and further from being in a good place, in all honesty. Frustratingly, I don't think huge rule tweaks across multiple individual units is really needed to help reign things in - just something to rebalance soup against mono-Codex armies and a few changes to the worst offenders.

You only have to look at how GW handled the nerf to Fly to see how clueless they can be about their own rules though, so I see little chance of things improving massively.

I think the game is pretty close to exactly what they intend it to be. So in that sense I agree with it.

What it is not is a tightly constructed balanced competitive ruleset. But that clearly is not a core goal.

I mean, relative to the cavalcade of disasters that 6E and 7E were, it is in a good place.

For GW, and 80% of people who buy GW stuff, I'm sure that 40k 8E is "Good Enough", and the game has certainly turned around relative to the last couple of editions.

That doesn't mean that the game doesn't have major issues, that there arent blatant balance issues, or that the game is perfect. I'd say we're back to a 5E level of balance issues in terms of scale. We still have lots of units nobody will touch in almost every army, many units that are basically autoincludes, stupid powerful combos, allies/soup issues, CP and stratagem abuse, etc.

But for GW and most people, it is good enough. GW isn't making a tightly balanced competitive tactical combat game, they make a sandbox RPG-lite simulator that gives people an excuse to play with plastic soldiers. From that perspective, the game is in a good place.

I wouldn't even dream of ever attending a tournament with anything below an 80% representation of Castellans and mixed Aeldari, obviously.

I enjoy the competitive scene of this version of 40k about as much as I enjoyed the WHFB 7th edition post the Daemons release.

Would you agree with that sentiment? Why or why not?

Putting aside few of the outliers I am inclined to agree. The game has never been in as good of a shape as right now.

I think the issue is that if it doesn't achieve Fulgrim level of "perfection" then a lot of people will argue that the game is outright garbage.

I'd say it's pretty accurate for the average gamer who enjoys a matched play game but less so if you want to aim it at the hyper-competitive gamer.

Frankly i say they have improved however there are still issues and not updated armies (rulewise) especially in regards to Fw indexes which have been taken over by the gw rules Team but have been Terribly neglected.

That said it has massively improved compared to 7th but that is a relative statement and there is only one way from Rock bottom and that is up.

It IS in a pretty good place.

What are the big issues? Castellans and Ynnari.

Despite people trashing marines they're still capable. Soup also isn't generally the boogeyman it's made to be.

Will GSC and assassins screw the meta? I have no idea. Will CSM get new tools to make them cut a little deeper into competitiveness? It seems possible.

Just saw the article and knew that there would be a rapid response here!

I actually am inclined to agree that it's in a good place.....for the most part. I'm shocked that they state only minor tweaks incoming, especially with the consistent report of soup and CP excess problems.

However, I did notice that the image accompanying the article clearly shows Imperial soup....so maybe that's a hint that some changes may come about.

But if it's mostly in the realm of tournaments/competitive play where the issue of soup is causing the problems, surely it's the responsibility of the TOs to make the relevant changes? It's not like they have a problem making changes to mission packs etc. If they can manage to do that, then the game sits well for the rest of the population who get tired of their units getting hit with a nerf bat just because of how it interacts in a soup based list, rather than by itself within it's parent codex.

Why are we waiting for GW to fix competitive 40K when the game plays perfectly well in any other setting? I woudl love to see ITC step up and initiate some rules to curb the prevalence of soups, or the associated issues that surround soup (the CP generation/use rather than armies having mixed detachments)

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I wouldn't even dream of ever attending a tournament with anything below an 80% representation of Castellans and mixed Aeldari, obviously.

I enjoy the competitive scene of this version of 40k about as much as I enjoyed the WHFB 7th edition post the Daemons release.

Eh... I've attended 3 8th edition tournaments so far in the past few months.

First tournament was won by Chaos Daemons. I think second was a guy with 3 Stormravens, a Knights detachment of a Crusader + 2 Helverins, and Loyal 32, and I'm pretty sure I got 3rd with Cadian Guard + Terryn Knights (2 Knights Gallant, no Castellans).

