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.

Aside from basic power creep the Index to Codex transition added lots of things that increase power without costing points. Traits, Stratagems, Relic.
No wonder balance gets worse when you add things that are outside the traditional balancing mechanics.

I was in this chat a while ago when it was non competitive players trying to explain what their issues were and a handful of very vocal (loud mouth) comp types, who I’m reassured don’t represent the majority of that scene, shouting that we were all wrong and or lying about how we feel about the game. Popped back in as it appeared on the front page and it seems to have turned into an echo chamber of tournament players all complaining about how the game isn’t balanced enough. And..that was one of the main problems. One of the causes of the “hate”. Tourney types trying to change the game to more suit their style of play at the expense of everyone else. I won’t rehash the old arguments but complaining that sell different rules for different coloured armies isn’t selling a palette, it is selling the back ground. And that matters to a lot of people.

My stance always has been that the game is in good shape right now. Casual players can enjoy it and all the flavour they are adding to it while the tourney scene is doing quite well. If major changes are needed to balance it then the game would need divergence from 3 ways to playm to a pure tourney set of rules and a narrative set. Again, I’d be happy with that too. But making the whole game tight and balanced and in mind dull as paint isn’t the way to please every one and stop the hate.

Andykp wrote:
I was in this chat a while ago when it was non competitive players trying to explain what their issues were and a handful of very vocal (loud mouth) comp types, who I’m reassured don’t represent the majority of that scene, shouting that we were all wrong and or lying about how we feel about the game. Popped back in as it appeared on the front page and it seems to have turned into an echo chamber of tournament players all complaining about how the game isn’t balanced enough. And..that was one of the main problems. One of the causes of the “hate”. Tourney types trying to change the game to more suit their style of play at the expense of everyone else. I won’t rehash the old arguments but complaining that sell different rules for different coloured armies isn’t selling a palette, it is selling the back ground. And that matters to a lot of people.

My stance always has been that the game is in good shape right now. Casual players can enjoy it and all the flavour they are adding to it while the tourney scene is doing quite well. If major changes are needed to balance it then the game would need divergence from 3 ways to playm to a pure tourney set of rules and a narrative set. Again, I’d be happy with that too. But making the whole game tight and balanced and in mind dull as paint isn’t the way to please every one and stop the hate.

First off, I generally agree with you that the game isn't in as bad a place as the internet likes to act and that some inbalance is fine and probably actually healthy because as you say the more balanced the more 'same' things tends to be and thats boring.

But do you really think a casual Grey Knight player who regularly faces casual Space Marine players wouldn't benefit from a bit more balance?

But that’s an issue with a specific faction, one I have never played so can’t go off anything else than Internet complaining. No need to alter the entire game mechanics though. Just fix grey knights or admit they should never have been a full faction anyways.

I think with them, gw has no idea what to do. Will it primaris them or what?

Anyway. The things tourney players seem to want (on the interwebs) to balance them game will make it dull to the likes of me, and as for balance, when you aren’t playing to win, but to tell a story it’s easy to balance. But again I don’t play pick up games. Only with the same group of mates. I don’t think making match play the default setting is the way either.

"Is a single competitive player worth two casual players?"

This was raised as a question, forgive me if it's been answered already, but i have read like the first few pages of this topic.

depends. tldr: yes. one competitive player is worth more then the 2 you mentioned. they buy more, thus are relevant in they eyes of Gamesworkshop, while those two casuals,
are irrelevant.

GW doesn't care that you once upon a time bought models in the 1980's or whenever. the only relevant group are those buying consistently.
that means generally competitive tournament players matter, meanwhile those who bought models once off or once a year, don't. is this fair? sure is.
you get what you pay for and since GW games are pay to win, if you aren't paying regularly then you don't matter. period. so is it a surprise that competitive
gamers are treated more favorably by our plastic crack overlords? nope. they see profit as more important than "fun" which we all know is subjective to what
we personally are attracted to and seek out, rather than to ignore, because it's not relevant to you and your enjoyment of the game.

also many people are toxic due to tribalism- my tribe is better than your tribe because reasons. see it from the alternative perspective and not only your own
biased perspective and opinion. the moment you say the other side is wrong, bad, incompetent or whatever negative aspersion cast on them, you make
whatever point you were attempting to make- invalid.

