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.

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL - Some people get it. The game is making tons of money so it's in a good place. Balance be damned.

To be fair, it couldn't be doing so well money-wise if it wasn't doing something good game-wise.
Are there still balance issues? You betcha, but it's far more balanced than so, so many of the prior editions.

I think the biggest issue people struggle with is that they really hoped 8E was going to be the end-all, be-all edition for balance.
And honestly, I feel that is always going to result in a let-down. There are just too many factions/models and rules to ever have an air-tight balance 40K edition.

But 8E has certainly made it closer than any prior edition and continues to tweak for said balance. Enough people recognize this that the sales have been positively impacted.
Ergo, 40K is in a pretty good place

Thanks for the good laugh! I really needed it.
-

Well all we really want is an honest attempt. Infantry at 4 ppm while a termagant and a conscript is 4ppm is NOT an honest attempt. DW ammo is not an honest attempt. I agree the game is probably the most balanced it has been except perhaps the prevalence of double moves and free actions (possibly the most busted stuff to ever exist in this game) saying your game is more balanced than previous editions of 40k isn't saying too much. Their tweaks IMO have done more harm than good. The game was the most fun during index 40k.

How common were abilities to fight twice/shoot twice/get free actions in previous editions. Not to mention first turn charging. This stuff ranged from IMPOSSIBLE - to extremely rare in previous editions. At least in 7th eddition you knew you weren't getting charged turn 1. At least in 7th eddition you had to roll to get your psychic powers. Now you can start the game automatically with Quicken/Protect/Fortune/Doom AUTOMATICALLY. I'm not singling out Eldar here just using them as an example. Many aspects on 8th eddition are better for balance like cover being +1 armor instead of a 4++ save. The elements I pointed out above are actually less balanced than before.

Pleasestop wrote:
Weird, cuz I play games to have a good time with my buddies, and saying "hey man, I'd rather not play against 2000 pts of tournament prep but would rather play like, mono codex or something" shouldn't be looked down on. Your not limiting your opponents fun, your making it better for both of you. If one of you isn't having any fun, neither of you are.

Weird, that goes both ways. When I have a limited number of times to test out ideas before a tournament I tend to want to test things out, get familiar with the beats of the army, see what needs to be tweaked, that shouldn't be looked down on. You're not disrespecting your opponent's time, you're respecting your own.

There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

Judging by the proliferation of tournaments and attendance at these events this is what people want to play. However there are WAY more people playing 40k outside of competitive. I think its fundamentally wrongto assume that there should not be a social contract in a non competitive game. If you go to a local game store for pickup games and you are playing competitive then you have by default made a social contract to do so.

As a casual game 40k is probably in a better place than its ever been. As a competitive game with house rules like the ITC then its definitely in the best place its ever been.

That right there is what I take issue with. I play to have a good time as well. My buddies aren't into tabletop gaming, so pickup games are all I got. I can't do anything about my opponent's enjoyment outside of not being a jerk. I have no control over what anyone else likes or dislikes. If they don't like something, they don't like it. I don't ask others not to use certain units, or a specific deck because I play poorly against it- I usually treat it as an opportunity to get a game in and to improve. If someone whines about what I brought in that day because they can't figure out how to beat it, I'm not going to say "Oh, okay, I'll just not play X, I'll put my favorite Y away in my limited spare time to suit you and your own deficiencies."

It's easy to blame other players. That's the trend: if there is something one personally dislikes- more often than not because they don't know how to defeat it, therefore they frequently lose against it- it becomes personal. If I were to play say, a storm deck or imperial CP soup- that becomes a character flaw I possess, rather than an issue of game design. Players prefer to blame other players, because acknowledging that many of these issues stem from decisions made by the company that produces said game leads to admitting one's own responsibility in financially supporting practices one does not like. Which leads to changing one's own behavior. Hence the "unfunning" of gaming.

auticus wrote:

It has always been a game more about providing a framework to play with toys with pals than about playing a balanced challenge of generalship as a tactical combat sim.

Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but for most 40k is the only option for something like that. The other games often don't have a local scene, or have an extremely small one. Trying to get people into something other than 40k is hard, and it has nothing to do with game quality unfortunately.

 Nithaniel wrote:
There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

^^^^competitive 40k has basically spun off its own versions of the game at this point that is something different than what GW sells.