Second tournament was won by Dark Eldar, 2nd place was Admech + Raven Guard Marines, 3rd place was Knights (Castellan, Gallant, Crusader) + Minimal Guard.

Third tournament was won by Space Wolves + Admech, I got second with my Cadian Guard + Terryn Knights, and third was Orks.

Of those 9 lists in Top 3 at those 3 tournaments, only one had a Castellan, and only 1 Aeldari list. Sure, there were a lot of Castellan lists at these games, but I personally never had trouble with one. Sure, it would spend a turn and take out some of my tanks, but next turn a Gallant would one hit KO it. Or it would fire at my Gallant, and I'd simply absorb all it's shooting with my 3++ save and then kick it's teeth in.

There is a huge difference in what you play against at actual tournaments vs what you think you'll play against. I haven't seen one "single castellan + guard" list yet, for example. I've seen a single Ynnari player too. Don't avoid going to tournaments just because you don't like the internet meta.

I think it is in a good spot.

Power Armor is a bit weak.

Strategems work as a force multiplier, and when you stack them 2 or 3 deep on top of a relics and warlord traits on a unit that alreay costs more than 300 points... Well multiping big numbers several times ends up with an even bigger numbers.

Allies are in a good spot. (Boo hoo soup. Yeah we heard you.)

Word of the phoenix is probably too powerful.


But tau just won a big tounament with gene stealers as a runner up. All factions are playable, except grey knights. Many factions making it to tap tables.

I think strategems needs some serious work to get it right. Like a complete re thinking, strategems 2.0, but failing that a simple rule so knights, and other heavyweights cant get an invul above 4+. And I think its good.

There is a huge difference in what you play against at actual tournaments vs what you think you'll play against. I haven't seen one "single castellan + guard" list yet, for example. I've seen a single Ynnari player too. Don't avoid going to tournaments just because you don't like the internet meta.

There is also a huge difference between most tournaments and huge events like LVO. Events locally to me have been won by Necrons, Sisters of Battle, and Drukhari. The world is a bit more diverse than whatever comes out of the big US tourneys.

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm shocked that they state only minor tweaks incoming, especially with the consistent report of soup and CP excess problems.

Small changes can have large effects.

Was anyone really expecting them to say that the game needed work? That they had a number of concerns about the state of the game?

Of course they said the game is in a good place, this is the only thing they could say, no PR or Marketing douche is going to let them come out and actually state anything meaningful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I'm shocked that they state only minor tweaks incoming, especially with the consistent report of soup and CP excess problems.

Small changes can have large effects.

This is true and hopefully there is something that changes the meta without going too far in the wrong direction. Overall I'm happy with the game as it currently stands. I have my lists that I can take to a competitive event and I have my fluff lists which I love to take for a spin with friends. Would it be better if these were the same thing? Sure, but that kind of balance is probably impossible to achieve.

Warhammer 40,000 is most certainly not in "a good place" if one uses any metric other than GWs' profits. The core game is shallow and repetitive. It still is not balanced, despite many FAQs, the current incarnation of Chapter Approved, the March FAQ, or GW's own claims on social media. Most of the new releases from the past two years are soulless, superficial sculpts. The prices are as absurd as ever, and climbing.

Kill Team is a perfect example of wasted potential. The game could have been a deep, tactical game that allows players to customize the equipment of each mini, creating individuals and yes, telling stories. Instead we got low-model count 8th edition with some tweaks.

If you are Kevin Rountree and Co. the game is absolutely fantastic, because you have discovered that so long as you maintain a basic social media presence and claim that the game is "balanced," "strategic," and "amazing," that the quality of your miniatures, your rules and their affordability don't matter in the slightest.

There are far better games to play. Infinity, Malifaux, Maelstrom's Edge, the newly-kickstarted Zone Raiders, to name a few. GW survives because they have Space Marines, a background that until recently was pretty awesome, ubiquity, and a strong base of fans that will support them no matter what. (Remember, even during the Kirby years GW was profitable) Imagine a world where GW's rules and prices matched the coolness of the lore and aesthetic.