in my experience gaming (video/TT, and others) is that those who are casual, tend to be more WAAC, than those attending tournaments, because everyone knows that
the whole point of competitive gaming- is to win games. the whole reasons tournaments exist. this means those who aren't competitive want to win games, any type of game
it doesn't matter. and with whatever they throw together and hope wins, without giving it any real thought whatsoever. every unit can do something in every faction, but not all units will
win you games. but if "fun" is your primary motivator, winning shouldn't even come into the equation, and being stomped shouldn't matter whatsoever.
winning is only important if you are competitive, and if you disagree (feel free), then maybe the problem isn't the game, but you.

 meatybtz wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
Sadly enough, the most fun I had in 8E were probably the Index days. Everyone was just simply using units. No OP bonuses, WLTs, relics, etc. The opportunity cost to be fluffy was really low. It was really when Guard codex landed that the imbalance started.

Yup Index was pretty well balanced, not perfect, but much better balanced.

But balance does not sell churn and burn.. churn and burn makes GW money. Unbalanced therefor is in their business interests.

Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced is lying to themselves, pure and simple. 17 point Dire Avengers? 2 shot Obliterators? Conscript Commisar interaction? Roboute? The entirety of the Necron and Deathwatch armies?

this is because those minor flaws are not seen that bad anymore compared to the current state of game

everyone was forgiving as was the Index, just the update to keep things playable, not many expected it to get worse over time

 kodos wrote:
this is because those minor flaws are not seen that bad anymore compared to the current state of game

everyone was forgiving as was the Index, just the update to keep things playable, not many expected it to get worse over time

The indexes also did cost a lot less.

 solohammer wrote:
"Is a single competitive player worth two casual players?"

This was raised as a question, forgive me if it's been answered already, but i have read like the first few pages of this topic.

depends. tldr: yes. one competitive player is worth more then the 2 you mentioned. they buy more, thus are relevant in they eyes of Gamesworkshop, while those two casuals, are irrelevant.
GW doesn't care that you once upon a time bought models in the 1980's or whenever. the only relevant group are those buying consistently.
that means generally competitive tournament players matter, meanwhile those who bought models once off or once a year, don't. is this fair?

You make two poor assumptions.

Firstly, You assume those competitives are buying from gw. In my experience, the ever shifting tourney meta favours a churn and burn strategy, and I've come across a lot of anecdotes online of competitive players constantly ebaying - buying and selling - in response to meta shifts in the tournament scene. Gw doesn't see any of this money. Folks buying and selling in this manner are irellevant to Gw.

 solohammer wrote:
[b]
sure is. you get what you pay for and since GW games are pay to win, if you aren't paying regularly then you don't matter. period. so is it a surprise that competitive gamers are treated more favorably by our plastic crack overlords? nope. they see profit as more important than "fun" which we all know is subjective to whatwe personally are attracted to and seek out, rather than to ignore, because it's not relevant to you and your enjoyment of the game.

Secondly,you assume casual players don't 'buy in' or have only bought some small stuff thirty years ago. I'm not a competitive player, for example. I don't do tournaments. But I've probably dropped a grande or two on gw stuff over the last 2-3 years, with box sets and army deals etc. 'Casual' doesn't necessarily mean 'not serious' in terms of this hobby, and i see the use of the terms 'casual/competitive' as being fundamentally inaccurate and not granular enough. 'Casual' players will often spend, and spend regularly. It just won't be chasing whatever's 'cool' on the tournament scene at that moment.

 solohammer wrote:
[b]
also many people are toxic due to tribalism- my tribe is better than your tribe because reasons. see it from the alternative perspective and not only your own biased perspective and opinion. the moment you say the other side is wrong, bad, incompetent or whatever negative aspersion cast on them, you make whatever point you were attempting to make- invalid.

I tend to agree with this for the most part. But people also need to realise that 'I dislike x because of y' is not saying 'x or y is wrong, bad, incompetent etc'.

 solohammer wrote:
[b]
in my experience gaming (video/TT, and others) is that those who are casual, tend to be more WAAC, than those attending tournaments, because everyone knows that the whole point of competitive gaming- is to win games. the whole reasons tournaments exist. this means those who aren't competitive want to win games, any type of game it doesn't matter. and with whatever they throw together and hope wins, without giving it any real thought whatsoever. every unit can do something in every faction, but not all units will win you games. but if "fun" is your primary motivator, winning shouldn't even come into the equation, and being stomped shouldn't matter whatsoever. winning is only important if you are competitive, and if you disagree (feel free), then maybe the problem isn't the game, but you.