Imagine if the game were balanced both externally and internally to a lot better standard... these issues wouldn't be as glaring.

and it has nothing to do with game quality unfortunately.

Exalted.

 Nithaniel wrote:
There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

Judging by the proliferation of tournaments and attendance at these events this is what people want to play. However there are WAY more people playing 40k outside of competitive. I think its fundamentally wrongto assume that there should not be a social contract in a non competitive game. If you go to a local game store for pickup games and you are playing competitive then you have by default made a social contract to do so.

As a casual game 40k is probably in a better place than its ever been. As a competitive game with house rules like the ITC then its definitely in the best place its ever been.

There is no need for the discussion to go down this path but if the games options are reasonably balanced like the quote "the game is in a good place" should suggest - you wouldn't need a social contract to play a certain kind of army. If the game was actually in a good place - you could play a fluff list vs Ynnari and have a chance. Currently you would have 0 chance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

auticus wrote:

It has always been a game more about providing a framework to play with toys with pals than about playing a balanced challenge of generalship as a tactical combat sim.

Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but for most 40k is the only option for something like that. The other games often don't have a local scene, or have an extremely small one. Trying to get people into something other than 40k is hard, and it has nothing to do with game quality unfortunately.

 Nithaniel wrote:
There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

^^^^competitive 40k has basically spun off its own versions of the game at this point that is something different than what GW sells.

Pretty much. Competitive 40k has done everything possible to *remove* the social contract and anything which isn't "who brought the better list"

It has yes. Competitive 40k is a sibling to most every other game's standard mode. You go in, you have points and standard missions, and you just simply play.

People don't want to socialize, they want to play a game.

There is no positive or negative lean when I say that. It just is.

Competitive 40k (and competitive aos, and competitive every other game) is for many folks the default of their community.

Wayniac wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

auticus wrote:

It has always been a game more about providing a framework to play with toys with pals than about playing a balanced challenge of generalship as a tactical combat sim.

Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but for most 40k is the only option for something like that. The other games often don't have a local scene, or have an extremely small one. Trying to get people into something other than 40k is hard, and it has nothing to do with game quality unfortunately.

 Nithaniel wrote:
There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

^^^^competitive 40k has basically spun off its own versions of the game at this point that is something different than what GW sells.

Pretty much. Competitive 40k has done everything possible to *remove* the social contract and anything which isn't "who brought the better list"

There really is nothing wrong with that though is there? Someone decides to run a tournament. They decide the rules and charge you to play. If you don't like it create your own tournament.

At least thats what TO's say.

Or if you don't like it go play somewhere else and talk to your opponent about the way you want to play...social contract!

If I didn't want to socialize, I wouldn't be playing 40k. I certainly wouldn't be traveling to tournaments.

If you want the modeling and setups, but not the social, you can just set up dioramas in your basement.

If you want a tactical challenge, video games do that *much* better than tabletop wargames.

If you want to prove your superiority, just about any other pursuit (sports, PvP video games, board games, professional skills, anything really) does that better.

So why play 40k, a meatspace game with other people, if you don't want to interact with other people?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Nithaniel wrote:
There is no social contract for competitive play. The competitive scene has taken to creating its own missions and its own terrain rules and effectively a house rules packet.

Judging by the proliferation of tournaments and attendance at these events this is what people want to play. However there are WAY more people playing 40k outside of competitive. I think its fundamentally wrongto assume that there should not be a social contract in a non competitive game. If you go to a local game store for pickup games and you are playing competitive then you have by default made a social contract to do so.

As a casual game 40k is probably in a better place than its ever been. As a competitive game with house rules like the ITC then its definitely in the best place its ever been.

There is no need for the discussion to go down this path but if the games options are reasonably balanced like the quote "the game is in a good place" should suggest - you wouldn't need a social contract to play a certain kind of army. If the game was actually in a good place - you could play a fluff list vs Ynnari and have a chance. Currently you would have 0 chance.

Here's the thing, people are looking at this social contract thing as if GW were using it as a backstop against poor balance. They're not. They're making a game with a wide variety of disparate forces covering an entire galaxy with different scales, purposes, and mechanisms. They're saying "here is this universe, go play in it" in a very wide open manner so they can make minis of anything they want from that universe, and leave it up to the customers to decide how to use them.