I play at tournaments regularly, there are a lot of Knight lists around, sure, but the majority of my games haven't been against Knights or Ynarri (In fact I haven't played a game against Ynarri in my last 15 tournament games.)

These are usually 30 man+ events, mostly 60 mans so the mid-size indie tournaments (not ITC, as people don't run that much here). I'm also not playing on the bottom tables, I haven't won a tournament bigger than a 20 man in the last year, but I've been playing top 3 tables round 3 or 4 and top 5 tables round 4 or 5 in pretty much all of them. Last tournament I went to I played against:

Round 1: Chaos + Helverins (Random draw)
Round 2: Nids (Table 3)
Round 3: Guard + Castellan and 3 Wardens! (Table 2)
Round 4: Thousand Sons (Table 5)
Round 5: Aeldari (Quins/Craftworlds) (Table 3)

I can't remember as much detail from earlier tournaments, but that isn't a weird draw to play against. I finished 15th/60 coming off a draw against the Aeldari list, which I was a little unhappy with as I played badly in game 3 and lost due to my own incompetence and drew with the Aeldari due to time being called on the round. Top 3 at that tournament were:

1st) Aeldari Venom Spam
2nd) Imperium Deathwatch/Blood Angels/Ad Mech
3rd) Knights + Guard (not sure which Knights were in it)

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It IS in a pretty good place.

What are the big issues? Castellans and Ynnari.

Despite people trashing marines they're still capable. Soup also isn't generally the boogeyman it's made to be.

Will GSC and assassins screw the meta? I have no idea. Will CSM get new tools to make them cut a little deeper into competitiveness? It seems possible.

and expecting GW to make massive buffs to marines is proably unrealistic. it's premature, GW'll wanna see how the new vanguard stuff works out for Marines before making alterations

Drager wrote:
I play at tournaments regularly, there are a lot of Knight lists around, sure, but the majority of my games haven't been against Knights or Ynarri (In fact I haven't played a game against Ynarri in my last 15 tournament games.)

These are usually 30 man+ events, mostly 60 mans so the mid-size indie tournaments (not ITC, as people don't run that much here). I'm also not playing on the bottom tables, I haven't won a tournament bigger than a 20 man in the last year, but I've been playing top 3 tables round 3 or 4 and top 5 tables round 4 or 5 in pretty much all of them. Last tournament I went to I played against:

Round 1: Chaos + Helverins (Random draw)
Round 2: Nids (Table 3)
Round 3: Guard + Castellan and 3 Wardens! (Table 2)
Round 4: Thousand Sons (Table 5)
Round 5: Aeldari (Quins/Craftworlds) (Table 3)

I can't remember as much detail from earlier tournaments, but that isn't a weird draw to play against. I finished 15th/60 coming off a draw against the Aeldari list, which I was a little unhappy with as I played badly in game 3 and lost due to my own incompetence and drew with the Aeldari due to time being called on the round. Top 3 at that tournament were:

1st) Aeldari Venom Spam
2nd) Imperium Deathwatch/Blood Angels/Ad Mech
3rd) Knights + Guard (not sure which Knights were in it)

Sounds about right. I think Knights are around a lot because they complement literally every other Imperial list in existence so well, that many Imperial lists just include them for the hell of it. That and the models are amazingly cool. A well-painted Knight is one of the best looking models in this game, IMO. It's unfortunate that I see so few that actually take the time to do them justice.

8th is still really unfun and it's hamstrung by it's bare bones core rules that requires stacking layers of buff mechanics to give the illusion of depth. Past editions had core rules that actually generated interesting gameplay but a core rules only game of 8th (aka using index armies) is completely bland. Everyone talks about balance bring better (checkers is balanced but it ain't much of a game) but the game in it's current state is a shell of it's former self with the same "multiple rules source" bloat issue that people raged about with 7th.

 Vankraken wrote:
8th is still really unfun and it's hamstrung by it's bare bones core rules that requires stacking layers of buff mechanics to give the illusion of depth. Past editions had core rules that actually generated interesting gameplay but a core rules only game of 8th (aka using index armies) is completely bland. Everyone talks about balance bring better (checkers is balanced but it ain't much of a game) but the game in it's current state is a shell of it's former self with the same "multiple rules source" bloat issue that people raged about with 7th.