Two points - Casual doesn't necessarily mean 'throwing together stuff and hoping that wins' and 'not giving it any real thought whatsoever'.

Second - I disagree that causal players tend to be more Waac, I see it as a gamer issue across all spectrums. I've seen super serious tournament players in 'proper' tourney focused games who lied, cheated, list-tailored, terrain-tailored, and did everything they could to undermine and psyche out the guy at the other end of the board. You spoke earlier about tribalism. Tribslism is often unconscious, and with respect, you are doing a bit of it here- your interpretation of 'casual' is a bit of a binary cartoon to me. Your own experiences might be different to mine, and that's fair, but let's not tar the other tribe. Now, here's the thing. You refer to Waac as a bad thing, and state the whole point of competitive gaming is to win games. Firstly - Waac. Disgraceful. No argument. Waac is a blight. But s question for you - if the point of competitive gaming is to 'win games', then how far is 'ok' to push the 'competitive' in order to 'win'? It it ok to accept or insist on the consequences of this play-mode without any regrets or considerations? Is it ok to push 'competitive' to the point where you have the other person in tears, for example? Is it ok to push competitive, to the point where it becomes 'competitive-at-all-costs', and verything else is sacrificed on the altar of winning? Is it ok to push 'competitive' to the point where you are rude, ignorant, aggressive and hostile for example (and hey, this might not be 'illegal' in the game, so it's a fair play to make to psyche out the other guy - bear in mind, I have seen this). Is it ok to push competitive to the point where all you see are the top 3% of the game and no other variety is ever seen on the table top and is regarded as 'irrelevant to the gsme'? Is it ok to push competitive to the point where the social aspect of the game is an irrelevance, and the other guy simply doesn't matter (he might as well be an npc). All of these things can happen. To be honest, as a player of more casual lists, these are bigger concerns to me than wanting to win with some thirty year old stuff I've randomly thrown together and because I don't want to think too hard.

And by the way, wanting to win is fine. As a 'casual' player (in the context of casual/competitive, though I loathe the use of the term...), when I play my games, I also want to play well and aim win to win my games. This desire is not restricted to just competitive players. What is more important is how you win, what the games 'look' like, having a good time with the guy/girl across the board from you etc.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
Sadly enough, the most fun I had in 8E were probably the Index days. Everyone was just simply using units. No OP bonuses, WLTs, relics, etc. The opportunity cost to be fluffy was really low. It was really when Guard codex landed that the imbalance started.

Yup Index was pretty well balanced, not perfect, but much better balanced.

But balance does not sell churn and burn.. churn and burn makes GW money. Unbalanced therefor is in their business interests.

Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced is lying to themselves, pure and simple. 17 point Dire Avengers? 2 shot Obliterators? Conscript Commisar interaction? Roboute? The entirety of the Necron and Deathwatch armies?

No one ever said it was "perfect' or "balanced". It was MORE balanced than after all the codex releases. The indexes were written to play by, the codexes were adjusted to SELL MODELS. The differing intent between the two shows in the rules.. things have gone down hill since then as "new hotness" mode keeps occurring.

As for your complaints.. it is more that in the indexes everyone was pretty much sucking together, missing pieces and missing rules and interactions. Everyone was about as close as it comes to being on the same level. Mostly because they were written to "keep people in the game" rather than, again.. to sell models, which is the drive of all the codex releases which adjust things in order to get people to buy models GW wants them to. To create churn.

They were not perfect, nothing ever could be, but they were more functional and with less of the nurglesque bloat we are dealing with now where you need many books and supplements just to play the damned game and since rules and points cost across all these codexes, codexes 2.0, indexes (which are still technically valid), supplements, and more supplements... who is to say who is the right point value.

The game has gone off the deep end with rules spam and points and cp spendable items. CP was supposed to be rare and for limited things now it is CP all the things and rules!

 meatybtz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
Sadly enough, the most fun I had in 8E were probably the Index days. Everyone was just simply using units. No OP bonuses, WLTs, relics, etc. The opportunity cost to be fluffy was really low. It was really when Guard codex landed that the imbalance started.

Yup Index was pretty well balanced, not perfect, but much better balanced.

But balance does not sell churn and burn.. churn and burn makes GW money. Unbalanced therefor is in their business interests.

Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced is lying to themselves, pure and simple. 17 point Dire Avengers? 2 shot Obliterators? Conscript Commisar interaction? Roboute? The entirety of the Necron and Deathwatch armies?

No one ever said it was "perfect' or "balanced". It was MORE balanced than after all the codex releases. The indexes were written to play by, the codexes were adjusted to SELL MODELS. The differing intent between the two shows in the rules.. things have gone down hill since then as "new hotness" mode keeps occurring.

As for your complaints.. it is more that in the indexes everyone was pretty much sucking together, missing pieces and missing rules and interactions. Everyone was about as close as it comes to being on the same level. Mostly because they were written to "keep people in the game" rather than, again.. to sell models, which is the drive of all the codex releases which adjust things in order to get people to buy models GW wants them to. To create churn.

They were not perfect, nothing ever could be, but they were more functional and with less of the nurglesque bloat we are dealing with now where you need many books and supplements just to play the damned game and since rules and points cost across all these codexes, codexes 2.0, indexes (which are still technically valid), supplements, and more supplements... who is to say who is the right point value.

The game has gone off the deep end with rules spam and points and cp spendable items. CP was supposed to be rare and for limited things now it is CP all the things and rules!

You're...not serious are you? It was a half assed attempt to have people still use their models for games until codices were released. Saying armies were near the same level is honestly laughable. Did you forget Stormraven or Asscanback spam or Guard being the only things doing well? Did you forget Necrons and Deathwatch being literally non-functional as armies? Did you forget the ridiculous pricing for units like Bikers and Aspect Warriors?

I'm not going to pretend codices are as balanced as they could be, but since Chapter Approved it's a LOT closer than the Index lists ever were. Pretending otherwise is denial in its purest form.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did you forget Stormraven or Asscanback spam or Guard being the only things doing well? Did you forget Necrons and Deathwatch being literally non-functional as armies? Did you forget the ridiculous pricing for units like Bikers and Aspect Warriors?

I did not forget about those things, but I have never seen them on the table.
No one here has bought several Stormravens, Razorbacks/Rhinos, or even Conscripts or Brimstones to Spam them at tournaments during the Index phase as everyone knew that this was not going to stay.

Brimestone Spam was not a thing until the Codex hit, same for Conscripts.


The with the Index, all armies were on the same level, as they were written with the same rules in mind and more or less at the same time.
Main problem were some points were off, which is a minor issue as it can be easily solved, and some armies did not worked as they should, which just showed that there was a mayor design mistake right from the start (something that cannot be solved by adjusting points or giving out free stuff)

It was expected that the releases later on just add the missing Command Points and Orders that were promised but not there, and the point adjustments, until the next big re-work hit that would bring the Units and Weapons stats in line with the new core rules (which would be kind of an important update as changing the "to wound" table also changed the threshold values for Strength, Toughness and Hitpoints which made a re-work for everything absolutely necessary to get stuff back in line)


Codex and CA did not made anything better regarding balance, they just changed what is good and bad

If i were a HC tourney player that identified as that i'd be miffed as the real issue is over the last few years GW have just ramped up the releases schedule to the point now that the 'meta' is changing bi-weekly.

They can't keep on top of it all, why buy 10 eldar flyers if iron hands will crush you next month, why buy iron hands when imperial fists will have some new broken combo.

 Latro_ wrote:
If i were a HC tourney player that identified as that i'd be miffed as the real issue is over the last few years GW have just ramped up the releases schedule to the point now that the 'meta' is changing bi-weekly.

They can't keep on top of it all, why buy 10 eldar flyers if iron hands will crush you next month, why buy iron hands when imperial fists will have some new broken combo.

So then the thought is instead of Index Balance (everyone on the same gak level), the current idea from GW is to modify the meta so fast that no one could possibly buy, paint, and then re-sell fast enough to be "top meta"? You get to be on top.. now you.. now you.. because instead of balance lets sell the crap out of everything! Spin that wheel like mad.

Problem is you cannot sustain that for any length of time and inevitably the power creek will just make the wheels come off... frankly.. they already have.

People have short memories. Dreads used to be Toughness Based back in 1st. So the design standpoint moving dreads back to T value made sense, esp in light of Tau suits being T value and various eldar walkers going T value.. there was a positive move towards consistency.. walk=T tank=AV.