The factions available in 40k often dont make a lot of sense as a wargame, the scale and purposes of these factions and units don't mesh terribly well. We have conventional armies fighting pitched battles with stealthy pirates fighting gibbering invasions of worldplagues being faced by the equivalent of law enforcement agencies. It's like doing a WW2 game and having distinct and separate faction lists for the US Army, The Tuskeegee Airmen, US Marines, US Navy, 1st Armored, OSI, 101st Airborne, the FBI, the Wehrmacht, the SS, the 6th Army in 1940, the Red Army, the NKVD, the 1st Ukrainian Front, the Kwangtung Army, Soviet Partisans, Italian Bersaglieri, the Vercor Resistance, and the BEF, all fighting on the same battlespace and objectives largely completely divorced from their actual context. These factions make a lot more sense in an RPG lite sandbox sim however where people make up their own stories and scenarios or where a 3rd player GM is handling stuff.

The social contract element is there because GW is basically using the game as a mechanism for interacting with the universe in a manner the players find interesting and crafted to their taste, as opposed to the game being the point in and of itself and having to rely on a social contract to fix their bad balance. Unfortunately a lot of gameplay for people is only available via pickup play which defaults to basically tournament standards, and that's just not the core of what GW sells with 40k.

Bharring wrote:
If I didn't want to socialize, I wouldn't be playing 40k. I certainly wouldn't be traveling to tournaments.

If you want the modeling and setups, but not the social, you can just set up dioramas in your basement.

If you want a tactical challenge, video games do that *much* better than tabletop wargames.

If you want to prove your superiority, just about any other pursuit (sports, PvP video games, board games, professional skills, anything really) does that better.

So why play 40k, a meatspace game with other people, if you don't want to interact with other people?

Believe it or not but this happens in video games too. SC2 had a huge uproar on release about whether the community should shun the influx of new people who did not say "GL HF" at the start of a match or "GG" at the end. It was a serious controversy because Western Brood War had been so small and insular a community that they had created a list of social norms and expectations. When SC2 had breakout popularity (that since faltered but existed initially) the new people had no knowledge of any of that and just wanted to play a game without really socializing.

40k is the same way. 8th is MASSIVELY popular and bringing more and more people to events. This is leading to new arrivals that break the social contracts of a previously insular community (both our global community and each local FLGS community). Lots of these new people just want to play and aren't necessarily in the bag for weaving through a new social system. It's not for you or anyone else to tell them to go play something else because you, subjectively, think it's a better venue for their desires. The best we can do is just recognize lots of different types of players now play this game and try to find ways to easily identify each other so that we do not have matches where player expectations are mismatched (and thus cause the friction we regularly see).

40K is good in dakka dakka breaks down to:
- The vast majority of people.. 8th is fun and enjoyable. Love it.
- GW sales are much higher with it.
- Huge increase in tournaments and competitive play.
- Large diversity in factions and play.

10 people on Dakkadakka…

- It sucks and is terriblebad. RUIN is Nigh! Why won’t you believe us? Yer so dumb!

Wayniac wrote:Pretty much. Competitive 40k has done everything possible to *remove* the social contract and anything which isn't "who brought the better list"

Aye, and for that type of gameplay, that's fine and even a good thing, but does rely on the acknowledgement that it's different from the base game, and I wish some of the tournament stuff was a bit more cognizant of that sometimes (both for how they impact nontournament play and how they can go farther in some changes that they shouldnt be beholden to).

auticus wrote:It has yes. Competitive 40k is a sibling to most every other game's standard mode. You go in, you have points and standard missions, and you just simply play.

People don't want to socialize, they want to play a game.

There is no positive or negative lean when I say that. It just is.

Competitive 40k (and competitive aos, and competitive every other game) is for many folks the default of their community.

This is how I got into 40k and played it for most of my gaming career. I still dont think its bad, its still mostly what I play, but I do have to acknowledge that its not really what GW caters to. It took me a long while to realize how GW actually envisions their game being played.

Reemule wrote:

- It sucks and is terriblebad. RUIN is Nigh! Why won’t you believe us? Yer so dumb!

We're too deficient to be able to see past the marketing flash. GW have us enthralled with magic and stuff. Our feeble minds just can't comprehend what they're doing to us.

Bharring wrote:
If I didn't want to socialize, I wouldn't be playing 40k. I certainly wouldn't be traveling to tournaments.

If you want the modeling and setups, but not the social, you can just set up dioramas in your basement.

That depends on how you define "socialize." Does chatting with your opponent during the game count?