But why would you play a "core rules only" game of 40k?

This was a good communication. It had information, it announced a change, it detailed why there was a change, and set expectations.

I think 40K is in a good place. Its no where close to perfect..

but..

Its doing well.

(For me 40K is only 2K armies using ITC rules)

The game is fine overall and a vast improvement concerning depth compared to 6th and 7th edition. Balance is also quite good, there's no unit I'd rate as bad aside from some Forgeworld units. Units being too strong is usually not a problem in a casual meta as you can settle that with your opponent beforehand.
GW adds more and more expansions again but they outright stated that they see 8th edition as a toolbox for players and as that it works fine. If rulebook + index is too bland, buy Codizes. If that's still too bland, add campaign rules. Or play Cities of Death/ planetstrike or whatever. Or add battle honors. There are many things you can do, but you don't have to.

Only downside of the game is the IGOUGO-system but that's not about to change in this edition.

Drager wrote:
I play at tournaments regularly, there are a lot of Knight lists around, sure, but the majority of my games haven't been against Knights or Ynarri (In fact I haven't played a game against Ynarri in my last 15 tournament games.)
Round 1: Chaos + Helverins (Random draw)
Round 2: Nids (Table 3)
Round 3: Guard + Castellan and 3 Wardens! (Table 2)
Round 4: Thousand Sons (Table 5)
Round 5: Aeldari (Quins/Craftworlds) (Table 3)

yet in this event 50% of the games you played were vs the 2 biggest "winners" in current 40K. Knights (you did play Helverins...I guess it counts) and Aeldari soup. Still nice to play vs TSons and nids but knights are still the meta overall, and not sure if this will change for the Imperium. Now it's just going to be Knights/IG/<insert 3rd elite faction here> and an assassin reinforcement slot.

 bullyboy wrote:

Drager wrote:
I play at tournaments regularly, there are a lot of Knight lists around, sure, but the majority of my games haven't been against Knights or Ynarri (In fact I haven't played a game against Ynarri in my last 15 tournament games.)
Round 1: Chaos + Helverins (Random draw)
Round 2: Nids (Table 3)
Round 3: Guard + Castellan and 3 Wardens! (Table 2)
Round 4: Thousand Sons (Table 5)
Round 5: Aeldari (Quins/Craftworlds) (Table 3)

yet in this event 50% of the games you played were vs the 2 biggest "winners" in current 40K. Knights (you did play Helverins...I guess it counts) and Aeldari soup. Still nice to play vs TSons and nids but knights are still the meta overall, and not sure if this will change for the Imperium. Now it's just going to be Knights/IG/<insert 3rd elite faction here> and an assassin reinforcement slot.

How do you figure? It's pretty much accepted that Chaos Knights are not very good, since they lack the stratagems that make the Imperial Knights so powerful. Any list with 4 Knights isn't really meta either, since it's absolutely hard-countered by so many things. It's a very rock/paper scissors style, which you don't often see winning tournaments. Aeldari soup is pretty meta, true, but it depends on the list. Quins/Craftworlds at least doesn't have the Drukari detachment you normally see in meta, so he can't use Vect, so it's not as hard as it can possibly be.

The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

I don't know what to think about it. But this looks like GW will never fix GK :(
Well I guess they can't get feedback from tournaments and playtesters, when no one plays GK.

Karol wrote:

The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

I don't know what to think about it. But this looks like GW will never fix GK :(
Well I guess they can't get feedback from tournaments and playtesters, when no one plays GK.

To be entirely fair to GW, GK cannot be fixed by an FAQ. They need a ground-up redesign in a new codex to be viable.

They had 2 CA, WD every month and ton of FAQs, they have a site. They know the army is bad, what do they lose from puting out a free pdf with beta codex? Also if they knew that they can not fix the GK codex, they shouldn't have lied about the "great" changes coming in 2018 CA. I had to walk to school whole december, because I joined buying it.

But all in all what I think is unimportant. If GW thinks the game is doing great, then it probably is.