AV never should have gone.

The Morale they just lifted from erm.. 4th? was it? Been too long.

But things have gotten out of hand. I'd like someone to argue which book with which points values and rules and stats and formations is authoritative anymore. Esp for Chaos.. who now span a bizarre number of publications with different values and rules. Marines are heading that way with these mini-codexs along with the conflict they have with the Chapter Approved and current FAQs and Suppliments. It's nutty.

I am buying models because I want to. I stopped following meta long time ago. Long before this edition. What I buy is because I want it.. mostly because I think it's cool looking or I want X Y or Z flavor.

Frankly the GW release schedule has gone off it's meds and is now in an unsustainable state. The hope to use Marvel to draw in new players won't hang. Not the way the want to to keep this madness going. We are going into Stock Market Bubble like territory here. Slow growth is healthy.. this.. isn't sparta.. it's madness.

The latest releases are definitely starting to creep back into the realm of 7E absurdity in terms of plain and open free power buffs resulting in obnoxiously obvious overpowered armies and overfawning on niche sub-subfactions, while the number of sources and books is also definitely starting to become an issue again with some lists requiring 3-5 different sources for rules.

On the competitive front, it's starting to look like GW is creeping back into the 7E disaster after having a mostly decent year. I'd been starting to retool and get more back into the game and picked up some new stuff, and painted for the first time in a couple years and going to events again, but I'm really not enthused by what I'm seeing out of the latest couple of releases.

I think they did a lot better when they just had to make everything have a place in a soup army to be competitive. Now that they're pushing purity again, we're seeing how severely the rules bloat when GW tries to make each coat of paint a self contained army.

 solohammer wrote:
but if "fun" is your primary motivator, winning shouldn't even come into the equation, and being stomped shouldn't matter whatsoever.
winning is only important if you are competitive, and if you disagree (feel free), then maybe the problem isn't the game, but you.

This is incredibly disingenuous. A game ending turn 1 because a matchup that was supposed to be even is actually horrendously lopsided isn't fun. Balancing mechanisms are every bit as useful for casual players as they are for competitive.

Winning or losing isn't important; having a game where both players feel like the outcome was earned by their decisions and the dice- rather than because the game designers can't write balanced rules to save their lives- is what's important.

40k has always been like this though it just takes years so our memories wane. I'v been playing since 2ed... it starts off simple like checkers or chess

to keep it fresh you have to add stuff in, it becomes more complex and messy/unbalanced by the nature of so many moving parts

you keep adding stuff in, it becomes a bloated mess and everyone loses their s***

you reboot it again like the matrix 5-8 years later and it all begins again. Each time different in its own way. My garage filled with about 300 books is testament to this.

remember when iron warriors were totally broken because you could take a whopping 4 heavy support choices! remember nob biker wound allocation? or when necrons and grey knights were 'the competitive armies'.

it'll never end.

I quit playing 40k after 3rd addition didn't care for the rule changes then got sidetracked due to RL but kept building models until got sidetracked more by RL and have been away from all aspects of the game for about 5 years. Life is getting back to workable and from what I hear 8th addition isn't half bad so I'm back. or at least headed in that direction. LOL. Orks always win! Even when we lose we wins cause we gets ta fight. There is always someone who doesn’t like change, or can't figure out a good strategy or are just plain poor sports.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
Sadly enough, the most fun I had in 8E were probably the Index days. Everyone was just simply using units. No OP bonuses, WLTs, relics, etc. The opportunity cost to be fluffy was really low. It was really when Guard codex landed that the imbalance started.

Yup Index was pretty well balanced, not perfect, but much better balanced.

But balance does not sell churn and burn.. churn and burn makes GW money. Unbalanced therefor is in their business interests.

Anyone saying the Index lists were balanced is lying to themselves, pure and simple. 17 point Dire Avengers? 2 shot Obliterators? Conscript Commisar interaction? Roboute? The entirety of the Necron and Deathwatch armies?

I said that the Index days were the most fun and the most fluffy. People were not incentivized to bring Iron Hands that suspiciously look like Ultramarines just to beat the tar out of people at tourneys. (To be clear, an absence of toxic imbalance does necessarily mean everything is balanced.)

That being said, it would have been a lot easier to balance the Indexes. Since there are no special rules, it's just a matter of points. Maybe a stat value here or there.