If you want a tactical challenge, video games do that *much* better than tabletop wargames.

Aren't they both equally bad at providing a strategic experience these days? Video games have devolved into a vehicle for impulse purchases at the cost of strategy, immersion and depth. LOL, Overwatch and the like are more digital drugs than games.

If you want to prove your superiority, just about any other pursuit (sports, PvP video games, board games, professional skills, anything really) does that better.

PVP games are the leading cause of an increasing number of crappy video games. Fast-paced, a strong desire to win that can be monetized, etc.

So why play 40k, a meatspace game with other people, if you don't want to interact with other people?

Because I like to unplug from time to time, and enjoy strategy games that allow me to play with minis I built and painted myself? Because I can "interact" with people in various ways, including but not limited to debating on what the rules say and how to apply them?

This isn't directed at you, but why is a dislike of pre-game negotiation equated with not wanting to be social? What about the part where you actually, you know, play?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Weird, cuz I play games to have a good time with my buddies, and saying "hey man, I'd rather not play against 2000 pts of tournament prep but would rather play like, mono codex or something" shouldn't be looked down on. Your not limiting your opponents fun, your making it better for both of you. If one of you isn't having any fun, neither of you are.

Weird, that goes both ways. When I have a limited number of times to test out ideas before a tournament I tend to want to test things out, get familiar with the beats of the army, see what needs to be tweaked, that shouldn't be looked down on. You're not disrespecting your opponent's time, you're respecting your own.

Right, which was my point ? We should have aconversation before we play so we don't waste each other's time? If I bring a fun list and you bring a vagkicker all that's going to happen is your going to kick my in my bag for three hours, and neither of us have had fun, and you don't know if your list is tournament ready.

So, social contract -- a simple, hey let's play a [blank style] pickup game, with these conditions [tournament, casual, narrative] stops unfun games and wasted games. Like, maybe I want to play Scions because I've been painting them for a while and they haven't seen any play lately, and you want to play a vagkicking Prep List with a Castellan, a smash captain and a Guard battalion to get ready for a tournament. One of us either needs to change our list or we need to find another game. But not discussing it beforehand and assuming everyone is playing for the same reason is a Competitive at all Costs mind set or a Casual at all costs mindset, and it hurts the Community.

To borrow from a different type of game which is still a social experience, tabletop RPGs.

What is the more fun aspect of playing an RPG with people, playing the game or trying to unravel unclear rules? Which of those gives better social interactions between players?

This idea that bad rules writing and game design can be handwaved away because it encourages social interaction is terrible.

Clear rules allows people to get down to the business of playing the game and socially interacting in a way that is much more fulfilling than "This rule doesn't work as it is written, this is how I think it should be played".

Daedalus81 wrote:

Reemule wrote:

- It sucks and is terriblebad. RUIN is Nigh! Why won’t you believe us? Yer so dumb!

We're too deficient to be able to see past the marketing flash. GW have us enthralled with magic and stuff. Our feeble minds just can't comprehend what they're doing to us.

Really, I think it mostly comes down to priorities. GW games are so ubiquitous you can find opponents just about anywhere. Trying to play anything else often means building the community for that game yourself, which can be difficult and time-consuming. Just getting friends to try something new is akin to Sisyphus. At the end of the day, I think GW's presence, and people's love of buying new minis are what keep GW around. If a tighter, more balanced, more tactical game was the #1 priority of the player base, we would have one. People, and miniature or CCG players especially, prioritize acquiring new stuff over longterm goals such as better gameplay.

auticus wrote:It has yes. Competitive 40k is a sibling to most every other game's standard mode. You go in, you have points and standard missions, and you just simply play.

People don't want to socialize, they want to play a game.

There is no positive or negative lean when I say that. It just is.

Competitive 40k (and competitive aos, and competitive every other game) is for many folks the default of their community.

This brings up the divide amongst gamers. For some strange reason we have grouped ourselves into tribes named Casual or Competitive and treat the other tribe with hostility, because those people play the game the wrong way. The false dichotomy has been tremendously unhelpful. A game can be played both at home with friends or at a tournament, and provide a quality experience if it is well-written. Not caring so much about winning as having a laugh is not a sin. A person taking their minis to a tournament most likely does so because they actually enjoy that level of competition. Making any game tighter, clearer and more balanced does not necessarily hurt the enjoyment of the "beer and pretzels" crowd. Our interests are not at odds.