As for the rest, if GW is more interested in money than competitive balance, why don't people do something about it? Take the Index and build a house meta around it. Launch a revolution to seize the means of design. Lol.

 Suzuteo wrote:
As for the rest, if GW is more interested in money than competitive balance, why don't people do something about it? Take the Index and build a house meta around it. Launch a revolution to seize the means of design. Lol.

It has recently come to our attention that much of the information hosted on your website (the "Website"), provides us with cause for concern as it conflicts with our intellectual property rights. Although we are confident that the Website is a well-intentioned resource, we are acutely aware of the need to assert our intellectual property rights.

As you may appreciate, GW has a strict policy of protecting all of its intellectual property rights. To this end, we must insist that these materials are removed from the Website.

There is a great deal of game leeway of what you want to get out of the game (much like GW rules )

The ire and "hate" starts to happen when so much time is spent to make things look good and models go from wonderful to shelf from one FAQ to another.
Each group or mixtures of below have their own reasons to be invested in models and really want them to be useful in the right conditions.
When GW makes changes that seem not well play-tested it gets most players below to complain loudly.

I find it is a rare thing for those who are die-hard competitive to paint up their models to a terrific standard, not saying they are not out there just rare.
They like to play rules to the max because that is what they are for.
For good or ill these folk do not cheat (intentionally) and want a good hard game.
It takes a measure of dedication to prep the models to a good standard and may have to shift quickly to a quite different army.

To confuse things, we have those content to field bases with legs attached and little else, I hear it is "all about the game" this tends to be the confusing WAAC player who really wants to cave-face and little else.
The added rules for ensuring models meet a certain minimum requirement demands more grudging effort from these folk.

There is the vocal casual/"fluff bunny" player which seem to be afraid to say they played their very best and lost, easier to say you REALLY did not try at all.
This tends to be a mixed bag, either models piled in a heap or works of art.

Similar folk tend to spend the time on the models if they like to use the game as a 40k story simulator, I find the roleplay folk tend to find themselves here.

Some just like to build and paint models but are not part of this topic.

I find myself in that strange position where I think I am averaging about 2 hours a model on my new Ultramarine force (working on 30 Primaris Joe troopers at the moment) and will not be able to respond to the meta quite as quickly as the above mentioned groups.
But I want the gosh-darn game to look really good AND have a hard game.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The latest releases are definitely starting to creep back into the realm of 7E absurdity in terms of plain and open free power buffs resulting in obnoxiously obvious overpowered armies and overfawning on niche sub-subfactions, while the number of sources and books is also definitely starting to become an issue again with some lists requiring 3-5 different sources for rules.

On the competitive front, it's starting to look like GW is creeping back into the 7E disaster after having a mostly decent year. I'd been starting to retool and get more back into the game and picked up some new stuff, and painted for the first time in a couple years and going to events again, but I'm really not enthused by what I'm seeing out of the latest couple of releases.

Look at Psychic Awakening for confirmation of continuation down this crazy train..

Step One: Put out over priced boxed set with the models people have been asking for for more than a decade....almost two really.

Step Two: release new rule book that buffs the ever loving hell out of said box set making it a "new meta".

Step Three: Sell lots of overpriced Box set with mostly recycled old models

Step Four: It Prints MONEY HAHAHHAHAHA!

 meatybtz wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The latest releases are definitely starting to creep back into the realm of 7E absurdity in terms of plain and open free power buffs resulting in obnoxiously obvious overpowered armies and overfawning on niche sub-subfactions, while the number of sources and books is also definitely starting to become an issue again with some lists requiring 3-5 different sources for rules.

On the competitive front, it's starting to look like GW is creeping back into the 7E disaster after having a mostly decent year. I'd been starting to retool and get more back into the game and picked up some new stuff, and painted for the first time in a couple years and going to events again, but I'm really not enthused by what I'm seeing out of the latest couple of releases.

Look at Psychic Awakening for confirmation of continuation down this crazy train..

Step One: Put out over priced boxed set with the models people have been asking for for more than a decade....almost two really.

Step Two: release new rule book that buffs the ever loving hell out of said box set making it a "new meta".

Step Three: Sell lots of overpriced Box set with mostly recycled old models

Step Four: It Prints MONEY HAHAHHAHAHA!

Except Howling Banshees and Incubi are bad. The idea of fielding them against IH, knights or Eldar flyer lists is absurd, even with the buffs in PA. I don't like the thing of releasing new models only in a big box full of stuff you mostly don't want though - I agree that sucks.

I think that the issue right now is that a lot of the very top of the “meta” exists because of units or combos that are better than they ought to be, due to mistakes by GW. Winning tournaments requires that you use the best units available, and these will inevitably be the ones that are too powerful. Those are the units that give you most power for the points you’re spending, precisely because GW got it wrong and made them too good.

So there’s this weird situation in which any tournament-winning list is almost inevitably about to be nerfed, as it’s just highlighted things that are more powerful than they should be. Where once scrubs would buy the list that just won this or that tournament, now you should never buy a winning army, because it’s very unlikely to still be all that good in 6 months’ time.

The really extreme level of burn and churn that we’re seeing right now are actually caused by GW’s new – and mainly good – practice of constantly trying to rebalance the game. In 7E something like riptide wing would come out and then stay in the game. You got a step change in the meta where now everything had to be able to live with riptide wings. Some armies would get chucked because they couldn’t deal.

Now, rather than a step, it’s more like a wave. An army has a moment where it’s broken and then it subsides down again when the nerf bat comes along. The problem is that the game is still unbalanced because as soon as GW fix one issue they release some other dreadful rules and a new wave rises. The new wave then has nothing to really oppose it because the only things that might have done, the other broken lists, have already been nerfed back down.

At the end of the day the problem is the same as it’s always been – GW releasing bad rules. Not every release screws up the game and I’ve never bought into the “conspiracy” idea that it’s about selling new models. GW just as often produces useless rules as it makes ones that are too good. I doubt we’ll see armies heavy on Howling Banshees and Incubi getting 80% win rates at next weekend’s tournaments next weekend’s tournaments, for example. I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

 Latro_ wrote:
40k has always been like this though it just takes years so our memories wane. I'v been playing since 2ed... it starts off simple like checkers or chess

to keep it fresh you have to add stuff in, it becomes more complex and messy/unbalanced by the nature of so many moving parts

you keep adding stuff in, it becomes a bloated mess and everyone loses their s***

you reboot it again like the matrix 5-8 years later and it all begins again. Each time different in its own way. My garage filled with about 300 books is testament to this.

remember when iron warriors were totally broken because you could take a whopping 4 heavy support choices! remember nob biker wound allocation? or when necrons and grey knights were 'the competitive armies'.

it'll never end.

I remember all of those things too. The flying croissant army of Necrons, ect.....

40k has been like this since I started in 1997. It is a casual game that is constantly being shoe-horned into a tournament setting.

Its like watching people throw a ball for a cat and then getting upset that he does not fetch it. Its just not what cats do.

 Strombones wrote:
It is a casual game that is constantly being shoe-horned into a tournament setting.

GW promote tournaments and produce paid-for rules updates and balance passes - it is not being sold as a casual non-tournament game, though a case could be made for it being mis-sold.

Indeed. Both 40k and AOS are marketed with tournament rules and at least on the AOS side almost its entire design staff tweets and posts constantly their tournament records and army lists and tournament focused material.

A.T. wrote:

 Strombones wrote:
It is a casual game that is constantly being shoe-horned into a tournament setting.

GW promote tournaments and produce paid-for rules updates and balance passes - it is not being sold as a casual non-tournament game, though a case could be made for it being mis-sold.

Simply have tournaments or encouraging large scale organized play does not mean what you are trying to imply it does.

You could organize a knitting tournament but the word "tournament" doesn't suddenly give Grandmammy Petunia the ok to stab other participants with her needles, use dyes rather than colored yarn, or make an endless series of striped scarves because "it's maximally efficient".

Mandragola wrote:

 meatybtz wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The latest releases are definitely starting to creep back into the realm of 7E absurdity in terms of plain and open free power buffs resulting in obnoxiously obvious overpowered armies and overfawning on niche sub-subfactions, while the number of sources and books is also definitely starting to become an issue again with some lists requiring 3-5 different sources for rules.

On the competitive front, it's starting to look like GW is creeping back into the 7E disaster after having a mostly decent year. I'd been starting to retool and get more back into the game and picked up some new stuff, and painted for the first time in a couple years and going to events again, but I'm really not enthused by what I'm seeing out of the latest couple of releases.

Look at Psychic Awakening for confirmation of continuation down this crazy train..