I think people is using "social contract" here to define different things. Some people use it to refer to talking with your opponent about the competitive game you are gonna have. Other people is using it to refer to actually chosing if you are gonna play competitive, or a narrative game, what narrative are you gonna do, etc...
As Vaktati says, the fact that many people doesnt even thinks outside the competitive side of play is a proof that they dont quite understand how GW sees his own game, no matter how much double marketing speech about matched play they do.
(And this is not an excuse of bad balance,)

Pleasestop wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Pleasestop wrote:
Weird, cuz I play games to have a good time with my buddies, and saying "hey man, I'd rather not play against 2000 pts of tournament prep but would rather play like, mono codex or something" shouldn't be looked down on. Your not limiting your opponents fun, your making it better for both of you. If one of you isn't having any fun, neither of you are.

Weird, that goes both ways. When I have a limited number of times to test out ideas before a tournament I tend to want to test things out, get familiar with the beats of the army, see what needs to be tweaked, that shouldn't be looked down on. You're not disrespecting your opponent's time, you're respecting your own.

Right, which was my point ? We should have aconversation before we play so we don't waste each other's time? If I bring a fun list and you bring a vagkicker all that's going to happen is your going to kick my in my bag for three hours, and neither of us have had fun, and you don't know if your list is tournament ready.

So, social contract -- a simple, hey let's play a [blank style] pickup game, with these conditions [tournament, casual, narrative] stops unfun games and wasted games. Like, maybe I want to play Scions because I've been painting them for a while and they haven't seen any play lately, and you want to play a vagkicking Prep List with a Castellan, a smash captain and a Guard battalion to get ready for a tournament. One of us either needs to change our list or we need to find another game. But not discussing it beforehand and assuming everyone is playing for the same reason is a Competitive at all Costs mind set or a Casual at all costs mindset, and it hurts the Community.

Why do you place the responsibility for a fun game solely on players? It rests with the company that produces that game, and trades it with you in return for an amount of money- which represents the time and effort of your labor- more than anyone else. It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing. Games Workshop has existed since the 1970's. The have been making Warhammer 40,000 for 25-30 years. They have never produced a high-quality ruleset. Their prices are astronomical. The onus is on Games Workshop, Plc. to provide a balanced, functional ruleset. It is absolutely not the responsibility of the players to repair a damaged product.

Why is there a double standard for GW? If it was Mantic, Privateer Press, Corvus Belli, or Fantasy Flight, would we be so forgiving? After having decades to get it right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I think people is using "social contract" here to define different things. Some people use it to refer to talking with your opponent about the competitive game you are gonna have. Other people is using it to refer to actually chosing if you are gonna play competitive, or a narrative game, what narrative are you gonna do, etc...
As Vaktati says, the fact that many people doesnt even thinks outside the competitive side of play is a proof that they dont quite understand how GW sees his own game, no matter how much double marketing speech about matched play they do.
(And this is not an excuse of bad balance,)

You're right, GW is clueless about how people play their games, and what they want in their games. They are so locked into their narrow mindset of how they believe the game is played that it doesn't even occur to them to ask their own players how they experience it. They don't even realize that 40k, KT, AOS, etc. are terrible narrative games! But we like the background and acquiring new minis, so we keep them in business anyway, and continue to complain and have these discussions. Thus the cycle continues.

 Galas wrote:
I think people is using "social contract" here to define different things. Some people use it to refer to talking with your opponent about the competitive game you are gonna have. Other people is using it to refer to actually chosing if you are gonna play competitive, or a narrative game, what narrative are you gonna do, etc...
As Vaktati says, the fact that many people doesnt even thinks outside the competitive side of play is a proof that they dont quite understand how GW sees his own game, no matter how much double marketing speech about matched play they do.
(And this is not an excuse of bad balance,)

The flip side to that is that playing narrative is just this massive land of the unknown, players often take the 'let's play narrative' as an opportunity to put all kinds of weird crap on the table. That doesn't even get into the library's worth of alternate stratagems, setups, table styles, objectives. A lot of times I just want to play Matched because I know what's going to be on the table, I know what the rules are going to be, I don't have to spend 20 minutes reading the scenario and all the associated strats before starting the game.

If you play... Guard / Ynnari / Tau, the game is a great, great place.

If you play... Orks, Knights, Genestealer Cults, Eldars; the game is in a pretty darn good spot.