Step One: Put out over priced boxed set with the models people have been asking for for more than a decade....almost two really.

Step Two: release new rule book that buffs the ever loving hell out of said box set making it a "new meta".

Step Three: Sell lots of overpriced Box set with mostly recycled old models

Step Four: It Prints MONEY HAHAHHAHAHA!

Except Howling Banshees and Incubi are bad. The idea of fielding them against IH, knights or Eldar flyer lists is absurd, even with the buffs in PA. I don't like the thing of releasing new models only in a big box full of stuff you mostly don't want though - I agree that sucks.

I think that the issue right now is that a lot of the very top of the “meta” exists because of units or combos that are better than they ought to be, due to mistakes by GW. Winning tournaments requires that you use the best units available, and these will inevitably be the ones that are too powerful. Those are the units that give you most power for the points you’re spending, precisely because GW got it wrong and made them too good.

So there’s this weird situation in which any tournament-winning list is almost inevitably about to be nerfed, as it’s just highlighted things that are more powerful than they should be. Where once scrubs would buy the list that just won this or that tournament, now you should never buy a winning army, because it’s very unlikely to still be all that good in 6 months’ time.

The really extreme level of burn and churn that we’re seeing right now are actually caused by GW’s new – and mainly good – practice of constantly trying to rebalance the game. In 7E something like riptide wing would come out and then stay in the game. You got a step change in the meta where now everything had to be able to live with riptide wings. Some armies would get chucked because they couldn’t deal.

Now, rather than a step, it’s more like a wave. An army has a moment where it’s broken and then it subsides down again when the nerf bat comes along. The problem is that the game is still unbalanced because as soon as GW fix one issue they release some other dreadful rules and a new wave rises. The new wave then has nothing to really oppose it because the only things that might have done, the other broken lists, have already been nerfed back down.

At the end of the day the problem is the same as it’s always been – GW releasing bad rules. Not every release screws up the game and I’ve never bought into the “conspiracy” idea that it’s about selling new models. GW just as often produces useless rules as it makes ones that are too good. I doubt we’ll see armies heavy on Howling Banshees and Incubi getting 80% win rates at next weekend’s tournaments next weekend’s tournaments, for example. I’d be happy to be proved wrong.

Hehe, indeed. Though lets be honest the real reason they jacked the price up and boxed up the new models is because they know that every DE and Eldar player has been screaming to be free of Crapcast models and out of print models and Aspect Warriors that date to the mid-late 90s. Its about moving boxes that are not selling. Tear them down put them in the "MUST HAVE" and raise the price, clear inventory.. make money.

I am sitting here and because my wife is a die hard Eldar Player and I like DE.. I know that I WILL be buying the new eldar box. It's price is high but for me it's about perspective and mine differs from a lot of people on this forum because of my income and other much more expensive hobbies. I am not happy about it.. but I am the one who wants them so.. oh fecking well. It's like the 200 dollar a pop "tax stamp" I pay to uncle no-lube every time I want to get a new Suppressor or build a new SBR. That is the "tea money" I pay out to enjoy my hobbies and pay off the graft needed to be "allowed" my hobbies. The stupid priced Eldar box.. just is some more damned "Tea Money".. this time to GW. In all cases you know you are getting screwed but you shrug and take it because you are wanting a taste of that sweet sweet whatever. Just like I am going to get the Sisters Big Box because da wife wants it so she gets what she wants.... happy wife happy life.

(Reference: Tea Money is what it is called in certain South East Asian countries when you want something that needs to be signed off on by the local constable or mid level bureaucrat so you have to "pay him" to do it. Since bribes are illegal the bribe has been renamed to giving him money to get some tea.. or just tea money. It was just like this when I was in Africa and we had to bring extra computers in for the customs agents to keep.. you know... so they let you through with the others you have.).

Jack Flask wrote:
Simply have tournaments or encouraging large scale organized play does not mean what you are trying to imply it does.

You could organize a knitting tournament but the word "tournament" doesn't suddenly give Grandmammy Petunia the ok to stab other participants with her needles, use dyes rather than colored yarn, or make an endless series of striped scarves because "it's maximally efficient".

Firstly, you'll find that I wasn't trying to imply that the word "tournament" should involve stabbing people. Frankly a weird strawman, don't know why that popped into your head.

Secondly, ORGANISING TOURNAMENTS does indeed imply that you are promoting your products for a tournament setting.