If you play... Deathwatch, Tyranids, Thousand Sons, Deathwatch; the game is in a good spot.

If you play... Necrons, Ultramarines, Chaos Space Marines; the game could use some improvement.

If you play... Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, or Codex Marines that aren't blue; the game is pointless to even try.

The problem right now is the delta between the haves and the have not's is extreme. And in some cases the matchups are just brutally punishing and un-fun. For example, run a competitive triple riptide Tau list against your buddies competitive Necrons list. It's a joke of a game. Or, run that same Tau list against anything marines that isn't Deathwatch. This is a problem.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL - Some people get it. The game is making tons of money so it's in a good place. Balance be damned.

To be fair, it couldn't be doing so well money-wise if it wasn't doing something good game-wise.
Are there still balance issues? You betcha, but it's far more balanced than so, so many of the prior editions.

I think the biggest issue people struggle with is that they really hoped 8E was going to be the end-all, be-all edition for balance.
And honestly, I feel that is always going to result in a let-down. There are just too many factions/models and rules to ever have an air-tight balance 40K edition.

But 8E has certainly made it closer than any prior edition and continues to tweak for said balance. Enough people recognize this that the sales have been positively impacted.
Ergo, 40K is in a pretty good place

-

Well all we really want is an honest attempt. Infantry at 4 ppm while a termagant and a conscript is 4ppm is NOT an honest attempt. DW ammo is not an honest attempt. I agree the game is probably the most balanced it has been except perhaps the prevalence of double moves and free actions (possibly the most busted stuff to ever exist in this game) saying your game is more balanced than previous editions of 40k isn't saying too much. Their tweaks IMO have done more harm than good. The game was the most fun during index 40k.

Look at an army like GK - how hard is it to drop all their units by 20% so they can compete? It takes practically no time at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL - Some people get it. The game is making tons of money so it's in a good place. Balance be damned.

To a fish, a flood is a real estate boom.

To a company, a record-breakingly profitable game is an incredibly healthy one.

It is record-breakingly profitable, because GW is supporting it - or in spite of that?

Can anyone actually answer this question? I don't even think it's possible at this point. GW's clientele is a marvel of humanity.

The us economy has been quite strong for the past 4 ish years after we recovered from the 08 crash. Considering how much of a luxury the hobby is, gels products are very vulnerable to market shifts, and some of the good years we have been experiencing is due to strong economics. I just hop gw is remembering to insolate itself from the bad years. A lot of companies don’t to squeeze out more short term profit. I’d warrent some of the dumber and shitier descions of the end of the Kirby era were driven in part from a loss of profit because of the 08 crash

Reemule wrote:
40K is good in dakka dakka breaks down to:
- The vast majority of people.. 8th is fun and enjoyable. Love it.
- GW sales are much higher with it.
- Huge increase in tournaments and competitive play.
- Large diversity in factions and play.

10 people on Dakkadakka…

- It sucks and is terriblebad. RUIN is Nigh! Why won’t you believe us? Yer so dumb!

"The vast majority of people"- prove it. What source exists that can provide this data? We have little good information on 8th's popularity past sales and tournament attendance. Yes, they have increased, but is that because 8th is amazing, or because it's merely better than scatterbikes?

Diversity in factions is one thing, list diversity is another. To my knowledge, there is little variation in viable, game-winning armies.

Being in a minority of opinion does not make someone wrong. See: The Bandwagon Fallacy.

Your straw man and unsubstantiated claims do nothing but make you look uninformed and foster more division.

Blastaar wrote:

Reemule wrote:
40K is good in dakka dakka breaks down to:
- The vast majority of people.. 8th is fun and enjoyable. Love it.
- GW sales are much higher with it.
- Huge increase in tournaments and competitive play.
- Large diversity in factions and play.

10 people on Dakkadakka…

- It sucks and is terriblebad. RUIN is Nigh! Why won’t you believe us? Yer so dumb!

"The vast majority of people"- prove it. What source exists that can provide this data? We have little good information on 8th's popularity past sales and tournament attendance. Yes, they have increased, but is that because 8th is amazing, or because it's merely better than scatterbikes?

Diversity in factions is one thing, list diversity is another. To my knowledge, there is little variation in viable, game-winning armies.

Being in a minority of opinion does not make someone wrong. See: The Bandwagon Fallacy.

Your straw man and unsubstantiated claims do nothing but make you look uninformed and foster more division.

People that leave a game tend not to come back (and stick) when it goes from garbage to barely acceptable. They tend to just stay away or quickly leave again.

Ultimately these are your casual players, quitting the game and raging. Competitive players that travel to tournaments (like myself) have about 10,000 points ready to go for about 3 competitive armies at once. I can run a competitive Tyranids list, i can run a competitive Eldar list, and i'm going to be buying about 2500 points of competitive Tau in the next week or so. This is on top of my 2k Ultramarines, and 4,000 points of space wolves.

This gives me some perspective.

It's easy to think back on games i've played, and see how different lists i run would measure up. I went 5-1 with my Eldar at LVO. How would i realistically have done with any of my other armies? It's not that hard to see. Tyranids get mopped up game 1 pretty quick because they can't threaten Guard + Knights, whereas my DE won it handsomely. My Space Wolves get trounced mercilessly. Ultramarines could win if they go first. Game 2, is a slugfest. Tyranids have an easier time than Eldar because of the melee focus of the mission and the map. Hive Guard really come up big here, as well. An easier win for Nids than Eldar. Space Wolves lose horribly providing little resistance. Game 3, this is game that only is winnable by my DE. Classic Guard Brigade + Knights. It crushes every other army of mine without breaking a sweat. Double firing wyverns with rerolls? Catachan guardsmen throwing out buckets of dice? on top of imperial knights? Nah. Space wolves lose before the models hit the table. Tyranids run into a meatgrinder. Game 4, winnable by Tyranids, but difficult. Lacking overall cover, but the ability to wrap around and tie things up in the list, as well as leverage hidden hive guard in a relatively central spot would get me the win on points pretty easy. A horrible loss for the space wolves though, because they don't have mortal wounds and it was needed here, as well as the ability to deal with volume shooting. Game 5, my only loss, none of my armies win this fight. My DE may have a chance but i'd need more terrain to beat such a brutal copy-pasta meta list. It was planet bowling ball and i got fethed up. Game 6, I won so badly with my DE, it would have been a bit tougher for my Nids, but in the end i think they pull it out. Space Wolves lose badly.

I mean it's not really that hard. I'm also building my Tau list thinking about how it would handle these matchups. I also do the same with my matchups from SoCal, where I did very well, or some of my more difficult RTT wins.

So when I say "marines other than deathwatch suck," i'm basing that on personal experience as well as the data which supports it. And, I also don't really care if there's a resolution, being 100% honest, because I can still crush it in tournaments with any one of my armies, and still play my marines in casual clownshoes games / narrative games. I am not at all emotionally invested in the outcome of marine balance and will still enjoy the game the way i enjoy it.

A friend of mine said to me at the start of 8th, "overall the changes in balance will affect you less and less as you will eventually have every single army." And, it's the truth. Except i won't have chaos. Because it's either Loyalist Marines or Xenos. Guard and Chaos can feth right off, 0 interest in ever touching those factions.

Wayniac wrote:
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?

Its in a good place I'd say but still needs a lot of work done to getting it where it should. I see this edition as the last, I think GW are just going to continue to tincker with it, which is what I hope they do. Changing the game has proven a failure in the past, every change requires new changes in the future and its always been that way. They need to stick with a basic game concept and just tinker with it until they get it right. With every edition that has changed the rules to large degree has produced super cheesy units, unbalanced armies etc. and then they change it 'to fix it' and the same thing happens again.

The divide, issue, conflict, whatever we want to call it comes from players that are not interested in collectiing a bunch of factions that are over optimal to compete in tournaments.

For one, armies are expensive. For two, painting an entire army is a long project.

So bearing those two things in mind, a lot of people go "wow I really like that faction" and then buy the models they like and then put months into painting them only to discover that they are trash in the game.

So that causes rage, irritation, a feeliing of wasting ones time, and a sense of loss due to the game designers not only having a hard time with external balance, but certainly with internal balance (as I often hear, well you like that faction? then you run this mono build of course, its not that hard!)

If one just tosses dice for lolz they won't care.

If one is looking to play a somewhat fun even game with the models that they like, this is the keystone of most of the conflict I have found.

Back in the beginning for me I just rotated through power armies as well. I didn't really start appreciating the other side of the fence until all of the factions and models that I have an attachment to all became garbage and I had to start playing with factions that I had no interest in just to not get rolled.